Could god be dimensionless point of consciousness AND-----------

[chandragupta]

The counterpart in human beings ( of this self-willed dreaming process of dimension awareness I.e. god ) is called ' day dreaming'.

 

Thus in adwaitic or nondualistic parlance -space time energy matter complex- is hypothesized as being a kind of day dream of dimensionless awareness aka god.

[PeterJ]

Well, I think if you interpret the Upanishads as theism then you're going to have trouble with atheists whatever other words you use. It's an issue on which I cannot really agree with you, the use of this word 'God'. But I really do want to stay out of this if you don't mind. Given where we are, I'm not very happy coming at things from this angle. I would agree with the scientists that some predictions are required, or some solutions to problems. Otherwise your view will seem ad hoc, if not New Age folk-pseudo-psychology. This is not my own view, obviously, but I can see why someone would hold it. I'm afraid that my chosen speculation goes along with the Buddhists, who say that God is a consequence of misintepreted meditative experience. It all depends what we mean by 'God', of course, but the word carries so many connotations that you can be sure everyone will think you mean something other than what you do mean when you use it.

 

Also, I would disagree that the Absolute or the 'Real' is dimensionless. Rather, I'd say that a nondual view states that we cannot assign positive or negative properties to 'God', but must say that it is dimensionless from one point of view and infinitely dimensioned from the other, neither being quite the correct way to look at it. To put is theistically and more traditionally, God would have all properties and no properties. He would lie beyond the coincidence of these contradictories.

 

I'll PM you rather than get involved here if that's okay.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[chandragupta]

Thanks Peter: Your thought requires lots of thinking over. I agree, some predictions are necessary. You mentioned earlier that you already have some predictions. Is it possible for you to share them with me on PM.

[PeterJ]

Done. I've PM'd a link that lays out my thoughts on this.

[immortal]

I don't know how many times I have to state this, those who think that there are no gods in Buddhism don't really know how esoteric Buddhism really is. One should understand these religions in their own milieu and the strength of their doctrines lies in following their methodologies and their views about the cosmos.

 

The Buddhist Mandala - Sacred Geometry and Art

 

 

I would be grateful if meta-physicians and philosophers keep themselves away from this and stop distorting these sensitive religious doctrines and ideas.

[PeterJ]

You can state it as many times as you like, Immortal, but it won't make it true. Anyone who thinks that Buddhism is theism needs to read a book. Have you any evidence of scholarship or knowledge in this area, or do you just state your heterodox views on internet forums to confuse people?

 

Of course, many aspiring and practicing Buddhists speak of Gods. Physicists speak of rubber sheets and billiard balls. The Buddha, however, does not speak of Gods, and it is blindingly obvious that Middle Way Buddhism is not theism. This is such a basic issue that I can't believe we're discussing it. Seeing as how Buddhist meditation encompasses philosophical analysis and metaphysics perhaps you'd be better off advising people how to practice on a Buddhist forum. Good luck.

 

I'm reminded of why there is no chance of a decent disussion in this forum. I would invite anyone who doubts your authority to speak on these issues to check the Buddha's position on theism. Easily done. Then there need be no doubt.

 

I don't know why I bother. Sorry for being sucked in again.

Edited November 30, 2012 by PeterJ

[chandragupta]

To sum up, adwaitic or nondualistic idea is that before the beginning of time & after the end of time god becomes dimensionless awareness AND after the beginning of time & before the end of time god becomes four dimensional space time AND this idea could be expressed in the form of a formula which, (with due debt to Einstein), is as follows :- A = e = mc2 . Here A represents awareness (dimensionless awareness I.e. god ), e represents energy , m represents mass (I.e. matter). In this idea the process by which dimensionless awareness aka god becomes four dimensional space time is called self- willed dreaming on the part of this dimensionless awareness. In human experience this self- willed dreaming is the phenomenon called day dreaming. The big issue is can this whole idea be tested by scientists?

 

To sum up, adwaitic or nondualistic idea is that before the beginning of time & after the end of time god becomes dimensionless awareness AND after the beginning of time & before the end of time god becomes four dimensional space time AND this idea could be expressed in the form of a formula which, (with due debt to Einstein), is as follows :- A = e = mc2 . Here A represents awareness (dimensionless awareness I.e. god ), e represents energy , m represents mass (I.e. matter). In this idea the process by which dimensionless awareness aka god becomes four dimensional space time is called self- willed dreaming on the part of this dimensionless awareness. In human experience this self- willed dreaming is the phenomenon called day dreaming. The big issue is can this whole idea be tested by scientists?

[chandragupta]

I am now taking the adwaitic or nondualistic idea further. Thus, in this hypothesis of adwaita or nondualism, cosmic space is conceived as 'mind of god'. Here the word 'mind' is being used very tentatively on account of the lack of a better term on my part at present.

 

This idea of adwaita or nondualism that cosmic space can be conceived as mind of god takes us one step further & it is this :- That we, no no, not only we but the entire universe of space time exists inside the mind of god as a mere dream.

[immortal]

You can state it as many times as you like, Immortal, but it won't make it true.

 

Now an appeal to authority so that you can continue holding on to your false views.

 

Anyone who thinks that Buddhism is theism needs to read a book.

 

Anyone who thinks that there are no gods in Buddhism is inexcusably ignorant. You definitely need to read about eastern religions before questioning about my authority. Your views are blatantly wrong and not true at all.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandala

 

Mandalas are commonly used by tantric Buddhists as an aid to meditation. More specifically, a Buddhist mandala is envisaged as a "sacred space," a "Pure Buddha Realm,"^[16] and also as an abode of fully realised beings or deities.^[14] While on the one hand, the mandala is regarded as a place separated and protected from the ever-changing and impure outer world of samsara,^[17] and is thus seen as a "Buddhafield"^[18] or a place of Nirvana and peace, the view of Vajrayana Buddhism sees the greatest protection from samsara being the power to see samsaric confusion as the "shadow" of purity (which then points towards it). By visualizing "pure lands," one learns to understand experience itself as pure, and as the abode of enlightenment. The protection that we need, in this view, is from our own minds, as much as from external sources of confusion. In many tantric mandalas, this aspect of separation and protection from the outer samsaric world is depicted by "the four outer circles: the purifying fire of wisdom, the vajra circle, the circle with the eight tombs, the lotus circle."^[19] The ring of vajras forms a connected fence-like arrangement running around the perimeter of the outer mandala circle.^[20]

 

The mandala can be shown to represent in visual form the core essence of the Vajrayana teachings. In the mandala, the outer circle of fire usually symbolises wisdom. The ring of 8 charnel grounds^[24] represents the Buddhist exhortation to always be mindful of death, and the impermanence with which samsara is suffused: "such locations were utilized in order to confront and to realize the transient nature of life."^[25] Described elsewhere: "within a flaming rainbow nimbus and encircled by a black ring of dorjes, the major outer ring depicts the eight great charnel grounds, to emphasize the dangerous nature of human life."^[26] Inside these rings lie the walls of the mandala palace itself, specifically a place populated by deities and Buddhas.

