Ask the Buddhist!

[no1tovote4]

Since the Ask the Evangelist thread has been so popular I thought people might want to see a different angle.

I am not yet super-knowledgeable so you can expect some time between question to answer sometimes but it would help both myself to learn more about my Faith and others to learn about a different religion.

Anyway, ask me whatever question you wish about Buddhism and I will answer with my best attempt.

 

[5stringJeff]

Copycat! :

Here's a question for you:

As I understand it, Buddhism teaches that one can ultimately reach the state of nirvana through a series of reincarnations and following the Eightfold Path.

My question is, who or what decides when you reach the state of nirvana, or what you are reincarnated as? Who is the arbitrator/judge?

 

[no1tovote4]

Copycat! :

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Here's a question for you:

As I understand it, Buddhism teaches that one can ultimately reach the state of nirvana through a series of reincarnations and following the Eightfold Path.

My question is, who or what decides when you reach the state of nirvana, or what you are reincarnated as? Who is the arbitrator/judge?

Nirvana is an eternal state of being. It is the state in which the law of karma, and the rebirth cycle come to an end. It is the end of suffering, a state where there are no desires and the indivudual consciousness comes to an end. You have accepted and become part of a larger idea, the Amida Buddha or Greater Compassion.

Since it is a state of being, there is not one judge above all that allows one to enter, it is what you are. If you have not reached Nirvana, you could not escape the cycle of rebirth.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.




Nirvana is an eternal state of being. It is the state in which the law of karma, and the rebirth cycle come to an end. It is the end of suffering, a state where there are no desires and the indivudual consciousness comes to an end. You have accepted and become part of a larger idea, the Amida Buddha or Greater Compassion.

Since it is a state of being, there is not one judge above all that allows one to enter, it is what you are. If you have not reached Nirvana, you could not escape the cycle of rebirth.

So the "larger idea" or the "Amida Buddha" or the "Greater Compassion" are just different words for "God" and "Nirvana" is another designation for "heaven"?

 

[CivilLiberty]

Here's a question for you:

As I understand it, Buddhism teaches that one can ultimately reach the state of nirvana through a series of reincarnations and following the Eightfold Path.

My question is, who or what decides when you reach the state of nirvana, or what you are reincarnated as? Who is the arbitrator/judge?

I'm "more Zen", and thus I'll likely have a different answer here than no1tovote4 who I believe practices a different sect.

Reincarnations are not a needed part of "nirvana". While the Buddha mentions the "eight fold path", it's western thinking to look at these as "rules" or "laws". I don't even know if you could call them principals.

I found this useful:

5 statements are characteristic of Zen in general:

1. ***** - Carrying water and chopping wood is one perfectly alright way to truth
2. ***** - Spiritual cultivation only comes through hard practice.
3. ***** - The ultimate truth is only a goal.
4. ***** - Buddhist teaching doesn’t really help. (so in fact Zen denies Buddhism)
5. ***** - In the end, nothing is gained (on a limitless path progress is always virtually nill).

It is western thinking that "nirvana" is a place to be "won" or "achieved", like the western concept of "heaven" where one is only admitted if they performed a certain set of defined tasks in life.

Nirvana is not something to be admitted to, nor is it in itself something that is to be "desired", and desiring it guarantees that you won't find it.

But to address the most "western" of your questions:

Who is the arbitrator/judge?

There is no arbiter or judge. Such a concept does not exist. And one could say that you yourself can't know, because knowing would mean that you were not "nirvana".


Instead, look for truth.


Nirvana has been defined as oneness with the Tao. And the Tao has been defined as the nameless physical and nonphysical reality and nonreality both known and unknown.

Nirvana is not a place, or a thing, or a state of mind. Perhaps it is a transcendence. Perhaps it is purely nothing. Perhaps it is a knowing of the Tao. Perhaps it is an unknowing of the Tao.

If you don't know it, how can you define it? If knowing it means a freedom from the encumbrances of thought through definitions, then it can never be defined. Or defined only by it's indefinition.



