Teachings Of Buddha

[rockyysdt]

Rocky...it is only theoretical if you are not doing it. Once you do it you know.

Enlightenmemt-Awakening are the same reality, but people may argue over theories. From my experience Awakening is when you have the power and light to dissolve the bondage of mind-world. A low level description would be that the soul gets enough light that the prison of mind-body thoughts disappear in that light leading to higher states of bliss.

The only problem is that enlightenment is an 18th century word with its roots from 1,350 -1,400AD.

Early Buddhist texts never mention the word enlightenment but often refer to becoming "awakened".

When one translates the Sanskrit & Pali words, these equate to Awakening.

Also, I was unaware that Buddhism teaches of a soul or spirit, something which would be reincarnated if it existed.

Buddhism teaches of re birth (a condition which brings about re birth), but then is this moment to moment or does it involve many lives?

Edited April 23, 2012 by rockyysdt

[huli]

Rocky...it is only theoretical if you are not doing it. Once you do it you know.

Enlightenmemt-Awakening are the same reality, but people may argue over theories. From my experience Awakening is when you have the power and light to dissolve the bondage of mind-world. A low level description would be that the soul gets enough light that the prison of mind-body thoughts disappear in that light leading to higher states of bliss.

The only problem is that enlightenment is an 18th century word with its roots from 1,350 -1,400AD.

Early Buddhist texts never mention the word enlightenment but often refer to becoming "awakened".

When one translates the Sanskrit & Pali words, these equate to Awakening.

Also, I was unaware that Buddhism teaches of a soul or spirit, something which would be reincarnated if it existed.

Buddhism teaches of re birth (a condition which brings about re birth), but then is this moment to moment or does it involve many lives?

Dear Rocky,

In regards to your often-repeated statement that "Enlightenment" is a word which was never used for 1000 years, at least, after the Buddha died, I have two questions for you.

First, it is my understanding that language changes over time in the normal course of events, and different words assume different meanings along the way. The exact same sentiments would be described differently in different centuries, and also in different places. The words "awakened" and "enlightened" at this present time are very close. To awaken to transcendent truth or to be enlightened seem like the same thing to me. May I ask, since you make the point often enough, what is it exactly about the word "enlightened" that you object to?

Secondly, most people only ever have but a faint inkling to what the Buddha achieved, if that. If we follow his directions, what has come down to us anyway, we hope to make progress, but how many of us are qualified to say that we know what word is exactly appropriate to describe his achievement, and what is not? When you say the word "Enlightenment" is wrong, are you speaking from personal experience?

In my view, words are merely symbols of the real, and mean only what they mean to the people that say or hear them. To many people the word "enlightenment" serves a useful purpose pointing to the transcendent achievement of the Buddha. For a third party like yourself to parse the word, and then object to it, is, in my opinion, to fall into the error of arguing over semantics.

I don't have any problem with the word "Enlightenment", even if it is not terribly ancient, because it means the penultimate achievement of the Buddha, period.

Regards, Huli

[rockyysdt]

Rocky...it is only theoretical if you are not doing it. Once you do it you know.

Enlightenmemt-Awakening are the same reality, but people may argue over theories. From my experience Awakening is when you have the power and light to dissolve the bondage of mind-world. A low level description would be that the soul gets enough light that the prison of mind-body thoughts disappear in that light leading to higher states of bliss.

The only problem is that enlightenment is an 18th century word with its roots from 1,350 -1,400AD.

Early Buddhist texts never mention the word enlightenment but often refer to becoming "awakened".

When one translates the Sanskrit & Pali words, these equate to Awakening.

Also, I was unaware that Buddhism teaches of a soul or spirit, something which would be reincarnated if it existed.

Buddhism teaches of re birth (a condition which brings about re birth), but then is this moment to moment or does it involve many lives?

Dear Rocky,

In regards to your often-repeated statement that "Enlightenment" is a word which was never used for 1000 years, at least, after the Buddha died, I have two questions for you.

First, it is my understanding that language changes over time in the normal course of events, and different words assume different meanings along the way. The exact same sentiments would be described differently in different centuries, and also in different places. The words "awakened" and "enlightened" at this present time are very close. To awaken to transcendent truth or to be enlightened seem like the same thing to me. May I ask, since you make the point often enough, what is it exactly about the word "enlightened" that you object to?

Secondly, most people only ever have but a faint inkling to what the Buddha achieved, if that. If we follow his directions, what has come down to us anyway, we hope to make progress, but how many of us are qualified to say that we know what word is exactly appropriate to describe his achievement, and what is not? When you say the word "Enlightenment" is wrong, are you speaking from personal experience?

In my view, words are merely symbols of the real, and mean only what they mean to the people that say or hear them. To many people the word "enlightenment" serves a useful purpose pointing to the transcendent achievement of the Buddha. For a third party like yourself to parse the word, and then object to it, is, in my opinion, to fall into the error of arguing over semantics.

I don't have any problem with the word "Enlightenment", even if it is not terribly ancient, because it means the penultimate achievement of the Buddha, period.

Regards, Huli

Hi Huli.

Please don't take me as an expert, nor someone with first hand experience.

I, like most, depend on teachers (sangha), in order to learn of the dhamma, until practice can yield some fruit.

At this stage I view my self in dualistic terms.

The first, a heavily conditioned character, carrying much baggage in terms of delusion, greed, and aversion.

The second, a traveler with a slender hold on the four noble truths.

One of my conditioned characteristics is that I like cover all bases with any project I get involved with.