 

Have you any evidence of scholarship or knowledge in this area,

 

Do you know why Upanishads have no authors? Its because they knew that everything belongs to God - "Covet nothing, everything belongs to God" - Isha Upanishad. You just study it but I live by it. I don't believe in the Intellectual property rights.

 

Yes, I have studied it and many scholars in the field are reconsidering their views and questioning the epistemology of Advaita and Science. I am quite happy to see that you're views are turning out to be wrong.

“QUANTUMPHYSICS AND VEDANTA”: A PERSPECTIVE FROM BERNARD D'ESPAGNAT'SSCIENTIFICREALISM – Jonathon Duquette.

 

Towards aphilosophical reconstruction of the dialogue between modern physics and AdvaitaVedanta: an inquiry into the concepts of akasa, vacuum and reality –Jonathon Duquette.

 

 

 

Why is that much of what I say is correct?

 

Its simply because of the reliability of my sources and how authoritative they are.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devudu_Narasimha_Sastri

 

"Hewas chosen for the honour of being ‘worshipped’ in the ceremonial way, as oneamong the hundred traditional scholars, by the first president of India, BabuRajendra Prasad, in the sacred Varanasi. He hailed from a family of royalpriests in Mysore, but the stature that he had as a traditional scholar wasacquired by him as a result of his systematic study of the shastras for 20years."

 

Your views are self-refuting and has no support from these traditions and these works are evidence of it. We all have to believe you just because you think you have a higher authority over these issues? Do you? Really?

 

 

or do you just state your heterodox views on internet forums to confuse people?

 

Its not my ideas, its the orthodox and the correct view of the Acharays who gave the doctrine of Advaita to the world.

 

Of course, many aspiring and practicing Buddhists speak of Gods. Physicists speak of rubber sheets and billiard balls. The Buddha, however, does not speak of Gods, and it is blindingly obvious that Middle Way Buddhism is not theism. This is such a basic issue that I can't believe we're discussing it. Seeing as how Buddhist meditation encompasses philosophical analysis and metaphysics perhaps you'd be better off advising people how to practice on a Buddhist forum. Good luck.

 

What makes you think I am not doing that, metaphysics is useless and its a dead end.

 

 

I'm reminded of why there is no chance of a decent disussion in this forum. I would invite anyone who doubts your authority to speak on these issues to check the Buddha's position on theism. Easily done. Then there need be no doubt.

 

I don't have to defend myself for your strawman arguments.

 

 

I don't know why I bother. Sorry for being sucked in again.

 

Yeah, you never learn.

 

 

[chandragupta]

1354376388[/url]' post='716206']

I am now taking the adwaitic or nondualistic idea further. Thus, in this hypothesis of adwaita or nondualism, cosmic space is conceived as 'mind of god'. Here the word 'mind' is being used very tentatively on account of the lack of a better term on my part at present.

 

This idea of adwaita or nondualism that cosmic space can be conceived as mind of god takes us one step further & it is this :- That we, no no, not only we but the entire universe of space time exists inside the mind of god as a mere dream.

 

This raises the intriguing scientific question :- as to what is the nature & structure of space?

[chandragupta]

1354379634[/url]' post='716228']

This raises the intriguing scientific question :- as to what is the nature & structure of space?

 

According to the idea of adwaita or nondualism structure of space is that of awareness, more particularly that of dimensionless awareness , who has become four dimensional space time by the process of self- willed dreaming from the beginning of time & would remain so till the end of time.

[chandragupta]

In the idea of adwaita or nondualism special attention is given to the dream-sleep state experience of humanity. This state of humanity is unique in the sense that during it man is an aware being & perceives a non-self willed dream world which he regards as 'real' while undergoing this dream- sleep experience .

 

1354450962[/url]' post='716403']

In the idea of adwaita or nondualism special attention is given to the dream-sleep state experience of humanity. This state of humanity is unique in the sense that during it man is an aware being & perceives a non-self willed dream world which he regards as 'real' while undergoing this dream- sleep experience .

 

Extrapolating from the dream sleep state experience of humanity, idea of adwaita or nondualism makes a suggestion - could this human experience of waking state also be a dream experience initiated by dimensionless awareness ?

[chandragupta]

1354457951[/url]' post='716403']

In the idea of adwaita or nondualism special attention is given to the dream-sleep state experience of humanity. This state of humanity is unique in the sense that during it man is an aware being & perceives a non-self willed dream world which he regards as 'real' while undergoing this dream- sleep experience .

 

 

 

Extrapolating from the dream sleep state experience of humanity, idea of adwaita or nondualism makes a suggestion - could this human experience of waking state also be a dream experience initiated by dimensionless awareness ?

Night dream state experience of human beings is unusual in another way & it is this :- In this state, man, even though he remains an aware being, is unaware of the physical body of his wakeful state & not only that he is also unaware of the entire wakeful universe.

Furthermore, as said earlier, man perceives a dream universe in this state which appears to him as being 'real' while he is in this state.

 

1354478462[/url]' post='716485']

Night dream state experience of human beings is unusual in another way & it is this :- In this state, man, even though he remains an aware being, is unaware of the physical body of his wakeful state & not only that he is also unaware of the entire wakeful universe.

Furthermore, as said earlier, man perceives a dream universe in this state which appears to him as being 'real' while he is in this state.

 

Thus in his dream sleep state man becomes dimensionless awareness who perceives four dimensional dream world.

[chandragupta]

1354480934[/url]' post='716485']

Night dream state experience of human beings is unusual in another way & it is this :- In this state, man, even though he remains an aware being, is unaware of the physical body of his wakeful state & not only that he is also unaware of the entire wakeful universe.

Furthermore, as said earlier, man perceives a dream universe in this state which appears to him as being 'real' while he is in this state.

 

 

 

Thus in his dream sleep state man becomes dimensionless awareness who perceives four dimensional dream world.

 

This experience of man in his dream sleep state that he becomes dimensionless awareness who perceives four dimensional dream world all within himself is very significant in adwaitic or nondualistic thought. This is so because of the original idea of god in adwaita or nondualism which is :-"Before the beginning of time & after the end of time god becomes dimensionless awareness & after the beginning of time & before the end of time god becomes four dimensional space time".

 

1354527087[/url]' post='716564']

This experience of man in his dream sleep state that he becomes dimensionless awareness who perceives four dimensional dream world all within himself is very significant in adwaitic or nondualistic thought. This is so because of the original idea of god in adwaita or nondualism which is :-"Before the beginning of time & after the end of time god becomes dimensionless awareness & after the beginning of time & before the end of time god becomes four dimensional space time".

 

For man wakeful state universe is real from his wakeful state perspective. For man dream sleep state universe is real from his dream sleep perspective Man says :- dream sleep state universe is unreal from his wakeful state perspective. Idea of adwaita or nondualism says :- by repeated contemplation & meditation man can reach a perspective higher than wakeful state perspective & from this higher perspective he would then realize that even the wakeful state universe is as unreal as his dream sleep state universe.

[immortal]

For man wakeful state universe is real from his wakeful state perspective. For man dream sleep state universe is real from his dream sleep perspective Man says :- dream sleep state universe is unreal from his wakeful state perspective. Idea of adwaita or nondualism says :- by repeated contemplation & meditation man can reach a perspective higher than wakeful state perspective & from this higher perspective he would then realize that even the wakeful state universe is as unreal as his dream sleep state universe.

 

This is a much more substantive argument compared to your past arguments and if you concentrate on this one keeping aside god and dimensionless awareness which are vague terms then there will be much point in what you're arguing.

[chandragupta]

1354536626[/url]' post='716577']

This is a much more substantive argument compared to your past arguments and if you concentrate on this one keeping aside god and dimensionless awareness which are vague terms then there will be much point in what you're arguing.

 

Immortal: Thanks for support.

 

1354530329[/url]' post='716564']

This experience of man in his dream sleep state that he becomes dimensionless awareness who perceives four dimensional dream world all within himself is very significant in adwaitic or nondualistic thought. This is so because of the original idea of god in adwaita or nondualism which is :-"Before the beginning of time & after the end of time god becomes dimensionless awareness & after the beginning of time & before the end of time god becomes four dimensional space time".

 

 

 

For man wakeful state universe is real from his wakeful state perspective. For man dream sleep state universe is real from his dream sleep perspective Man says :- dream sleep state universe is unreal from his wakeful state perspective. Idea of adwaita or nondualism says :- by repeated contemplation & meditation man can reach a perspective higher than wakeful state perspective & from this higher perspective he would then realize that even the wakeful state universe is as unreal as his dream sleep state universe.

If by repeated contemplation & meditation on the lines propounded above, man succeeds in acquiring the aforesaid perspective which is higher than that of the wakeful state & thus begins to accept the possibility that wakeful state universe might also be as unreal as the dream sleep state universe, then it is inevitable that he would ask the question :-" then, what is the source of all this unreality called wakeful state universe ?

 

1354541497[/url]' post='716583']

Immortal: Thanks for support.

 

 

If by repeated contemplation & meditation on the lines propounded above, man succeeds in acquiring the aforesaid perspective which is higher than that of the wakeful state & thus begins to accept the possibility that wakeful state universe might also be as unreal as the dream sleep state universe, then it is inevitable that he would ask the question :-" then, what is the source of all this unreality called wakeful state universe ?

 

Therefore the idea of adwaita or nondualism attempts to answer this very question by putting forward a tentative view that this wakeful state universe is a self-willed dream of a higher being aka god & hence this iconic idea of adwaita or nondualism that "before the beginning of time & at the end of time god becomes dimensionless awareness AND after the beginning of time & before the end of time god becomes four dimensional space time".

[immortal]

Immortal: Thanks for support.

 

If by repeated contemplation & meditation on the lines propounded above, man succeeds in acquiring the aforesaid perspective which is higher than that of the wakeful state & thus begins to accept the possibility that wakeful state universe might also be as unreal as the dream sleep state universe, then it is inevitable that he would ask the question :-" then, what is the source of all this unreality called wakeful state universe ?

 

This is the point where science and religion converges.

 

Quantum weirdness: What we call 'reality' is just a state of mind

 

So you just don't have to keep hoping, its actually happening, both science and advaita can be reconciled and when scientists begin to realize that the universe doesn't exist when no one is looking at it then they will start taking advaita seriously. Your mind disagrees with this first, its so hard to swallow, you hate this, you desperately try to keep an objective external reality of the world but once you investigate it and as you said contemplate it then you will realize that advaita is indeed true as experiments from quantum mechanics have shattered our cornerstone beliefs.

 

Once you arrive to this conclusion then next advaita says there is a Mind(Manas), behind the mind an Intellect (Buddhi), behind the Intellect the totality of divine powers(the Pleroma of God/Agnisoma Mandala) and behind this is the infinite (unity, Brahman, Ein Sof) or whatever you might want to call it. We can reach up to the Pleroma of God and discuss it through intellect and its affable but anything beyond it is ineffable and therefore should not be spoken.

 

(On a side note there is no word called Pleroma in advaita, its actually a Gnostic concept but they just called the same thing by different names for example:- the Brahmins called the infinite as Brahman and the Kabbalahists called it the Ein Sof.)

 

Therefore the idea of adwaita or nondualism attempts to answer this very question by putting forward a tentative view that this wakeful state universe is a self-willed dream of a higher being aka god & hence this iconic idea of adwaita or nondualism that "before the beginning of time & at the end of time god becomes dimensionless awareness AND after the beginning of time & before the end of time god becomes four dimensional space time".

 

As I told I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

[chandragupta]

1354545695[/url]' post='716599']

This is the point where science and religion converges.

 

Quantum weirdness: What we call 'reality' is just a state of mind

 

So you just don't have to keep hoping, its actually happening, both science and advaita can be reconciled and when scientists begin to realize that the universe doesn't exist when no one is looking at it then they will start taking advaita seriously. Your mind disagrees with this first, its so hard to swallow, you hate this, you desperately try to keep an objective external reality of the world but once you investigate it and as you said contemplate it then you will realize that advaita is indeed true as experiments from quantum mechanics have shattered our cornerstone beliefs.

 

Once you arrive to this conclusion then next advaita says there is a Mind(Manas), behind the mind an Intellect (Buddhi), behind the Intellect the totality of divine powers(the Pleroma of God/Agnisoma Mandala) and behind this is the infinite (unity, Brahman, Ein Sof) or whatever you might want to call it. We can reach up to the Pleroma of God and discuss it through intellect and its affable but anything beyond it is ineffable and therefore should not be spoken.

 

(On a side note there is no word called Pleroma in advaita, its actually a Gnostic concept but they just called the same thing by different names for example:- the Brahmins called the infinite as Brahman and the Kabbalahists called it the Ein Sof.)

 

 

 

As I told I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

 

Thanks. My understanding of adwaita or nondualism is not very deep. So could I very humbly request you to improve upon it or even correct it completely from the perspective of your own knowledge, personal experience & scholarship ?

[Moontanman]

So far in this thread all we have is horse feathers being used to support unsupportable assertions about reality and the nature of human dreams, thoughts, and awareness as thought those things are unique to humans and using this collection of horse feathers to say something concrete about reality... nothing used to support more nothing is still nothing... no matter how complex it sounds....