You might find this interesting:

http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/bodhidharma/zen30.html


Regards,


Andy

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Instead, look for truth.

But we could say Truth is Love and Love is God so we are back to "God" again.

 

[CivilLiberty]

So the "larger idea" or the "Amida Buddha" or the "Greater Compassion" are just different words for "God" and "Nirvana" is another designation for "heaven"?

I wouldn't agree.

"God" is neither promoted, nor denied, by buddhism. You may or may not believe in god.

A buddha is a person that has attained enlightenment, and not "a god".

When people meditate in front of a statue of buddha, they are NOT "praying to" as if to pray to a god. If anything, it is a focus point or a symbol of inspiration.

The meaning or definition of "heaven" is markedly different than the meaning or definition of "nirvana".


A

 

[CivilLiberty]

But we could say Truth is Love and Love is God so we are back to "God" again.

I don't believe in god, I believe in chaos theory.

or

Chaos theory is god, and god is chaos theory.


I'll accept either reading.


A

 

[no1tovote4]

So the "larger idea" or the "Amida Buddha" or the "Greater Compassion" are just different words for "God" and "Nirvana" is another designation for "heaven"?

It would be more like the next step of life. Buddhists believe that humanity is a higher form of life, when one reaches Nirvana it is the next. It is very difficult to describe Nirvana, it isn't Heaven because it is not a place, and is misunderstood until you have reached it.

It can be better described as an ability. Just as one could not ride a bicycle until they have learned and practiced one cannot reach Nirvana without practice and learning. Once you have learned to ride the bicycle it cannot be unlearned, so it is with Nirvana. (This is very simplistic of course.) Just as with riding a bicycle one can learn how in many different ways, so it is with Nirvana.

This is one of the tenets of Buddhism, you don't interfere with another's path. This is why Buddhists repect the teachings of other religions and celebrate those that would follow that path.

 

[no1tovote4]

But we could say Truth is Love and Love is God so we are back to "God" again.

Buddhism does not teach in respect to God, its teachings are in respect to yourself.

Many Buddhists believe that God is life, all things that live are part of what makes up God. Others do not attempt to describe God.

Since Buddhism doesn't teach in respect to God some Buddhists would believe in God others would not.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Buddhism does not teach in respect to God, its teachings are in respect to yourself.

Perhaps it could be said that while Christianity is the following of the teachings of Christ, Buddhism is the finding of the teachings of yourself, of which to follow.

A

 

[Zhukov]

Since the Ask the Evangelist thread has been so popular I thought people might want to see a different angle.

I am not yet super-knowledgeable so you can expect some time between question to answer sometimes but it would help both myself to learn more about my Faith and others to learn about a different religion.

Anyway, ask me whatever question you wish about Buddhism and I will answer with my best attempt.

1.) Isn't the Dalai Lama supposed to be the reincarnation of the Bodhisattva?

2.) If that is so, and the ultimate goal of Buddhism is to escape the cycle of reincarnation, didn't Buddha fail (even if it was intentional)?

3.) And if he did fail, why should people listen to him, since he doesn't even seem to be following his own teachings?


None of this is meant to be offensvie. It's one of several aspects of Buddhism I've never been able to understand or accept.

 

[no1tovote4]

1.) Isn't the Dalai Lama supposed to be the reincarnation of the Bodhisattva?

2.) If that is so, and the ultimate goal of Buddhism is to escape the cycle of reincarnation, didn't Buddha fail (even if it was intentional)?

3.) And if he did fail, why should people listen to him, since he doesn't even seem to be following his own teachings?


None of this is meant to be offensvie. It's one of several aspects of Buddhism I've never been able to understand or accept.

Now we are getting into different sects of Buddhism, this is Tibetan Buddhism and their beliefs are often different in aspect.

