SuttaCentral

Bodhisattas and the EBTs

earlybuddhism
ebts
bodhisatta
Tags: #<Tag:0x00007fc4575b83a8> #<Tag:0x00007fc4575b8240> #<Tag:0x00007fc4575b8100>

#60

I think there’s an “if” on my comment that supplies a fair amount of contextualization, that was left out of the quote :yum:.

I think Gnosticism isn’t monotheism by the strict standards set out by the 3 mainstream Abrahamic faiths. That is the comparison I meant to make.


#61

If there is a multiverse - worlds without end - and beings scattered through innumerable universe’s amenable to sentient existence, would this make the number of sentient beings infinite?

I thought Buddhism taught that there are infinite numbers of sentient beings and samsara continues forever and, has always been in cyclic motion?

If there were finite numbers of sentient beings perhaps samsara could have an end when the taint of being is removed completely?

If, there are infinite numbers of beings it would take forever to exhaust samsaric wandering? Therefore, it never ends and, has no beginning?

I have also been told there is a teaching about the formation of universe after universe - in an endless cycle.

The universe’s arise and pass away - expand and contract - because there are sentient beings who are constantly in transition, driven by the craving for existence.

This endless thirst for existence has to play out where being/becoming is possible. The heirs of our kamma we are woven into the fabric of the cosmos.

This would mean - if universal cycles are endless - there must be an inexhaustible number of sentient beings caught in the process of rebecoming necessitating the formation of worlds without end.

Empty phenomena rolling on forever?

The ‘anthropic cosmological principal’ may be mistaken because conscious observers may not be human ‘exclusively’.

The presence of sentient beings in need of a place to cycle in the process of endless becoming may be implicated in the phenomenal display we participate in.*

Mind and matter are interdependent on the micro and macro level? Reality may be stranger than fiction?

Higher-Deva’s in a subtle realm may witness the beginning and/or end of a cosmic cycle and remain untouched. Are the highest Deva-realms destroyed when a universe ends?

How else could the Buddha have known about universal cycles of expansion and contraction through direct knowledge and vision without witnessing the process in some way and remembering it on the night of his awakening?

My Ajahn said the Buddha used the metaphor of an opening and closing lotus to describe the origin, genesis and, cessation of the universe - periods of expansion and contraction? He also said that the Buddha was in the right ball-park when it comes to the age of the universe.


*https://futurism.com/john-wheelers-participatory-universe

https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=feynman+observer+participant&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart#d=gs_qabs&p=&u=%23p%3D1bkzkn5KRMQJ


#62

Yup, he’s doing his thing on the 10th level of kamaloka. The current Mara living in the 11th level of existence, a necessary and constant thorn in his side.:innocent:


#63

Remember the vast parallels between the first four Nikāyas and the Chinese Agamas. Even if it’s very popular for Mahayana to refer to the Chinese Agamas as Kindergarten Buddhism :rofl: . There is still saddhamma present in their vast pile of texts.


#64

Only an unwise fool would believe otherwise. In a house of mirrors everything appears as self.:anjal:


#65

Let us also make it known that Theravada is rife with nonsense and itself is NOT the true or correct Branch still existent. There isn’t one :weary: . Theravada has been thoroughly corroded from within for a very, very, very long time.

While the Theravada are clearly the caretakers of the majority of saddhamma scriptures, they were just one tradition within the Pali School and the only one remaining.

Theravada championing to me is rather nauseating. They just happen to have the most saddhamma in their Sutta Tripitaka and have had a decent manuscript maintaining ability. There is still much corruption and embellishment…:zipper_mouth_face:


#66

Please don’t misunderstand i am not championing any thing. I just want to know the truth for my self as does very body else here i think.

It is said that before the buddhas enlightenment he went to other teachers. He did so like a bee visiting flowers. Supposedly a bee takes from the flowers what he needs without damaging them.

I think we should be humble enough to admit if we are not enlightened we don’t know. And if we don’t know what the truth is beyond doubt we have no business trying reform others.

Metta!


#67

The first claim is actually found in the suttas: DN 14, MN 123, AN 4.127.