[Prometheus]

Now an appeal to authority so that you can continue holding on to your false views.

 

 

 

Anyone who thinks that there are no gods in Buddhism is inexcusably ignorant. You definitely need to read about eastern religions before questioning about my authority. Your views are blatantly wrong and not true at all.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandala

 

[/size][/font]

 

 

 

 

Buddhism is not theistic, even though Tibetan Buddhism has a pantheon of gods. Buddhism is agnostic. The concept of god was entirely irrelevant to any of the Buddha's teachings. Look up the 10 imponderables if you are in any doubt. Buddhism teaches dharma. Dharma does not necessarily teach Buddhism.

[immortal]

 

 

Buddhism is not theistic, even though Tibetan Buddhism has a pantheon of gods. Buddhism is agnostic. The concept of god was entirely irrelevant to any of the Buddha's teachings. Look up the 10 imponderables if you are in any doubt. Buddhism teaches dharma. Dharma does not necessarily teach Buddhism.

 

This is what I call a sheer double standards. If you doesn't want to believe in gods go find yourself an another religion or simply admit yourself that you're an atheist but for god sake don't misrepresent eastern religions and don't be so dogmatic about the non-existence of devas in these religions.

 

The Buddhist scholar B. Alan Wallace has also indicated (as shown above) that saying that Buddhism as a whole is "non-theistic" may be an over-simplification. Wallace discerns similarities between some forms of Vajrayana Buddhism and notions of a divine "ground of being" and creation. He writes: "a careful analysis of Vajrayana Buddhist cosmogony, specifically as presented in the Atiyoga tradition of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, which presents itself as the culmination of all Buddhist teachings, reveals a theory of a transcendent ground of being and a process of creation that bear remarkable similarities with views presented in Vedanta and Neoplatonic Western Christian theories of creation."^[37] In fact, Wallace sees these views as so similar that they seem almost to be different manifestations of the same theory. He further comments: "Vajrayana Buddhism, Vedanta, and Neoplatonic Christianity have so much in common that they could almost be regarded as varying interpretations of a single theory."

 

 

• B. Alan Wallace, "Is Buddhism Really Non-Theistic?", p. 7

Only ignorant people think that Buddhism is non-theistic.

 

Gnostic Christianity, Tibetan Buddhism, Vedic Aryan religion, Neoplatonism, Carl Jung's Red Book have so much in common between them I wonder how such seemingly disconnected cultures have come up with such identical theories of the origin of the cosmos with such a core agreement. This is a remarkable new finding which needs further investigation.

 

And the reason that the scientific community gives as to why they ignore such evidence is that they were all on LSD. Very funny.

[Prometheus]

 

This is what I call a sheer double standards. If you doesn't want to believe in gods go find yourself an another religion or simply admit yourself that you're an atheist but for god sake don't misrepresent eastern religions and don't be so dogmatic about the non-existence of devas in these religions.

• B. Alan Wallace, "Is Buddhism Really Non-Theistic?", p. 7

Only ignorant people think that Buddhism is non-theistic.

 

 

 

Well we could play wikipedia trumps, in which case i would play this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism ,which directly addresses A Wallace's point. But i don't think that will be fruitful, so lets quote from Buddhist scripture.

 

A lot will depend on how you want to define god(s).

 

God as a creator, from the Pali Canon....

 

 

 

 

"These four imponderables are not to be speculated about. Whoever speculates about them would go mad & experience vexation. Which four?

 

....Speculation about (the first moment, purpose, etc., of) the cosmos is an imponderable that is not to be speculated about. Whoever speculates about these things would go mad and experience vexation."

 

 

This of course does not deny the existence of a creator god, simply that it is not worth considering in Buddhism.

 

 

God as Brahman, self as Atman: One of the core teachings of the Buddha was the doctrine of Anatta - no self. From samyutta nikaya 22.59:

 

 

 

This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self,’ he should see it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. Whatever is feeling...whatever is perception...whatever are the habitual tendencies...whatever is consciousness, past, future or present, internal...thinking of all this consciousness as ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self,’ he should see it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. Seeing it thus, monks, the instructed disciple of the pure one turns away from material shape, he turns away from feeling, turns away from perception, turns away from the habitual tendencies, turns away from consciousness; turning away he is detached; by his detachment he is freed; in freedom there is the knowledge that he is freed and he comprehends: Destroyed is birth, brought to a close the holy-life, done is what was to be done, there is no more being such or so.

 

It follows if there is no Atman there can be no Brahman in the Hindu sense of the word (Brahman means something else in Buddhist scripture: sometimes a holy person, sometimes a deva).

 

 

 

God as moral creator and/or arbiter: couldn't find a direct quote from scripture, so i'll quote from "What the Buddha taught" by Walpola Sri Rahula (p32):

 

 

The idea of moral justice... arises out of the conception of...a God, who sits in judgement, who is a law-giver and who decides what is right and wrong. The term justice is ambiguous... and in its name more harm than good is done... The theory of karma is the theory of cause and effect... it is a natural law, which has nothing to do with the idea of justice or reward and punishment.

 

Again, not denying the existence of God, only that the concept is not relevant to Buddhist morality. This book is from a Sri Lankan Theravadan scholar.

 

 

God(s) as devas: The definition of a deva in Buddhism is a being which occupies a realm in which there are too many luxuries around for such a being to properly contemplate the dharma. They are referred to numerous times throughout scripture, it is clear that the Buddha believed in them. It is equally clear that they are entirely irrelevant to the Buddha's teachings. My favourite quote on the subject comes from Nagarjuna, an Indian Buddhist philosopher from the 2nd century:

 

 

 

The gods are all eternal scoundrels

Incapable of dissolving the suffering of impermanence.

Those who serve them and venerate them

May even in this world sink into a sea of sorrow.

We know the gods are false and have no concrete being;

Therefore the wise man believes them not

The fate of the world depends on causes and conditions

Therefore the wise man may not rely on gods.

 

By so forcefully repudiating them, their existence is reinforced. But i ask you 2 things. Is this buddhist concept of deva really what you mean when you say god(s)? Is anything lost at all if someone denies the existence of something the Buddha obviously thought of as irrelevant to his teachings? Bottom line, belief in god(s) is not necessary to be Buddhist.

[immortal]

 

Well we could play wikipedia trumps, in which case i would play this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism ,which directly addresses A Wallace's point. But i don't think that will be fruitful, so lets quote from Buddhist scripture.

 

 

Its very clear from A Wallace's point that Buddhism is not non-theistic, a very careful analysis of the scriptures shows that the concept of Aeons in gnostic Christianity is the same concept of gods that exists in Buddhism. All these religions have a single theory and they take the existence of these Aeons very seriously.

 

A lot will depend on how you want to define god(s).