Indirectly this fits into the Buddhas direction:

"Do not believe a spiritual teaching just because:

1. it is repeatedly recited,

2. it is written in a scripture,

3. it was handed from guru to disciple,

4. everyone around you believes it,

5. it has supernatural qualities,

6. it fits my beliefs anyway,

7. it sounds rational to me,

8. it is taught by a respectable person,

9. it was said to be the truth by the teacher,

10. one must defend it or fight for it.

But when you know for yourselves

This leads me to be completely open to two possibilities regarding the Buddhas message and teachings:

Either

We recycle via re birth, from life to life, endlessly due to karmic forces, with endless suffering until the cycle of re birth is extinguished through enlightenment, after which we end up in Nirvana or.

The Buddha was teaching a system by which travelers could free themselves from the cycle of suffering (moment to moment) by practicing the eightfold path, which ultimately leads to awakening, a compassionate state free of delusion, greed, and aversion.

Until each of us has actual experience through practice, the Buddhas very teaching directs us to remain open.

Anything else is a clinging or an attachment which can feed the ego.

On the one hand we have the Pali Canon with many Suttas, some illustrating the metaphysical, such as recounting many past lives, thirty one relms of existence, and non self hinting at a soul/spirit or something enduring (otherwise what becomes enlightened).

Whilst on the other hand we have academics, such as John Peacock, with 25 years experience as a Monk in the Theravadan tradition who, through his studies in early Buddhist texts and specialisation in Pali and Sanskrit languages, is telling us that much of the Buddhist translations are incorrect, not least of all, that Theravada as we know it today is based on Bhuddagosa's interpretations, in the 5th century. Bhuddagosa, by his own admission, embarked on these works in order to gain merit so he could be re born at the same time as the Buddha's next appearance. He basically constructed a religion out of the material at hand.

John Peacock, on the other hand, paints a picture of a man who was attempting to wake people up from their delusion (deeply affected by Brahman religion amongst others) as well as greed and aversion.

John, more succinctly can elaborate on the difference between the meanings of Awakening vs Enlightenment and other translations.

More importantly, are we as followers of the Buddha going to dedicate our entire lives on what Buddhagosa in the 5th century AD, believed the Buddha was telling us or should we travel with open minds?

Why were we attracted to Buddhism in the first place?

Are we so dedicated to what we believe Buddhism means that anything challenging it might amount to undermining the bedrock on which we have structured our lives?

Should we embrace the eightfold path with open minds, until first hand experience removes the dust from our eyes, or will we blindly follow doctrine and belief because it is written?

From where I sit, one may conceivably practice for most of ones life before yielding first hand experience.

It would be very sad to expend ones life following the wrong path.

In summary, all I'm saying is, follow the eightfold path towards personal experience, but keep an open mind about beliefs until we know the answer first hand.

I throw up the alternatives to get people thinking and to challenge possible attachments.

Edited April 23, 2012 by rockyysdt

[huli]

Rocky...it is only theoretical if you are not doing it. Once you do it you know.

Enlightenmemt-Awakening are the same reality, but people may argue over theories. From my experience Awakening is when you have the power and light to dissolve the bondage of mind-world. A low level description would be that the soul gets enough light that the prison of mind-body thoughts disappear in that light leading to higher states of bliss.

The only problem is that enlightenment is an 18th century word with its roots from 1,350 -1,400AD.

Early Buddhist texts never mention the word enlightenment but often refer to becoming "awakened".

When one translates the Sanskrit & Pali words, these equate to Awakening.

Also, I was unaware that Buddhism teaches of a soul or spirit, something which would be reincarnated if it existed.

Buddhism teaches of re birth (a condition which brings about re birth), but then is this moment to moment or does it involve many lives?

Dear Rocky,

In regards to your often-repeated statement that "Enlightenment" is a word which was never used for 1000 years, at least, after the Buddha died, I have two questions for you.

First, it is my understanding that language changes over time in the normal course of events, and different words assume different meanings along the way. The exact same sentiments would be described differently in different centuries, and also in different places. The words "awakened" and "enlightened" at this present time are very close. To awaken to transcendent truth or to be enlightened seem like the same thing to me. May I ask, since you make the point often enough, what is it exactly about the word "enlightened" that you object to?

Secondly, most people only ever have but a faint inkling to what the Buddha achieved, if that. If we follow his directions, what has come down to us anyway, we hope to make progress, but how many of us are qualified to say that we know what word is exactly appropriate to describe his achievement, and what is not? When you say the word "Enlightenment" is wrong, are you speaking from personal experience?

In my view, words are merely symbols of the real, and mean only what they mean to the people that say or hear them. To many people the word "enlightenment" serves a useful purpose pointing to the transcendent achievement of the Buddha. For a third party like yourself to parse the word, and then object to it, is, in my opinion, to fall into the error of arguing over semantics.

I don't have any problem with the word "Enlightenment", even if it is not terribly ancient, because it means the penultimate achievement of the Buddha, period.

Regards, Huli

Hi Huli.

Please don't take me as an expert, nor someone with first hand experience.

I, like most, depend on teachers (sangha), in order to learn of the dhamma, until practice can yield some fruit.

At this stage I view my self in dualistic terms.

The first, a heavily conditioned character, carrying much baggage in terms of delusion, greed, and aversion.

The second, a traveler with a slender hold on the four noble truths.

One of my conditioned characteristics is that I like cover all bases with any project I get involved with.