The second isn’t found in any Pali text at all and in fact would be contrary to how a Bodhisatta’s enlightenment was conceived by commentators committed to a momentarist exposition (i.e., a whizzing through of the four ariyan paths and fruits in under a micro-second on the night of his enlightenment).

Perhaps you have in mind the alleged niyata-ness of a Bodhisatta, which is indeed a commentarial innovation. The Bodhisatta depicted in the EBTs is a man who might easily have made a pig’s ear of things, but fortunately didn’t. For example, he might have been satisfied with cakkavatti-ship and eschewed renunciation. He might have continued to fast a couple more days, died of starvation and then gone down in history as a Jain saint rather than a Buddha. Or he might have told Brahmā Sahampati to get stuffed and stuck to his initial resolve not to bother teaching.

By contrast, the Bodhisatta of the commentaries is someone for whom making a pig’s ear of things was never a possibility — someone whose future was of fixed outcome (niyata) the moment he received the prediction from Dīpaṅkara. And so it might be said that in that respect he is like a stream-enterer — his saṃsāric future is finite. It should be noted, however, that despite the posited niyata-ness the commentators never refer to a Bodhisatta as “ariyan” (like the Mahayanists do); nor do they ever call him a “puthujjana” (as someone in this thread has done, and which may well be a defensible position as far as the EBTs are concerned).


#68

Probably not the same, why ? Muslim Allah and the biblical Yahweh , the concept of god maybe similar , ie the denotation is same but connotation different .

Allah was recognised mostly by polytheists before the revelation of the Qur’an. Muhammad’s own father, who died before the Prophet was born, was called Abdullah (Servant of God).
Apparently it was one of the 360 gods worshipped in the ka’aba in Mecca, and was the chief god for the Quraysh tribe, which was the tribe Muhammad belonged to. In the pre-Islamic time, Allah had three daughters, Al-At, Al-Uzza, and Al-Manat.
The later development the Muslims regards Allah do not have any association whereas Yahweh has .


#69

I think the situation of Mohammand using “Allah” as the name of the Abrahamic God doesn’t mean it’s not the same being as in the Torah. Multiple names are used in the Hebrew text. Quiet the contrary. It’s just a word. The contents of the Quran says otherwise. The retelling of key parts of the Torah and New Testament, which is a huge part of the Quran, says otherwise.
:grin:


#70

It would make sense for Allah to be in the Kabbah, because it is an old Jewish centre of worship. Similarly, if you go far back enough in time, Jews themselves are not monotheistic, and their God has a wife, etc.

So it’s all relative. What are your sources for the above? I know that some Evangelical Christians believe a polemical lie that Allah is an ancient Arab moon god.


#72

https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Formation_of_Islam.html?id=mLV6lo4mvj0C


#73

Do you have a page number? Or better yet, does the author site this information?


#74

The name’s origin can be traced to the earliest Semitic writings in which the word for god was il or el, the latter being used in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament)

Might be related to Ancient Hebrew usage of “Eloah”.


#75

Not sure where this is directed at, I’m not seeing much Theravada championing in this thread or in this forum. In fact, orthodox Theravada interpretations (Abhidhamma, etc) are often critiqued on this forum.

All modern Buddhist traditions have added new doctrines, ideas and practices that are not in the EBTs. This is pretty well known.


#76

This thread has wandered way off track. If it’s not brought back around we may close it. There are plenty of other places on the internet to discuss comparative religions.

With metta
:pray:


The Appropriate Limits of Comparative Religion
#77

There’s a modern sect in Sri Lanka trying to find the truth staring at the sun and in lucid dreams :astonished:.


#78

Read the suttas or… stare at the sun.
Wait. Is that even a choice? :no_mouth:


#79

Can you give and example? As in a major doctrinal diversion. Not the staring into the sun variety.


#80

@Ocean I should have clarified there that I was referring to the Theravadan culture that has emerged as a whole not really the Sutta Pitaka(which has been wonderfully preserved :innocent: ): amulets, fortune telling, widespread belief that the path to arahantship is closed, widespread disregard towards the efficacy meditation, etc.

My mistake :sweat_smile: