The Three Kayas

[Rain95]

I think this flows better taking out the 14th century words, like primordial, and using words like Buddha would have used, like first or original.

Both the internal and external are based on thought and thinking, and not on one's original non-conditioned nature or state. Outer or inner, there is no distinction if one is not paying attention to the conceptual world, to thoughts; all are one. Emptiness beyond dualistic thought, beyond existence and nonexistence, both and neither. It goes far beyond the conventional notion of emptiness or vacuity. It is not some “thing” to which we can cling. It is always here, never increasing or decreasing, but remaining as it is, as it was, and how it will be all the time. Circumstances cannot change the unconditioned original nature.

I should work as a translator! But then everyone does as we interpret what we read.

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by sky123

Wrong... again.


HHDL ' The Universe is a single ATOM '

He lives in India, not Japan or China.

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by sky123

you don't understand Buddhism, just mocking.....

Attacking me personally is not Buddhism. I know that. It is also against forum rules. But you do it all the time so I am used to it and don't mind. I pretty much expect it now.

[sky]

' A yojana, the Buddha said, is equivalent to: Four krosha, each of which was the length of One thousand arcs, each of which was the length of Four cubits, each of which was the length of Two spans, each of which was the length of Twelve phalanges of fingers, each of which was the length of Seven grains of barley, each of which was the length of Seven mustard seeds, each of which was the length of Seven particles of dust stirred up by a cow, each of which was the length of Seven specks of dust disturbed by a ram, each of which was the length of Seven specks of dust stirred up by a hare, each of which was the length of Seven specks of dust carried away by the wind, each of which was the length of Seven tiny specks of dust, each of which was the length of Seven minute specks of dust, each of which was the length of Seven particles of the first atoms. So here’s the neat part: According to Alex Bellos, it turns out the Buddha’s calculation got the size of an atom very close to right! This was, in fact, a pretty good estimate. Just say that a finger is 4 centimeters long. The Buddha’s “first atoms” are, therefore, 4 centimeters divided by 7 ten times, which is 0.04 meter x 7 to the minus 10 or 0.00000000001416 meter, which is more or less the size of a carbon atom.'




Lalitavistara Sutra.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Rain95

Attacking me personally is not Buddhism. I know that. It is also against forum rules. But you do it all the time so I am used to it and don't mind. I pretty much expect it now.

Attacking Buddhists teachings on a Thread about Buddhism is also against Forum rules....

[Rain95]

Understanding Buddhism is not intellectual. Really, to understand Buddhism is to understand yourself. To understand yourself means to be aware of what you are from moment to moment. That is Buddhism lived, which is the true meaning of "understanding Buddhism." Buddhism is the moment to moment awareness of our current state of being, this awareness allows us to transcend the self based on thought and thinking, to drop interpretation and judgement, and to manifest our true non-verbal, non-conditioned nature that is about what is here now, without any reference to the past or future. Without any interpretation or interpreter present.

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by sky123

Attacking Buddhists teachings on a Thread about Buddhism is also against Forum rules....

Did you attack Buddhist teachings? I will go back and look.

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by sky123

Wrong... again.


HHDL ' The Universe is a single ATOM '

The mind and life institute has lots of Videos of discussion between Buddhist Monks and Scientist who have discovered that Buddha's Teachings fit perfectly into modern day Scientific discoveries. Buddhism is compatible with Science......Buddha correctly describes the size of an atom....

Oh I see you are asserting discussion about modern physics and atoms and modern scientific discoveries is Buddhism. I've never seen these things discussed in Buddha's suttas. But if you want to say all of that is Buddhism and that Buddha correctly describes the size of an atom.... that's fine with me. People can believe anything they want.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Rain95

Oh I see you are asserting discussion about modern physics and atoms and modern scientific discoveries is Buddhism. I've never seen these things discussed in Buddha's suttas. But if you want to say all of that is Buddhism and that Buddha correctly describes the size of an atom.... that's fine with me. People can believe anything they want.

Her is a link you may find interesting.

https://shaolin.org/general/buddhism01.html

Buddhism and Science.....

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Rain95

You know what is really weird, is all of these words we are using like Energy, Atoms, Practice and even Primordial have their sources in Latin from around the 14th century. So basically Western language and meaning is being inserted into Buddhism by Western translators.

Like take the word Primordial. It sounds all mysterious but like all of these words, Buddha did not use it. You know what this esoteric sounding word means in Buddhism? It means the first or original. Like the "first buddha." But why do we write primordial Buddha and not just the first Buddha? Because it sounds fancier?

Then we use this Latin word Primordial to refer to our true nature. It makes it sound so "Buddhist" I suppose but then this word did not exist to early Buddhists. It would be great to learn Buddhism from Buddha in Buddha's language. Would probably be a much better and different teaching than we have now days.

It's a good point, as we have new words, they enter into translations, and the discourse alters each time. The popular online sites give maybe three interpreters at most, and then there's a bunch of 'anybodys' who say practically anything that springs to mind.



You're probably right as some words sound more mystical, and they are new words with different flavours of meaning to what was literally said. There's always an issue with translation where the cultural thought frame is not the same as Western framework, and today's social psychology is way different than it was back in the day. We don't even have the same framework of understanding, let alone conformity across the text.