Is Buddhism a Religion ?

[The_Child]

---

you argue in different sides because you transpose one language to another even when they are not synonymous.

The concept of God in the West has no direct translation to Buddhist and/or taoist thought.

[flying fish]

What? What suttra are you referring to? There are many doctrines of reincarnation, from the school of theosophical society to authentic buddhism per se.

Ofcourse, it doesn't mean that if there is no reincarnating soul the "whole doctrine of reincarnation" would be useless. it doens't have to be like that. the sutras clearly explain in both hinayana and mahayana that what we are are merely an accumulation of experiences, both past and present. We are false to believe there really is a soul. It is illusion. That is what we mean.

The Esoteric Side of Buddhism is in the Mahayana School, it is Vajrayana. Not Hinayana.

Mahayana emphasizes more on Boddhisatva ways, delaying enlightenment for the benefit of all sentient beings.
Hinayana emphasizes more on the Arahat. Those who have attained enlightentment for their cause. Going straight to enlightenment.

aw o, i stand corrected its the mahanyana, my refernece is coming from the Theosophical literatures. according to theosophy (blavatsky to be exact), mahayana, esoteric buddhism or Gupta vidya of the ancient brahmins, the northern school holds the "heart" of Buddhism.
The exoteric buddhism according to HPB are the ones practice by the siamese sect, the purest form of exoteric buddhism,southern school.

[flying fish]

you argue in different sides because you transpose one language to another even when they are not synonymous.

The concept of God in the West has no direct translation to Buddhist and/or taoist thought.

yes you are right the concept of the west regarding god is anthropomorphic,
The east is more or less panteistic
Hinayana Buddhism denies it
Mahayana Buddhism doesnt talk about, neither accept nor deny, mahayana is Zen buddhism very much like the approach of the Theosophical society

[The_Child]

yes you are right the concept of the west regarding god is anthropomorphic,
The east is more or less panteistic
Hinayana Buddhism denies it
Mahayana Buddhism doesnt talk about, neither accept nor deny, mahayana is Zen buddhism very much like the approach of the Theosophical society

no. im not referring to the anthropomorphic God, that would be too superficial. But God as absolute as understood in the west has no direct translation to Eastern thought. Superior Brahman maybe an exception, but then again, its not the same.

[flying fish]

no. im not referring to the anthropomorphic God, that would be too superficial. But God as absolute as understood in the west has no direct translation to Eastern thought. Superior Brahman maybe an exception, but then again, its not the same.

mr. Red & i wre clarifyng some points on the two schools w/c mine is a bit different.
Regarding the absolute god of the west, correct me if im wrong if its the work of Fr. anthony de mello, st. thomas, oregen, etc. is not something new. The theosophical societies "Causeless Cause" is maybe the absolute god in the west. The Adwaita Vedantas "neti neti" or not this not this is another attempt to define the undefinable or the absolute. The zen budhist who prefers to shut their "mouth" about god talk is an act of acknowledging the absoluteness of god.

[flying fish]

Some similarities of Christian concept of god to the ancient religion
God-father,son,holy ghost
-Brahma,vishnu,shiva
-Atma,Budhi,manas
-the point,circle,line (masonic)

[The_Child]

mr. Red & i wre clarifyng some points on the two schools w/c mine is a bit different.
Regarding the absolute god of the west, correct me if im wrong if its the work of Fr. anthony de mello, st. thomas, oregen, etc. is not something new. The theosophical societies "Causeless Cause" is maybe the absolute god in the west. The Adwaita Vedantas "neti neti" or not this not this is another attempt to define the undefinable or the absolute. The zen budhist who prefers to shut their "mouth" about god talk is an act of acknowledging the absoluteness of god.

"neti neti" maybe synonymous with via negativa but the goal are different. Brahman which is arrived through neti neti is not the same as the God of Aquinas arrived through via negativa. As Brahman is the ultimate reality, that there is only one reality (advaita vendata, non-dualist) the God of Aquinas does not assume the same idea. The closest western conception of Brahman is Plotinus' The One, but even this has dissimilarities with Brahman. As there is only one reality and that is brahman, where multiplicity is merely illusion or maya, to plotinus, everything is still the ONe only that they are of different gradation of emanation. True, that both are absolute, but they are conceived of in different views according to the different experiences of culture.

the zen buddhist has no God. another attempt to transpose western with eastern concepts. also, let me preempt you, Tao is not God.

an attempt to transpose western and eastern concepts will always be problematic.



p.s Anthony de Melo SJ is a strange blend.

[The_Child]

i did a quick research once in regards to the possible transmission of ideas between the east and west during 6th BCE - the same tiem of Buddha, COnfucius, Socrates et al. but the best thing that came out was that there is no historical records. One attempt was made by the teacher of Plotinus to reach india but he was not successful this was centuries later.

[flying fish]

i did a quick research once in regards to the possible transmission of ideas between the east and west during 6th BCE - the same tiem of Buddha, COnfucius, Socrates et al. but the best thing that came out was that there is no historical records. One attempt was made by the teacher of Plotinus to reach india but he was not successful this was centuries later.

by comparing the teachings of every religion, im convinced that w/ regards to god,they are actually talking the same thing, just clothed in different manner,the absolute God of the west is again an old concept of ancient religion. In Kabbalah its Adam Kadmon, its Isvara of the hindus, in theosophy its the "causeless cause", in masonry its "Geometry" symbol of the great architect of the universe.

Now as to zen buddhism, advaitta,krishnamurti, anthony de mello, gnosticism,kabalah,sufism,etc.
these are but "paradoxical" approach to god, either via negativa, law of correspondences,or the god w/n.

As to the Tao, it still not something new, it has a flavor of pantheism,again not something new.
My proposition here my dear friend child is that "there is nothing new',in this instance we can agree to disagree,

[Red.Emano]

let's stick to the thread.

fish likes white sugar, i like brown sugar. whatever color we may like, atleast we both love sugar.