Indirectly this fits into the Buddhas direction:

"Do not believe a spiritual teaching just because:

1. it is repeatedly recited,

2. it is written in a scripture,

3. it was handed from guru to disciple,

4. everyone around you believes it,

5. it has supernatural qualities,

6. it fits my beliefs anyway,

7. it sounds rational to me,

8. it is taught by a respectable person,

9. it was said to be the truth by the teacher,

10. one must defend it or fight for it.

But when you know for yourselves

This leads me to be completely open to two possibilities regarding the Buddhas message and teachings:

Either

We recycle via re birth, from life to life, endlessly due to karmic forces, with endless suffering until the cycle of re birth is extinguished through enlightenment, after which we end up in Nirvana or.

The Buddha was teaching a system by which travelers could free themselves from the cycle of suffering (moment to moment) by practicing the eightfold path, which ultimately leads to awakening, a compassionate state free of delusion, greed, and aversion.

Until each of us has actual experience through practice, the Buddhas very teaching directs us to remain open.

Anything else is a clinging or an attachment which can feed the ego.

On the one hand we have the Pali Canon with many Suttas, some illustrating the metaphysical, such as recounting many past lives, thirty one relms of existence, and non self hinting at a soul/spirit or something enduring (otherwise what becomes enlightened).

Whilst on the other hand we have academics, such as John Peacock, with 25 years experience as a Monk in the Theravadan tradition who, through his studies in early Buddhist texts and specialisation in Pali and Sanskrit languages, is telling us that much of the Buddhist translations are incorrect, not least of all, that Theravada as we know it today is based on Bhuddagosa's interpretations, in the 5th century. Bhuddagosa, by his own admission, embarked on these works in order to gain merit so he could be re born at the same time as the Buddha's next appearance. He basically constructed a religion out of the material at hand.

John Peacock, on the other hand, paints a picture of a man who was attempting to wake people up from their delusion (deeply affected by Brahman religion amongst others) as well as greed and aversion.

John, more succinctly can elaborate on the difference between the meanings of Awakening vs Enlightenment and other translations.

More importantly, are we as followers of the Buddha going to dedicate our entire lives on what Buddhagosa in the 5th century AD, believed the Buddha was telling us or should we travel with open minds?

Why were we attracted to Buddhism in the first place?

Are we so dedicated to what we believe Buddhism means that anything challenging it might amount to undermining the bedrock on which we have structured our lives?

Should we embrace the eightfold path with open minds, until first hand experience removes the dust from our eyes, or will we blindly follow doctrine and belief because it is written?

From where I sit, one may conceivably practice for most of ones life before yielding first hand experience.

It would be very sad to expend ones life following the wrong path.

In summary, all I'm saying is, follow the eightfold path towards personal experience, but keep an open mind about beliefs until we know the answer first hand.

I throw up the alternatives to get people thinking and to challenge possible attachments.

Hi back at you, Rocky

I don't think a person needs to be Awakened (or Enlightened) to express a view. Nor do I think expressing a view need be an attachment to that view, but it could be.

If your purpose in knocking the word "Enlightened" was to "get people thinking", it certainly did that for me, hence my post. However, when I asked you about your problem with this word in this Buddhist Forum, you only referred me to John Peacock, and I thought you should have manned up and explained your words in response to my direct question. I mean, I just asked, what is your problem with the term "Enlightenment"?

If I may say so, I find Buddhaghosa and John Peacock to have a lot in common. Both are unusually deep thinkers who produced commentaries on Buddhism that appeal to many people, and have followers. I don't see how either is starting a new religion or anything like that. It's not like the sutras went away. True, Theravadins have incredible respect for Buddaghosa's work regarding it as the ultimate Commentary, but you don't see his golden image in the wats, do you?

I have a copy of Buddaghosa's Path of Purification and I can tell you, it is extremely difficult to understand. However, it is organized based on Buddha's teachings, and not entirely new ground. It is certainly not something that you or I would base our lives on, it's too detailed, dry, and erudite, something only a very special monk could begin to fathom.

John Peacock seems to have lead an exemplary life and have some very interesting views to consider. However, as you quoted Buddha, above, we shouldn't believe him just because he is respected, etc, etc. I say this because you seem to see him as an authority.

If I am not mistaken, Buddhadassa pretty much came up with the idea of moment to moment rebirth in the 1960's, and it was a revolutionary idea in it's time. It makes sense to me, but, who knows, maybe there are both kinds of rebirth. I don't think that settling this issue is fundamentally necessary to benefiting from Buddha's core teachings.

Buddha's analogy of the fire going out is very interesting in trying to understand if there is a soul or not.

Thank you for your interesting comments, and the opportunity for dialogue.

Huli

[rockyysdt]

Dear Rocky,

In regards to your often-repeated statement that "Enlightenment" is a word which was never used for 1000 years, at least, after the Buddha died, I have two questions for you.

First, it is my understanding that language changes over time in the normal course of events, and different words assume different meanings along the way. The exact same sentiments would be described differently in different centuries, and also in different places. The words "awakened" and "enlightened" at this present time are very close. To awaken to transcendent truth or to be enlightened seem like the same thing to me. May I ask, since you make the point often enough, what is it exactly about the word "enlightened" that you object to?

Hi Huli.

According to John Peacock the root of the word "Awakening" is from the Sanskrit word 'Bhodi, meaning to wake.

He goes on to say that "awakening" is a process, not a big bang thing.

An ongoing process with no end, as there is no place to end up.

Enlightenment is not only an 18th century word with its roots circa 1,350 - 1,400AD it connotes a big bang experience rather than a gradual (stages) awakening.