1.) The Dalai Lama is an incarnation of Avalokitesvara, the Buddha of Compassion not of Siddharta Buddha. The Tibetan sects believe that some teachers are reborn by need to teach the people to enable them to reach Nirvana.

2.) They are reborn because of the need of the people, they are incarnated to help them learn the Path so that others may escape the cycle of rebirth.

3.) Once again, the Bodhisattva of Compassion is not the same as The Buddha, Siddharta Ghitama. Each Lama is reincarnated, according to Tibetan beliefs, to help us to reach Nirvana.

 

[CivilLiberty]

1.) Isn't the Dalai Lama supposed to be the reincarnation of the Bodhisattva?

"The Dalai Lamas are believed to be manifestations of Avalokitesvara, the Bodhisattva (Buddha) of Compassion, who chose to reincarnate to serve the people."

And is unique to Tibetan buddhism.

2.) If that is so, and the ultimate goal of Buddhism is to escape the cycle of reincarnation, didn't Buddha fail (even if it was intentional)?

Buddhism has no "goals". Thus, there is no "failure".

3.) And if he did fail, why should people listen to him, since he doesn't even seem to be following his own teachings?

How is he "not" following his own teachings?


A

 

[Avatar4321]

How would you go about creating a half man, have monkey type creature?

 

[no1tovote4]

How would you go about creating a half man, have monkey type creature?

I would probably work through evolution, small steps until I have what I wanted.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I wouldn't agree.

"God" is neither promoted, nor denied, by buddhism. You may or may not believe in god.

A buddha is a person that has attained enlightenment, and not "a god".

When people meditate in front of a statue of buddha, they are NOT "praying to" as if to pray to a god. If anything, it is a focus point or a symbol of inspiration.

The meaning or definition of "heaven" is markedly different than the meaning or definition of "nirvana".


A

How would you describe "enlightenment" and how do you determine whether or not you have reached it? In the Christian religions "enlightenment" could be described as becoming "One with God".

 

[5stringJeff]

It is western thinking that "nirvana" is a place to be "won" or "achieved", like the western concept of "heaven" where one is only admitted if they performed a certain set of defined tasks in life.

Nirvana is not something to be admitted to, nor is it in itself something that is to be "desired", and desiring it guarantees that you won't find it.

So if one gets something they desire (nirvana) by not desiring it, then wouldn't all non-Buddhists reach nirvana, since they aren't actively seeking it?

Nirvana has been defined as oneness with the Tao. And the Tao has been defined as the nameless physical and nonphysical reality and nonreality both known and unknown.

Nirvana is not a place, or a thing, or a state of mind. Perhaps it is a transcendence. Perhaps it is purely nothing. Perhaps it is a knowing of the Tao. Perhaps it is an unknowing of the Tao.

If you don't know it, how can you define it? If knowing it means a freedom from the encumbrances of thought through definitions, then it can never be defined. Or defined only by it's indefinition.

So, obviously, we could know about nirvana, without knowing it?

You might find this interesting:

http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/bodhidharma/zen30.html

Regards,

Andy

It was interesting, especially this part at the end:

There is but one path. All others lead to further confusion, conflict and insanity.

We must eliminate from the mind the culturally and existentially indoctrinated, illusionary concepts of good and bad, right and wrong, ugly and beautiful, great and inferior, etc.

We must eliminate from the mind all value, moral and ethical judgements.

So Zen teaches that there is only one path (that path being Zen)? Interesting. Sounds suspiciously like Christian claims to be the only way.

 

[no1tovote4]

How would you describe "enlightenment" and how do you determine whether or not you have reached it? In the Christian religions "enlightenment" could be described as becoming "One with God".

The word enlightenment is a translation of a Sanskrit term bodhi (literally awakened). A person awakens to the nowness of emptiness which he himself is and which alone enables him to comprehend the true nature of things.

Instead of using the word enlightened it is better understood with the more direct translation of awakened.

 

[5stringJeff]

Next question: how do Buddhists view Christ, and specifically His claims to be the only way to God? (see John 14:6)