 

God as a creator, from the Pali Canon....

 

This of course does not deny the existence of a creator god, simply that it is not worth considering in Buddhism.

 

God as moral creator and/or arbiter: couldn't find a direct quote from scripture, so i'll quote from "What the Buddha taught" by Walpola Sri Rahula (p32):

 

 

Again, not denying the existence of God, only that the concept is not relevant to Buddhist morality. This book is from a Sri Lankan Theravadan scholar.

 

God(s) as devas: The definition of a deva in Buddhism is a being which occupies a realm in which there are too many luxuries around for such a being to properly contemplate the dharma. They are referred to numerous times throughout scripture, it is clear that the Buddha believed in them. It is equally clear that they are entirely irrelevant to the Buddha's teachings. My favourite quote on the subject comes from Nagarjuna, an Indian Buddhist philosopher from the 2nd century:

 

If you want to know what is the correct concept of gods that exists in Buddhism then you should read this.

 

http://www.turtlehill.org/khen/zhikhro.pdf

 

 

By practicing during the bardo of birth and life, great devotees can become enlightened within one lifetime. Yogis and yoginis with high realizations are able to perceive the entire universe as the mandala of the deities, so that every form is seen as the Buddha's body, and all sounds are perceived as the speech of enlightened beings, or mantra. Recognizing the true nature of this continually unfolding vision is part of the spontaneous activity of pristine cognitiveness. Ultimately, everything appears as a display of primordial wisdom, and within that realization, you can begin to help all sentient beings.

 

According to the zhi-khro teachings, the peaceful and wrathful buddhas do not exist externally; one's body is the palace of the deity and the entire universe is originally in an enlightened state. Awaken to the preciousness and purity of each moment as it arises, and be devoted to this great realization.

 

What are these peaceful and wrathful buddhas?

 

 

First, the peaceful buddhas will appear, beginning with the five buddha families. A sky-like expanse of g reat blue light is projected out from one's heart center preceding the appearance of the buddha forms. This is the light of the dharmadhatu wisdom. At first it is apparent that the light emanates from you, but when the buddhas appear, it is as if they were autonomous. In the center of this radiant blue field, you'll see a small circle of white light. This is the same light that is worked with in the Dzogchen creation stage or thod-rgyal practices. If you are able to recognize it now, you'll see that this point is no other than Samantabhadra and Samantabhadri in union. In this way, you attain enlightenment here and now

without further experience.

 

Failing this, the white light expands, encompassing the entire visionary space. If you are well acquainted with the practice of visualizing the buddhas of the vajra family, you will easily recognize Buddha Vairocana and his consort sitting in yabyum in the center of this white field. If you understand even for a second that this vision is an emanation of primordial wisdom non-separate from your natural mind, you will completely change your karmic momentum and attain enlightenment in the presence of Buddha Vairocana.

 

If you fail to recognize Vairocana as a display of your own primordial wisdom and instead assume the subject-object duality in relation to what appears, another white light appears. This presents the next opportunity for recognition which is described as "white lights following one after another like clouds." It is also known as the light of Vajrasattva and is associated with mirror-like wisdom. If you recognize it as the radiance of your own mind, this is the end of bewilderment and there are no more bardos. The clouds soon change and from the center of this brilliant white light the Buddha Vajrasattva and his consort appear surrounded by the entire refuge tree. This is all emanated from the heart center.

 

The next phase is qualified by a golden-yellow light. Non-dual recognition of this light as the wisdom of equanimity leads to enlightenment in the sambhogakaya. To welcome you, Buddha Ratnasambhava and his consort will appear from the midst of that radiance and you can be liberated without further wandering.

 

This is followed by a deep red light which pervades the whole of space. This is the radiation of discriminating wisdom. Having practiced on the Buddha of Infinite Light, you can easily recognize this light and break the cycle of karmic rebirth. Resplendent in sambhogakaya display, Buddha Amitabha and his consort will appear, surrounded by the whole refuge tree.

 

Subsequently, an intensely green light radiates. This is the light of allaccomplishing wisdom. To have practiced on the deities of the karma family will allow you to recognize the nature of this display. If there is a clear understanding of this vision, one can be immediately enlightened. From the center of that green field, the Buddhas Amoghasiddhi and Tara will appear in union on the central lotus of the cosmic refuge tree.

 

Buddhas Samantabhadra and Samantabhadri, or Vajrasattva and his consort are the main deities related to the zhi-khro teachings. As they sport in the center, five other dhyani buddhas, together with various bodhisattvas associated with these families, arise as their retinue. These make up the forty-two peaceful deities, which are followed by the appearance of the fifty-eight wrathful deities. This is the mandala of the Guyagarbha tantra. All these buddhas are a display of the original wisdom which structure our body and mind.

 

Through the inspiration of these teachings, begin to investigate the subtle dimension of the world, and you will discover that the whole mandala is appearing within you. There is nothing that is outside of you. On the basis of this insight, practice and meditate so that when the time comes to die, you will recognize all the visions as your own projections and blissfully merge with the transcendent source condition. To have regularly practiced visualizing the deities and reciting mantra will be of immense benefit in this chös-nyid bardo. If you have good practice habits, you already know that these visions are projections of our minds which arise from the true nature, laden with the energy of pure love, compassion and wisdom. This is

what the deities or the dhyani buddhas represent. If you are familiar with this kind of meditation, you have a good chance of getting enlightened. You don't have to introduce yourself to your own mother. By recognizing any one of these buddhas,you will be enlightened. In that case, all bardo experiences will stop. It's all over in the moment of recognition. The whole external cosmos dissolves within you. Then, instead of being defined by the limitations of karmic rebirth, you can go anywhere and take any form. You get a pass to the red carpet club, while those who aren't practiced wander around for awhile in a very busy place that looks something like Calcutta!

 

If we somehow overlook all of these opportunities for liberation through nonrecognition of the peaceful buddhas, we will be subject to the onset of the wrathful buddhas. So it gets even tougher. Not only is there the reappearance of the blinding radiance and intense beams of light shining right through one, but terrifying thunders are resounding and a thousand fires burn as we are introduced to the wrathful buddhas.

 

This is nothing different from Paul's Pleroma theology which are explicitly stated in the Pauline epistles and the correct term to use is "Aeons" because the term gods is corrupted with too many vague meanings. So I am basically talking of Aeons or Buddhas and genuine Buddhists do take the existence of these buddhas very seriously and its the very core of Buddhism.

 

These gods or Aeons are not scoundrels, eastern religions or gnostic christianity does not entertain such thoughts all the peaceful and wrathful deities are manifestations of the Self and they are with in the Self and hence they should be happily accepted as part of things which resides in the Self and one should get through it.

 

This is Buddhism.