Secondly, most people only ever have but a faint inkling to what the Buddha achieved, if that. If we follow his directions, what has come down to us anyway, we hope to make progress, but how many of us are qualified to say that we know what word is exactly appropriate to describe his achievement, and what is not? When you say the word "Enlightenment" is wrong, are you speaking from personal experience?

In my view, words are merely symbols of the real, and mean only what they mean to the people that say or hear them. To many people the word "enlightenment" serves a useful purpose pointing to the transcendent achievement of the Buddha. For a third party like yourself to parse the word, and then object to it, is, in my opinion, to fall into the error of arguing over semantics.

I don't have any problem with the word "Enlightenment", even if it is not terribly ancient, because it means the penultimate achievement of the Buddha, period.

Regards, Huli

John Peacock indicates that interpretation is vital when investigating what the Bhudda was conveying.

I suspect most who follow Buddhism have no idea that they are following the interpretations of a man who lived 1,000 years after the life of the Bhudda.

John has unearthed the very earliest texts, attributed to the Buddha, which all serious Bhuddists should study to learn for themselves.

He has found a gold mine of material in the fifth Nikya which was largely overlooked by later traditions including Theravada (a fifth century appellation).

Although there maybe comfort in using modern terms, John has found that there can be profound differences in the teachings when you investigate.

There are not only misinterpretations both subtle and profound, but also include taking things out of context.

I'm finding that our practice, given resource, should include personal study and investigation of original texts rather than rely on the interpretations of Bhuddagosa or others who fleshed out Mahayana.

We are all in danger of dedicating our lives to the opposite of what the Bhudda may have been teaching.

The little amount of study I've devoted has shown me a sea change on what the four noble truths is all about.

Naturally I travel with an open mind but now l know that practicing the eight fold path is all important, but living my life with a guaranteed belief that I will regenerate (re birth) into future lives could end up being a big mistake.

Edited April 24, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

If I am not mistaken, Buddhadassa pretty much came up with the idea of moment to moment rebirth in the 1960's, and it was a revolutionary idea in it's time. It makes sense to me, but, who knows, maybe there are both kinds of rebirth. I don't think that settling this issue is fundamentally necessary to benefiting from Buddha's core teachings.

Buddha's analogy of the fire going out is very interesting in trying to understand if there is a soul or not.

Thank you for your interesting comments, and the opportunity for dialogue.

Huli

John speaks of the Buddha's biography as more of a hagiography.

The first biography written of the Buddha was 500 years after his death and on the cusp of Mahayana and reads more like mythology or the importance of the Buddha and not of the actual man.

There is very little actual biographical material written, but if you read through the Sutta of the Noble Search you'll find bits and pieces of actual biographical writing.

These reflect a distinct personality of a person making jokes and puns between words found in Sanskrit and their derivatives in Pali where he makes points.

He engages in a deep level of ethical and social critique of his society.

He deals with the stratification of society in which people considered themselves as noble by birth with an intractable idea of purity.

Of course being Brahman was nothing to do with birth, but by ones actions or what they did.

Much of his dialogues diminish the metaphysical (delusion) and points towards the real.

In the Arya Sacca (Noble) Truth his joke is directed at the Brahmans whose immutable truth is rooted in the Vedas in which Brahmans (class) are born purer (metaphysical) by reference to Dhuka as being their immutable truth (real) and that this is their nobility.

The nobility of what you do and not what you are born into.

Buddhagosa on the other hand, took the Buddhas words as literal and interprets his words out of context.

His literal interpretations resulted in a religion.

This is just one example of many where the Buddha levers off Brahminical beliefs of the time and overlays his works.

He also demotes Gods (Devas), by including them in Samsara (ridicule).

Interestingly Pra Ajarn Buddhadasa was acknowledged as being an Arahant.

Edited April 24, 2012 by rockyysdt

[huli]

The little amount of study I've devoted has shown me a sea change on what the four noble truths is all about.

Yo Rocky,

The 4 Noble Truths are the core beliefs in Buddhism of any tradition, Theravada, Mahayana, or Tibetan, and it surprises me to read that John Peacock has some newer and different understanding of them.

If you wouldn't mind, would you elaborate on this specifically, what do you mean by John Peacock showing you "a sea change on what the Noble Truths are all about"?

Huli

[rockyysdt]

The little amount of study I've devoted has shown me a sea change on what the four noble truths is all about.

Yo Rocky,

The 4 Noble Truths are the core beliefs in Buddhism of any tradition, Theravada, Mahayana, or Tibetan, and it surprises me to read that John Peacock has some newer and different understanding of them.

If you wouldn't mind, would you elaborate on this specifically, what do you mean by John Peacock showing you "a sea change on what the Noble Truths are all about"?

Huli

Mainly that Buddhagosa takes things literally whilst the original texts suggest ridicule of things metaphysical and pointing the way to the real.

If you're interested in learning more about the early Buddha, rather than reading second hand knowledge through my interpretations I can link you to 8 lectures by John Peacock.

At the very least it can either reaffirm what you already believe in or get your to start thinking about "making your way" through life.

Don't get me wrong.

I'm still opened minded, but to dismiss John Peacock might be close minded on my part.

After all, what skills does Buddhagosa have over John?

Both are removed from the Buddha himself, but Buddhagosa teaches something we all want to hear (immortality).

[huli]

The little amount of study I've devoted has shown me a sea change on what the four noble truths is all about.

Yo Rocky,

The 4 Noble Truths are the core beliefs in Buddhism of any tradition, Theravada, Mahayana, or Tibetan, and it surprises me to read that John Peacock has some newer and different understanding of them.

If you wouldn't mind, would you elaborate on this specifically, what do you mean by John Peacock showing you "a sea change on what the Noble Truths are all about"?

Huli

Mainly that Buddhagosa takes things literally whilst the original texts suggest ridicule of things metaphysical and pointing the way to the real.

If you're interested in learning more about the early Buddha, rather than reading second hand knowledge through my interpretations I can link you to 8 lectures by John Peacock.

At the very least it can either reaffirm what you already believe in or get your to start thinking about "making your way" through life.

Don't get me wrong.

I'm still opened minded, but to dismiss John Peacock might be close minded on my part.

After all, what skills does Buddhagosa have over John?

Both are removed from the Buddha himself, but Buddhagosa teaches something we all want to hear (immortality).

Rocky,

If you don't want to answer my simple and direct question, that is your prerogative, of course. If you don't answer this time, I will assume that. You seem to have missed my question:

***** If you wouldn't mind, would you elaborate on this specifically, what do you mean by John Peacock showing you "a sea change on what the Noble Truths are all about"?

I just don't understand how the Noble Truths could re-explained differently than they are commonly understood.

I also do not want to listen to Mr. Peacock's lectures to get this answer. I am asking what you mean.

Respectfully,

Huli

[rockyysdt]

Rocky,

If you don't want to answer my simple and direct question, that is your prerogative, of course. If you don't answer this time, I will assume that. You seem to have missed my question:

***** If you wouldn't mind, would you elaborate on this specifically, what do you mean by John Peacock showing you "a sea change on what the Noble Truths are all about"?

I just don't understand how the Noble Truths could re-explained differently than they are commonly understood.

I also do not want to listen to Mr. Peacock's lectures to get this answer. I am asking what you mean.

Respectfully,

Huli

Posting on a forum can be very two dimensional and a difficult medium to conduct a discussion.

Sorry if you feel that I hadn't answered your question directly as I thought I had.

The Four Noble Truths as I see them are multi layered.

From their specific titles, they can be expanded to ever increasing detail and level.

The high level doesn't change.

The area which I view as a sea change as explained earlier was:

1. A religion with belief in multiple relms of existence, including Deva (God), and hungry Ghost relms, a cycle of Re Birth into endless lives as a consequence of Kharma, in which we suffer (Dhuka), until this is extinguished by becoming enlightened into a permanent metaphysical existence or state called Nibhanna through successful practice of the eightfold path.

vs:

2. The cessation of Dhuka, in this life, through practicing the eightfold path, which leads to freedom from attachment to greed, aversion and delusion, eliminating the ego and allowing us to live compassionate lives by seeing life as it really is, with freedom from craving generated from the sensory association of the six senses, in this life.

The sea change is "the offer of Immortality through Re Birth or through Nibhanna - Enlightenment" vs "Living our real lives free from Greed, Aversion & Delusion in this lifetime, where Re Birth is a moment to moment event and there is no soul inside".

Which can be summarized even further to:

Nibhanna (metaphysical) vs Awakened (real).

or Permanent vs Impermanent.

Or the Buddha no longer experiences Re Birth into ongoing lives as he is now Enlightened vs the Buddha was a Wise and Noble Man who learned how to free himself from Greed Aversion & Delusion in his lifetime but has now passed away.

Would you agree that these two opposing scenarios are a sea change view or interpretation?

John Peacock indicates that straying into the metaphysical is like building a staircase to a home, over a crossroad but with no home around it.

The staircase basically leads no where.

Edited April 25, 2012 by rockyysdt

[huli]

Rocky,

If you don't want to answer my simple and direct question, that is your prerogative, of course. If you don't answer this time, I will assume that. You seem to have missed my question:

***** If you wouldn't mind, would you elaborate on this specifically, what do you mean by John Peacock showing you "a sea change on what the Noble Truths are all about"?

I just don't understand how the Noble Truths could re-explained differently than they are commonly understood.

I also do not want to listen to Mr. Peacock's lectures to get this answer. I am asking what you mean.

Respectfully,

Huli

Posting on a forum can be very two dimensional and a difficult medium to conduct a discussion.

Sorry if you feel that I hadn't answered your question directly as I thought I had.

The Four Noble Truths as I see them are multi layered.

From their specific titles, they can be expanded to ever increasing detail and level.

The high level doesn't change.

The area which I view as a sea change as explained earlier was:

1. A religion with belief in multiple relms of existence, including Deva (God), and hungry Ghost relms, a cycle of Re Birth into endless lives as a consequence of Kharma, in which we suffer (Dhuka), until this is extinguished by becoming enlightened into a permanent metaphysical existence or state called Nibhanna through successful practice of the eightfold path.

vs:

2. The cessation of Dhuka, in this life, through practicing the eightfold path, which leads to freedom from attachment to greed, aversion and delusion, eliminating the ego and allowing us to live compassionate lives by seeing life as it really is, with freedom from craving generated from the sensory association of the six senses, in this life.

The sea change is "the offer of Immortality through Re Birth or through Nibhanna - Enlightenment" vs "Living our real lives free from Greed, Aversion & Delusion in this lifetime, where Re Birth is a moment to moment event and there is no soul inside".

Which can be summarized even further to:

Nibhanna (metaphysical) vs Awakened (real).

or Permanent vs Impermanent.

Or the Buddha no longer experiences Re Birth into ongoing lives as he is now Enlightened vs the Buddha was a Wise and Noble Man who learned how to free himself from Greed Aversion & Delusion in his lifetime but has now passed away.

Would you agree that these two opposing scenarios are a sea change view or interpretation?

John Peacock indicates that straying into the metaphysical is like building a staircase to a home, over a crossroad but with no home around it.

The staircase basically leads no where.

Hi Rocky,

I think you have explained well two sides of an important facet of Buddhism, and thank you for taking your time. I myself lean heavily towards the explanation you gave in the 2nd area, above, as you and John Peacock do also I gather.

I will add that, however, in my view, the Noble Truths, per se, are the same no matter what side of this issue a person is on. Understanding and accepting the existence of dukkha, the cause of dukkha, the possibility of overcoming dukkha, and the 8-Fold Path to do so, it all applies whether you envision the goal as this life perfected, or in some future life.

Probably if we follow the 8-Fold Path and especially meditate well, we would get insight into all this, and this seeming dilemma wouldn't seem so important.

Got some good points there, and I really do appreciate you responding to my question.

Sincerely,

Huli

[Jawnie]

Theravadins believe that a specific set of sutras comprise the entire and authentic teachings of the Buddha. Anything beyond those, such as Mahayana and Vajrayana sutras are not "original" they say. The Mahayanist and Vajrayanist say that the Buddha did in fact teach beyond what Theravadins accept they just were not widely circulated and were somewhat secret because they could be easily misconstrued, so say the Maha-Vajrayanists.

Subsequent to the Buddha was the Indian master Padmasambhava who disseminated the tantric portion of Buddhist teachings. These include an extremely evolved and sophisticated world view that is vastly beyond that propounded in the Theravadin sutras. Padmasambhava's teachings also included many, many of the rituals and practices common in the Tibetan form of Buddhism, especially the wide variety of mantras. Tibetans believe that Padmasambhava was the following reincarnation of the Buddha, an idea rejected by Theravadins.

The Tibetan tradition also claims additional, indigenous texts to be on the same level as sutra, ie., are authentic teachings leading to enlightenment. These were produced by a series of enlightened masters who have appeared over the centuries. Tibetans don't claim these masters are Buddhas but do claim that their teaching, rituals, and practices lead the the same enlightenment propounded by the Buddha. This is something Theravadins reject also.

Whereas Theravadins believe the 'lineage' of sacred sutras began and ended with the Buddha, Mahayana and Vajrayana followers believe masters appearing both before and after the Buddha promulgated teachings which will lead the practitioner to enlightenment. They even say such beings are alive today, with HH Dalai Lama and HH Karmapa being the primary examples, but there a number of others.

[rockyysdt]

Theravadins believe that a specific set of sutras comprise the entire and authentic teachings of the Buddha. Anything beyond those, such as Mahayana and Vajrayana sutras are not "original" they say. The Mahayanist and Vajrayanist say that the Buddha did in fact teach beyond what Theravadins accept they just were not widely circulated and were somewhat secret because they could be easily misconstrued, so say the Maha-Vajrayanists.

Subsequent to the Buddha was the Indian master Padmasambhava who disseminated the tantric portion of Buddhist teachings. These include an extremely evolved and sophisticated world view that is vastly beyond that propounded in the Theravadin sutras. Padmasambhava's teachings also included many, many of the rituals and practices common in the Tibetan form of Buddhism, especially the wide variety of mantras. Tibetans believe that Padmasambhava was the following reincarnation of the Buddha, an idea rejected by Theravadins.

The Tibetan tradition also claims additional, indigenous texts to be on the same level as sutra, ie., are authentic teachings leading to enlightenment. These were produced by a series of enlightened masters who have appeared over the centuries. Tibetans don't claim these masters are Buddhas but do claim that their teaching, rituals, and practices lead the the same enlightenment propounded by the Buddha. This is something Theravadins reject also.

Whereas Theravadins believe the 'lineage' of sacred sutras began and ended with the Buddha, Mahayana and Vajrayana followers believe masters appearing both before and after the Buddha promulgated teachings which will lead the practitioner to enlightenment. They even say such beings are alive today, with HH Dalai Lama and HH Karmapa being the primary examples, but there a number of others.

Hi Jawnie.

I don't know a lot about Mahayana and Vajrayana, other than, as with Theravada, they all came well after the Buddha and well after the early works of the Buddha.

John Peacock, the Buddhist scholar, said that to learn more accurately what the Buddha was teaching, you must go back to the original/early works.

On the subject of ritual, during the time of the Buddha, John Peacock paints a picture in India of a society governed by religion and steeped in ritual.

Most rituals involved fire, and often involved sacrifice of some kind or other.

Rituals were performed in order to keep the Gods happy.

Sankara (Pali), or Sanskara (Sanskrit) was a ritual or a habit.

Do Sanskara well (do ritual well) and the Gods would be happy, good Kharma.

Do Sanskara badly or not at all and the Gods may not be so kappy, bad Kharma

This was engaging in Sanskara.

The Buddha leveraged off this by replacing Gods with Dhuka.

Live a good life is associated with good Kharma.

Live your life badly is associated with bad Kharma.

Rituals, at the time of the Buddha were linked with appeasing the Gods, and cleansing ones soul in order to be elevated up the classes.

Rituals were associated with the metaphysical.

The Buddha punned this system by using its model to promote cessation of Dhuka by living well and performing your rituals well (eightfold path), which is in the real world.

The Buddha packaged his teachings in a way which was relevant to the society he lived in.

Edited April 26, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Jawnie]

Theravadins believe that a specific set of sutras comprise the entire and authentic teachings of the Buddha. Anything beyond those, such as Mahayana and Vajrayana sutras are not "original" they say. The Mahayanist and Vajrayanist say that the Buddha did in fact teach beyond what Theravadins accept they just were not widely circulated and were somewhat secret because they could be easily misconstrued, so say the Maha-Vajrayanists.

Subsequent to the Buddha was the Indian master Padmasambhava who disseminated the tantric portion of Buddhist teachings. These include an extremely evolved and sophisticated world view that is vastly beyond that propounded in the Theravadin sutras. Padmasambhava's teachings also included many, many of the rituals and practices common in the Tibetan form of Buddhism, especially the wide variety of mantras. Tibetans believe that Padmasambhava was the following reincarnation of the Buddha, an idea rejected by Theravadins.

The Tibetan tradition also claims additional, indigenous texts to be on the same level as sutra, ie., are authentic teachings leading to enlightenment. These were produced by a series of enlightened masters who have appeared over the centuries. Tibetans don't claim these masters are Buddhas but do claim that their teaching, rituals, and practices lead the the same enlightenment propounded by the Buddha. This is something Theravadins reject also.

Whereas Theravadins believe the 'lineage' of sacred sutras began and ended with the Buddha, Mahayana and Vajrayana followers believe masters appearing both before and after the Buddha promulgated teachings which will lead the practitioner to enlightenment. They even say such beings are alive today, with HH Dalai Lama and HH Karmapa being the primary examples, but there a number of others.

Hi Jawnie.

I don't know a lot about Mahayana and Vajrayana, other than, as with Theravada, they all came well after the Buddha and well after the early works of the Buddha.

John Peacock, the Buddhist scholar, said that to learn more accurately what the Buddha was teaching, you must go back to the original/early works.

On the subject of ritual, during the time of the Buddha, John Peacock paints a picture in India of a society governed by religion and steeped in ritual.

Most rituals involved fire, and often involved sacrifice of some kind or other.

Rituals were performed in order to keep the Gods happy.

Sankara (Pali), or Sanskara (Sanskrit) was a ritual or a habit.

Do Sanskara well (do ritual well) and the Gods would be happy, good Kharma.

Do Sanskara badly or not at all and the Gods may not be so kappy, bad Kharma

This was engaging in Sanskara.

The Buddha leveraged off this by replacing Gods with Dhuka.

Live a good life is associated with good Kharma.

Live your life badly is associated with bad Kharma.

Rituals, at the time of the Buddha were linked with appeasing the Gods, and cleansing ones soul in order to be elevated up the classes.

Rituals were associated with the metaphysical.

The Buddha punned this system by using its model to promote cessation of Dhuka by living well and performing your rituals well (eightfold path), which is in the real world.

The Buddha packaged his teachings in a way which was relevant to the society he lived in.

This is the Theravadin view, which Theravadins feel is complete and therefore exclude Mahayana and Vajrayana view points. Mahayana and Vajrayana practitioners don't have these issues because their practice includes Theravada: refuge, the Four Noble Truths, foundations of mindfulness, and the traditional set of sutras, etc.

With regard to rituals, your understanding of them is in significant need of updating. The rituals are skillful means providing practitioners with more rapid methods for accumulating of merit and wisdom.

[rockyysdt]

This is the Theravadin view, which Theravadins feel is complete and therefore exclude Mahayana and Vajrayana view points. Mahayana and Vajrayana practitioners don't have these issues because their practice includes Theravada: refuge, the Four Noble Truths, foundations of mindfulness, and the traditional set of sutras, etc.

With regard to rituals, your understanding of them is in significant need of updating. The rituals are skillful means providing practitioners with more rapid methods for accumulating of merit and wisdom.

Thanks Jawnie.

Can you give me specific examples of rituals which allow the accumulation of merit and wisdom?

[fabianfred]

Chanting?

[camerata]

According to wikipedia that religion started in around 1200 by a Sro Lankin king and the beliefs are based on Buddhagosha's 650 AD(approx) book Path to Purity. Buddhagosha admits himself that his book, and thus the ideas presented are written to gain merit and are not a path anywhere. He concludes that gaining merit in this way, he hopes to be reborn with the next Buddha and be enlightened by that Buddha.

Very unlikely. Buddhaghosa was not the bogeyman of Buddhism that some are making him out to be. He didn't compose, compile, cobble together or otherwise change the Pali Canon. He was simply a monk-scholar who wrote commentaries on the canon which came to be the orthodox way of interpreting the Canon. He wrote the Path to Purification (a distillation of the teachings) in Pali, and ended with the words: "This Path of Purification was made by the elder who is ... an ornament in the lineage of the elders who dwell in the Great Monastery and who are shining lights in the lineage of elders with unblemished enlightenment ..." indicating that he was himself enlightened. The (contradictory) postscript about him doing it to make merit only exists in Sinhalese versions, and was therefore likely tacked on by someone else.

Depending on one's definition of "religion," Buddhism was probably both a way of life and a religion from the day the Buddha died. The Theravada texts might not all be the oldest texts available, but they are still pretty close to pre-sectarian Buddhism and they are the only complete canon extant. As Richard Gombrich says, "some of these texts must be our oldest evidence for Buddhism." He also points out that many of the Buddha's allusions can only be traced in the Pali versions of surviving texts, making them invaluable as evidence.

[camerata]

According to John Peacock the root of the word "Awakening" is from the Sanskrit word 'Bhodi, meaning to wake.

He goes on to say that "awakening" is a process, not a big bang thing.

An ongoing process with no end, as there is no place to end up.

