God in Buddhism

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by janielee

They are not sects, they are traditions - all equally valid and wholesome in how they guide students towards realization and discovery and maturity. Each appeals to different personality types, but if authentic, they should be similar in realization.

Aversion to chanting and forms etc. is just another aversion. This perception, I feel from where I sit, is a little one sided and drier than my experience of Buddhist traditions.

There's a reason that all spiritual traditions including Sufism, Christianity etc. utilize chants and the like - because it takes one of oneself - and in that there is commonality.

JL

I personally have found chanting a mantra to be very effective in reducing mental activity to one uplifting thought and, from there,to eliminate that one thought to enter the stillness.

My teacher once instructed me on the value of rituals. For those who cannot enter easily into the stillness of the clear vision, rituals focus all the senses on the "divine" throughout the course of the ritual and can be very effective in elevating such people to a higher level of spiritual consciousness.

I was taught not to criticize the chanting and rituals of others.

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

Seems to me being a "spiritual teacher" is everyone's destiny. To mentor and guide those who are lacking in some awareness or understanding, but I must be what I want to teach in some very advanced way I think. To where I am not teaching or expressing what I know, but am instead, teaching or expressing what I am.

Wonderful point ! "Teaching" is simply "expressing what I AM".

[sky]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

Wonderful point ! "Teaching" is simply "expressing what I AM".

Then we have some who teach what they pretend to be

[sentient]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

My teacher once instructed me on the value of rituals. For those who cannot enter easily into the stillness of the clear vision, rituals focus all the senses on the "divine" throughout the course of the ritual and can be very effective in elevating such people to a higher level of spiritual consciousness.

There is that saying – “Don't put all your eggs into the same basket”.
But in order to elevate one’s consciousness onto a higher spiritual level – one has to integrate.
Don’t they call it an ‘integrated ego’ – when one doesn't contradict one's self at every turn? - heh.


I’m not much for rituals myself. But a ritual done in genuine devotion enables one to enter into “the zone” with the devotees.

It does sound like a contradiction that first one has to become an integrated ego – in order to enter into (one-pointed) devotion to de-centralize that ego hold, but it isn’t.

*

But of course, if there is no genuine spiritual dimension to devote to, then the relative dimension, the ego-centeredness is all there is and it can only mimic/pretend spirituality.

And this “assemblage-point-of-awareness” (Castaneda) compulsively needs to maintain, fortify and defend/secure its position. That is all ego centeredness ever does – that is its pattern, its blind bondage.

Which is where the Vajrayana 5 Buddha Families come in and nobody is excluded, left out - we all have our own ego-games in place.
https://www.tibetan-buddhist-art.com/5-buddha-families/

They are our personal styles of blind bondage – the spiritual dimension (when found) liberates us from.

*

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

I personally have found chanting a mantra to be very effective in reducing mental activity to one uplifting thought and, from there,to eliminate that one thought to enter the stillness.

My teacher once instructed me on the value of rituals. For those who cannot enter easily into the stillness of the clear vision, rituals focus all the senses on the "divine" throughout the course of the ritual and can be very effective in elevating such people to a higher level of spiritual consciousness.

I was taught not to criticize the chanting and rituals of others.

Yes, oneness.


Agree; thanks for your contributions.

JL

[Phaelyn]

Originally Posted by Gem

At my school, the principles of sila are the foundation for everything else,

Peacefulness is also the absence of conflict, or elements of harm, whether imagined or real. To not harm or be harmed, as the sole focus, or motivation in presence. So in each moment, be aware if harm or conflict in some form is present, directed at self, directed towards others, directed from others, and find an effective way to be that eliminates all of those.

I keep my attention off of my thought stream, so no conflict or harm is directed at myself, I allow others to be what they are, so no conflict or harm is directed at others, and I am simply aware of what is with no personal involvement, so no conflict or harm is directed from others.

[sentient]

So much has been posted about the 4 Noble Truths but not about the Two Truths:

There is unanimous agreement that Nāgārjuna (ca 150–250 CE) is the most important Buddhist philosopher after the historical Buddha himself and one of the most original and influential thinkers in the history of Indian philosophy. His philosophy of the “middle way” (madhyamaka) based around the central notion of “emptiness” (śūnyatā) influenced the Indian philosophical debate for a thousand years after his death; with the spread of Buddhism to Tibet, China, Japan and other Asian countries the writings of Nāgārjuna became an indispensable point of reference for their own philosophical inquiries. A specific reading of Nāgārjuna’s thought, called Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka, became the official philosophical position of Tibetan Buddhism which regards it as the pinnacle of philosophical sophistication up to the present day.

Nāgārjuna's point:
"The teachings of Buddha lie upon the two truths and you have to know these two truths to understand Buddhist teaching.
You need the conventional in order to point out the ultimate and you need the ultimate in order to attain liberation".

*

Buddhism being about understanding the nature of Reality ….
But once we understand the nature of Reality as the Two Truths, it changes what we take refuge in ….

*

[Gem]

Originally Posted by sentient

So much has been posted about the 4 Noble Truths but not about the Two Truths:

Nāgārjuna's point:
"The teachings of Buddha lie upon the two truths and you have to know these two truths to understand Buddhist teaching.
You need the conventional in order to point out the ultimate and you need the ultimate in order to attain liberation".

*

Buddhism being about understanding the nature of Reality ….
But once we understand the nature of Reality as the Two Truths, it changes what we take refuge in ….

*

Is that 'ultimate' and 'relative' truth?

[sentient]

^
You already made your dismissive position about the Two Truths clear:

Originally Posted by Gem

TBH I have never heard that before in Buddhist philosophy, and I honestly think the proliferation of Media discourse is just people trying to think of something more to say.

But now you have heard of it.

And it is not for me to convince you about the truthfulness of that statement/pointing, but for you to find out for yourself – by yourself ….. if it indeed is “what is”.

How would you go about finding that out?

*

The two Truths are not proliferation; they are well known in Buddhist circles.

JL