 

 

God as Brahman, self as Atman: One of the core teachings of the Buddha was the doctrine of Anatta - no self. From samyutta nikaya 22.59:

 

It follows if there is no Atman there can be no Brahman in the Hindu sense of the word (Brahman means something else in Buddhist scripture: sometimes a holy person, sometimes a deva).

 

 

Hindus don't believe in Brahman, they only believe in astrology and practice a few festivals without themselves being aware as to what they are doing. Jiva, Ishvar and Brahman is in the Vedas and the Upanishads and they were called as Vedic Aryans and not as Hindus.

 

Buddhism is another offshoot of the vast number of eastern religions and it was very much prevalent in the time of Shankara and even though they accepted the core teachings there were minute difference between Advaita of Shankara and the emptiness of Buddha. Shankara strongly criticizes the teachings of Buddha in his Brahma Sutras.

 

http://www.bergen.edu/phr/121/ShankaraGC.pdf

 

General assessment of Buddhist philosophy

 

"No further special discussion is required. From whatever points of view the Buddhist systems are tested with regard to their plausibility, they cave in on all sides, like the walls of a well dug in sandy soil. [buddhist philosophy] has, in fact, no foundation whatever to rest upon, and thus it is foolish to adopt it as a guide in the practical concerns of life. Moreover, the Buddha,3 by presenting three mutually contradictory systems of philosophy — teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of consciousness-only, and general emptiness — has himself made it clear either that he was a man given to making incoherent assertions, or else that hatred of all beings moved him to propound absurd doctrines that would thoroughly confuse all who might take him seriously. Thus, the Buddha's doctrine must be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness."

 

- Shankara

 

Most people don't understand Advaita, advaita and most forms of Buddhism actually recognize a noumenon and doesn't teach about emptiness. As you have quoted speculating Buddhist philosophy makes one go mad because buddhism is a series of contradictions which leads you to the ultimate truth.

 

Non-dual Advaita as a doctrine is different on its own and it can be clearly seen in the writings of Shankara.

 

 

"We have now refuted both the Buddhist Realists, who maintain the (momentary) reality of the external world, and the Buddhist Idealists, who claim that only consciousness exists. The third variety of Buddhist philosophy (Madhyamaka Voidism), that is, the view that everything is empty (that is, that absolutely nothing exists),2 is contradicted by all the recognized means of knowledge [perception, inference, the verbal testimony of Scriptures, etc.] and therefore requires no special refutation. The reality of the phenomenal world is guaranteed by all the means of knowledge. Its existence cannot be denied without a convincing proof of its non-existence (or "emptiness"), for a conclusion arrived at on the basis of the standard means of knowledge must be accepted in the absence of a convincing argument to the contrary."

 

- Shankara

 

Shankara refutes the Buddhist realists who maintain the reality of the external world, he refutes the Buddhist idealists who claim that only consciousness exists and he also refutes the doctrine of emptiness or void where nothing absolutely exists.

 

The correct doctrine of Advaita is this as espoused in the scriptures as well as by the great Acharyas is this.

 

The oldest reference to Idealism in Hindu texts is in Purusha Sukta of the Rig Veda. This sukta espouses panentheism by presenting cosmic being Purusha as both pervading all universe and yet being transcendent to it.[1] Absolute idealism can be seen in Chāndogya Upaniṣad, where things of the objective world like the five elements and the subjective world such as will, hope, memory etc. are seen to be emanations from the Self.[2]

 

This view which was recently put forward by Bernard D'Espagnat is known as open realism which says that there is "something" real the existence of which does not hinge on thought. This is the view towards which the recent experiments in quantum mechanics have taken us and since these are facts established from experiments it refutes thousand other philosophies.

 

The five elements, mind, will, memory, sense organs are all anthropomorphic Aeons according to Advaita and they all emanated from the Self(Brahman).

 

 

 

By so forcefully repudiating them, their existence is reinforced. But i ask you 2 things. Is this buddhist concept of deva really what you mean when you say god(s)?

 

Paul's pleroma theology of Aeons is nothing different from the concept of devas or deities in Buddhism and the Vedic theology and the concept of Vedic gods like Indra,Soma, Agni, Pushan, Mitra, Aruna are nothing different from paul's pleroma theology and the concept of peaceful and wrathful Buddhas in Buddhism. This is the point which A Wallace is making in his work "Is Buddhism really non-theistic?" and the answer is that no they have their own pantheon and they have their own Buddhas or Aeons and Buddhism is theistic because they take the existence of gods very seriously and their entire doctrine is dependent on them.

 

 

Is anything lost at all if someone denies the existence of something the Buddha obviously thought of as irrelevant to his teachings? Bottom line, belief in god(s) is not necessary to be Buddhist.

 

Yes, you're at a lost.

 

The message is to know both the manifested as well as the unmanifested.

 

9 Into a blind darkness they enter who are devoted to ignorance (rituals); but into a greater darkness they enter who engage in knowledge of a deity alone.

 

10 One thing, they say, is obtained from knowledge; another, they say, from ignorance. Thus we have heard from the wise who have taught us this.

 

11 He who is aware that both knowledge and ignorance should be pursued together, overcomes death through ignorance and obtains immortality through knowledge.

 

12 Into a blind darkness they enter who worship only the unmanifested prakriti; but into a greater darkness they enter who worship the manifested Hiranyagarbha.

 

13 One thing, they say, is obtained from the worship of the manifested; another, they say, from the worship of the unmanifested. Thus we have heard from the wise who taught us this.

 

14 He who knows that both the unmanifested prakriti and the manifested Hiranyagarbha should be worshipped together, overcomes death by the worship of Hiranyagarbha and obtains immortality through devotion to prakriti.

 

- Isha Upanishad

 

Its wrong to worship only the empty Self and its also wrong to worship only the gods because they both lead us to a great darkness. The correct method is to worship them together.

 

[Prometheus]

 

Its very clear from A Wallace's point that Buddhism is not non-theistic, a very careful analysis of the scriptures shows that the concept of Aeons in gnostic Christianity is the same concept of gods that exists in Buddhism. All these religions have a single theory and they take the existence of these Aeons very seriously.

 

 

If you want to know what is the correct concept of gods that exists in Buddhism then you should read this.

 

http://www.turtlehill.org/khen/zhikhro.pdf

 

 

 

Wallace's point may well be clear, but that does not make it right. I have already given my reasons and references for thinking otherwise.

 

The Christian concept of Aeons may well be the same as the buddhist concept of devas. I have no wish to study Buddhist or Christian mysticism to find out. I have given samples from Buddhist scripture indicating the Buddha did not think teachings about god(s) as important to the dharma.

 

The link you provide is to a Tibetan Buddhist scholar. They have a great many gods never directly mentioned by the Buddha himself or referred to in any other form of Buddhism. Notice even in the link you provide it acknowledges itself as a later addition to the Buddha's teaching (no pages numbers, but very early on).

 

I'm not saying Tibetan Buddhism is the wrong interpretation of the Buddha's teaching - but it is only one interpretation among a great many. If you amend your claim to saying teachings about god(s)/devas are important to Tibetan Buddhism I would have no problems - but Tibetan Buddhism does not represent all Buddhism. Far from.

 

So I am basically talking of Aeons or Buddhas and genuine Buddhists do take the existence of these buddhas very seriously and its the very core of Buddhism.

 

This is the point which A Wallace is making in his work "Is Buddhism really non-theistic?" and the answer is that no they have their own pantheon and they have their own Buddhas or Aeons and Buddhism is theistic because they take the existence of gods very seriously and their entire doctrine is dependent on them.

 

Please show a direct reference from the scriptures (not later commentaries) demonstrating the Buddha's doctrine is entirely dependent on the existence of god(s).

 

BTW, the core teachings of Buddhism are regarded as being the four noble truths, the noble eight-fold path and the five precepts, all from the very first discourse he gave (Setting in Motion the Wheel of the Dharma (Dharmacakra Pravartana Sūtra). None of which even mention god(s) in passing.

 

If such a core concept, would it not have been included as a noble truth?

 

 

 

 

These gods or Aeons are not scoundrels, eastern religions or gnostic christianity does not entertain such thoughts all the peaceful and wrathful deities are manifestations of the Self and they are with in the Self and hence they should be happily accepted as part of things which resides in the Self and one should get through it.

 

This is Buddhism.

 

 

Buddhism most certainly does not teach about permenant self. There is no 'thing' which is self - god manifestations or otherwise. Our sense of self as some kind of transcendent being is an illusion in Buddhism. The doctrine of Annatta is very clear about this is Buddhism. Seriously, if you think Buddhism teaches there is such thing as a self you are grossly mistaken.

 

From the Dhammapada (i think).

 

 

a being is composed only of these Five Aggregates (Matter, Sensation, Perception, Mental Formation/Volitional activities/Karma, Consciousness) nothing more... nowhere ... was anything more than these Five Aggregates in a being

 

 

 

 

Yes, you're at a lost.

 

Sorry i thought you might actually be a Buddhist when i asked you that. If i am at a loss it is only by your reckoning.

 

 

Its wrong to worship only the empty Self and its also wrong to worship only the gods because they both lead us to a great darkness. The correct method is to worship them together.

 

I would go further. It is a bad idea to worship anything.

 

 

 

 

As you have quoted speculating Buddhist philosophy makes one go mad because buddhism is a series of contradictions which leads you to the ultimate truth

 

 

Not what was said. Speculating on any philosophy is a waste of time according to the Buddha. That includes Buddhist philosophy as well as any other. Thinking about elaborate metaphysical propositions which can never be proved is at best a waste of time. To the best of my sincere practice this is what the Buddha taught, not about god(s), devas, transcendence or self.

[immortal]

Wallace's point may well be clear, but that does not make it right. I have already given my reasons and references for thinking otherwise.

 

Perhaps its time for you to reassess your thinking then. Wallace is a Buddhist scholar and as he says those who think that Buddhism is non-theistic are inexcusably ignorant.

 

The Christian concept of Aeons may well be the same as the buddhist concept of devas. I have no wish to study Buddhist or Christian mysticism to find out. I have given samples from Buddhist scripture indicating the Buddha did not think teachings about god(s) as important to the dharma.

 

 

You may not wish to study it and you can go on ignoring the scholarly evidence and continue to show double standards but religious scholars will study it and they will realize that this was the core doctrine of Buddhism. Your personal wish-thinking has no bearing in reality and in scriptural evidence.

 

The link you provide is to a Tibetan Buddhist scholar. They have a great many gods never directly mentioned by the Buddha himself or referred to in any other form of Buddhism. Notice even in the link you provide it acknowledges itself as a later addition to the Buddha's teaching (no pages numbers, but very early on).

 

I'm not saying Tibetan Buddhism is the wrong interpretation of the Buddha's teaching - but it is only one interpretation among a great many. If you amend your claim to saying teachings about god(s)/devas are important to Tibetan Buddhism I would have no problems - but Tibetan Buddhism does not represent all Buddhism. Far from.

 

Perhaps you didn't fully read what Wallace said, Tibetan Buddhism is the culmination of all Buddhist teachings, don't try to make it as a separate sect.

 

 

Buddhism is commonly distinguished on doctrinal grounds from monotheistic and polytheistic religions by the fact that it refutes the existence of a divine Creator, and indeed there is ample textual evidence in early Buddhist, Mahayana,and Vajrayana treatises to support this claim. However, a careful analysis of Vajray›na Buddhist cosmogony, specifically as presented in the Atiyoga tradition of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, which presents itself as the culmination of all Buddhist teachings, reveals a theory of a transcendent groundof being and a process of creation that bear remarkable similarities with views presented in Vedanta and Neoplatonic Western Christian theories of creation. In the following paper I shall present this Vajrayana Buddhist theory in terms of its images of space and light in the creation of the universe, and I shall conclude with a reappraisal of the non-theistic status of Buddhism as a whole.

 

- Alan Wallace

 

Its time to realize how esoteric Buddhism really is.

 

 

Please show a direct reference from the scriptures (not later commentaries) demonstrating the Buddha's doctrine is entirely dependent on the existence of god(s).

 

BTW, the core teachings of Buddhism are regarded as being the four noble truths, the noble eight-fold path and the five precepts, all from the very first discourse he gave (Setting in Motion the Wheel of the Dharma (Dharmacakra Pravartana Sūtra). None of which even mention god(s) in passing.

 

If such a core concept, would it not have been included as a noble truth?

 

Everything in Buddhism is made esoteric, just because you think that such a core concept doesn't exist in the eight fold path to nirvana doesn't mean that the people of Vajrayana tradition doesn't know to interpret the same core concepts from the same scriptures which you study.

 

Esotericism

 

In Vajrayāna particularly, Tibetan Buddhists subscribe to a voluntary code of self-censorship, whereby theuninitiated do not seek and are not provided with information about it. This self-censorship may be applied more or less strictly depending on circumstances such as the material involved. A depiction of a mandalamay be less public than that of a deity. That of a higher tantric deity may be less public than that of alower. The degree to which information on Vajrayāna is now public in western languages is controversial among Tibetan Buddhists.

 

Buddhism has always had a taste for esotericism since its earliest period in India.[25] Tibetans today maintain greater or lesser degrees of confidentiality also with information on the vinaya and emptiness specifically. In Buddhist teachings generally, too, there is caution about revealing information to people who may be unready for it. Esoteric values in Buddhism have made it at odds with the values of Christian missionary activity, for example in contemporary Mongolia.

 

 

You talk of the eight fold path to Nirvana but what you don't understand is that the mandala of the peaceful and wrathful deities is the place of Nirvana and peace and this is the core essence of mandala worship. Every genuine Buddhist will go through this path as the main essence of Buddhist teachings is to achieve Buddha-hood.

 

 

Visualisation of Vajrayana teachings

 

The mandala can be shown to represent in visual form the core essence of the Vajrayana teachings. The mindis "a microcosm representing various divine powers at work in the universe."[2] The mandala represents thenature of experience, and the intricacies of both the enlightened and confused mind.

 

While on the one hand, the mandala is regarded as a place separated and protected from the ever-changing and impure outer world of samsara,[12] and is thus seen as a "Buddhafield"[13] or a place of Nirvana and peace, the view of Vajrayana Buddhism sees the greatest protection from samsara being the power to see samsaric confusion as the "shadow" of purity (which then points towards it).

 

 

 

 

Buddhism most certainly does not teach about permenant self. There is no 'thing' which is self - god manifestations or otherwise. Our sense of self as some kind of transcendent being is an illusion in Buddhism. The doctrine of Annatta is very clear about this is Buddhism. Seriously, if you think Buddhism teaches there is such thing as a self you are grossly mistaken.

 

From the Dhammapada (i think).

 

 

Again depends on the school of thought, Mahayana Buddhists do see a ground of being for everything where as Madhyamikas and Yogacaras neither say that the unity does not exists nor do they say that it exists. They say its beyond existence and non-existence.

 

The question to all Buddhist voidists or illusionists is if everything is an illusion or a projection of the mind then from where did the mind came from? Speculating on this thought reveals that the mind is the product of a divine God who is the supreme Aeon of the mandala from which both the objective world of five elements as well as the subjective world of metaphysical mind, intellect and sense organs emanated and he is the place where all the opposites reconcile into a non-dual unity.

 

 

Sorry i thought you might actually be a Buddhist when i asked you that. If i am at a loss it is only by your reckoning.

 

 

I am not a Christian but I revere Christ, I am not a Brahmin but I revere Savithru, I am not a Buddhist but I revere Buddha, I am not a Gnostic but I revere Abraxas.

 

"In Christ dwells all the pleroma of Deity in bodily form."

(Colossians 2:9)

 

"Christ has each within him, whether human being or angel or mystery" (Gospel of Philip 56:14-15).

 

"Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing."

(Gospel of Philip)

 

"People cannot see anything in the real realm unless they become it...if you have seen the spirit, you have become the spirit; if you have seen Christ, you have become Christ; if you have seen the Father, you will become the Father" (Gospel of Philip 61:20-32 cf. 67:26-27)

 

"Isha vashyam idam sarvam jagathyam jagath"

 

Everything in this world is covered by God.

 

- Isha Upanishad

 

"Everything that discrimination taketh out of the pleroma is a pair of opposites. To god, therefore, always belongeth the devil.

 

This inseparability is as close and, as your own life hath made you see, as indissoluble as the pleroma itself. Thus it is that both stand very close to the pleroma, in which all opposites are extinguished and joined.

 

God and devil are distinguished by the qualities fullness and emptiness, generation and destruction. Effectiveness is common to both. Effectiveness joineth them. Effectiveness, therefore, standeth above both; is a god above god, since in its effect it uniteth fullness and emptiness.

 

This is a god whom ye knew not, for mankind forgot it. We name it by its name Abraxas. It is more indefinite still than god and devil.

 

That god may be distinguished from it, we name god Helios or Sun. Abraxas is effect. Nothing standeth opposed to it but the ineffective; hence its effective nature freely unfoldeth itself. The ineffective is not, therefore resisteth not. Abraxas standeth above the sun and above the devil. It is improbable probability, unreal reality. Had the pleroma a being, Abraxas would be its manifestation. It is the effective itself, not any particular effect, but effect in general.

 

It is unreal reality, because it hath no definite effect.

 

It is also creatura, because it is distinct from the pleroma.

 

The sun hath a definite effect, and so hath the devil. Wherefore do they appear to us more effective than indefinite Abraxas.

 

It is force, duration, change.

 

The dead now raised a great tumult, for they were Christians."

 

- Seven Sermons to the Dead, Carl Jung.

 

ALL PHENOMENA APPEAR AS THE MANDALA OF THE PEACEFUL AND WRATHFUL DEITIES. THESE DEITIES DISSOLVE AS A RAINBOW IN THE SKY. RELAX THE MIND IN THE NATURAL STATE WHICH IS THE UNION OF APPEARANCE AND EMPTINESS, FREE FROM COMPLEXITIES. ALL SOUNDS ARE THE SPEECH OF THE WRATHFUL AND PEACEFUL DEITIES. THIS EMPTINESS SOUND DISSOLVES AS THE DRAGON'S VOICE OF THUNDER DISAPPEARS IN THE SKY

 

- Tibetan Buddhism

 

Its disappointing to see people who claim themselves to be Christians, Hindus, Buddhists etc themselves don't know what are the true doctrines of their own religions.

 

I would go further. It is a bad idea to worship anything.

 

 

Nope, mandala worship is the core teaching of Buddhism and its not such a bad idea to worship the agnisoma mandala or the pleroma of God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not what was said. Speculating on any philosophy is a waste of time according to the Buddha. That includes Buddhist philosophy as well as any other. Thinking about elaborate metaphysical propositions which can never be proved is at best a waste of time. To the best of my sincere practice this is what the Buddha taught, not about god(s), devas, transcendence or self.

 

That is not the conclusion of religious scholars worldwide. The Conclusion is introspective religious thinking leads to genuine metaphysical truths and knowledge of the fundamental laws of nature and of how the cosmos is actually working.

 

Conclusion

 

"While Buddhism is deemed nontheistic, the Vedas are regarded as polytheistic, and the Bible is monotheistic, we have seen that the cosmogonies of Vajrayana Buddhism, Vedanta, and Neoplatonic Christianity have so much in common that they could almost be regarded as varying interpretations of a single theory. Moreover,the commonality does not end there, for in the Near East, the writings of Plotinus (205-270) also influenced Islamic and Jewish theories of creation. This apparent unity could be attributed to mere coincidence,or to the historical propagation of a single, speculative, metaphysical theory throughout south Asia and the Near East. For example, the Upanishads may well have influenced the writings of early Mahayana thinkers in India, and they could also have made their way to the Near East, where they might have inspired the writings of Plotinus. On the other hand, Plotinus declared that his theories were based on his own experiential insights, and similar claims have been made by many Buddhist and Vedantin contemplatives. If these cosmogonies are indeed based upon valid introspective knowledge, then there may some plausibility to the claims of many contemplatives throughout the world that introspective inquiry can lead to knowledge, not only of the ultimate ground of being, but of the fundamental laws of nature as well."

 

- Alan Wallace