Based on what? Nibbana, an attainment, is the end as far as Theravada is concerned. In the Pali Canon (not to mention Cha'an and Zen texts) awakening is portrayed as a sudden event. Typically, a person gradually becomes "ripe" for awakening in a process of practice, but the actual awakening (any of the four stages of enlightenment) is a sudden event. The Buddha himself attained nibbana in one night. Kondanna attained one of the lower levels during the Buddha's first sermon. Sariputta attained one particular level after hearing a gatha.

Enlightenment is not only an 18th century word with its roots circa 1,350 - 1,400AD it connotes a big bang experience rather than a gradual (stages) awakening.

The 18th century "Enlightenment" describes a process of gradual intellectual realization, not a big bang. As such it isn't an ideal substitute for awakening, but I don't think it matters much. I think it is popular because it can easily be used for any stage of Theravada or Mahayana awakening, and it has a religious or philosophical feel to it that "awakened" doesn't.

[hookedondhamma]

Phra Ajaahns Luang Pu Sao, Mun, and the rest of their disciples (along with other 'accomplished' monks of the present day). Never knew of Mr. Peacock before this, but then again the afore-mentioned monks were accustomed to the 'teachings of the elders' already. Then there was also Ajaahn Chah who never crossed over to Therevada but remained Mahayana.

Perhaps I feel a little differently because I've lived at the temples of Luang Pu Ton, Kanti, S., Samut, and Lee (though his teachings live on) - you see their actions, hear their words, and feel their presence - and know they're on a whole 'nother level.

Luang Pu Ton once told me the only thing I needed to worry about was my breath. Too many questions. One simple answer.

Please don't mis-understand. Questions are wonderful, something we are very skilled at executing in the West. But sometimes it's ok to take a break, and try something out.

[Xangsamhua]

Then there was also Ajaahn Chah who never crossed over to Therevada but remained Mahayana.

You mean Ajarn Chah didn't cross over from Mahanikaya to Dhammayut?

[hookedondhamma]

Then there was also Ajaahn Chah who never crossed over to Therevada but remained Mahayana.

You mean Ajarn Chah didn't cross over from Mahanikaya to Dhammayut?

Yep, thanks for that :-)

[Jawnie]

This is the Theravadin view, which Theravadins feel is complete and therefore exclude Mahayana and Vajrayana view points. Mahayana and Vajrayana practitioners don't have these issues because their practice includes Theravada: refuge, the Four Noble Truths, foundations of mindfulness, and the traditional set of sutras, etc.

With regard to rituals, your understanding of them is in significant need of updating. The rituals are skillful means providing practitioners with more rapid methods for accumulating of merit and wisdom.

Thanks Jawnie.

Can you give me specific examples of rituals which allow the accumulation of merit and wisdom?

For 'beginners', there is a standard set of personal rituals one performs: prostrations combined with the Refuge prayer (two separate practices done at the same time); the Mandala Offering; Vajrasattva recitation; and Guru Yoga. Each, except for Guru Yoga is repeating 100,000 times; for Guru Yoga the accompanying mantra is recited one million times. All of them include a fairly complex visualization to be held during the session.

Each of this generate merit which is dedicated to all sentient beings at the conclusion of each session. Life release generates merit.

[rockyysdt]

The 18th century "Enlightenment" describes a process of gradual intellectual realization, not a big bang. As such it isn't an ideal substitute for awakening, but I don't think it matters much. I think it is popular because it can easily be used for any stage of Theravada or Mahayana awakening, and it has a religious or philosophical feel to it that "awakened" doesn't.

That's the very point John Peacock was making.

He indicated that the Buddha was teaching a practice to "make your way" through life and not a religion or path to the metaphysical.

Religion connotes the metaphysical, whilst "awakening" describes the result from the complete weaving and interaction of all aspects of the eightfold path.

Buddhagosa, with his conditioned mind, added a religious flavour to his works/interpretations.

The Western word Monk brings an image of a holy man, but Bikkhu describes one who devotes himself to the practice of Dhamma, and in return for alms offers his knowledge of Dhamma.

The Western word Monastery brings an image of a holy place, but ............. actually means, the dwelling place of Bikkhus.

There was neither existence or no existence.

Neither the world nor the sky that lay beyond it.

What lay enveloped and where?

And who gave it protection?

Was water there deep and unfathomable?

There was no death there nor immortality.

Nor of night or day was there any sign.

The One (Brahman) breathed airless by self impulse.

Other than that, there was nothing whatsoever.

Darkness was concealed by darkness there.

And all of this was indiscriminate kaos.

That One which had been covered by the void.

Through the might of Tapas (the fire behind creation).

In the beginning there was desire which was the primal germ of all minds.

For the sages searching in their hearts for wisdom found in the non existence the kin of existence.

Their divided line extended transversly.

What was below it and what was above it.

There was the sea bearer.

There was the might forces.

There was impulses from below, forward movement from beyond.

Who really knows and who can declare it here?

Whence was it born and whence came this creation?

The Devas are much later than this worlds production.

Then who knows from where it came into being?

That from which this creation came into being.

Perhaps it formed itself or perhaps it didn't.

He who surveys it in the highest region.

Only he truly knows it, or maybe he doesn't.

The Buddha doesn't appear to be getting involved with religion or the metaphysical.

He appears to be sticking to the real world, one in which he is teaching "Awakening".

By substituting a word, you are effectively changing its meaning, even if it may appear subtle.

Edited April 27, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

This is the Theravadin view, which Theravadins feel is complete and therefore exclude Mahayana and Vajrayana view points. Mahayana and Vajrayana practitioners don't have these issues because their practice includes Theravada: refuge, the Four Noble Truths, foundations of mindfulness, and the traditional set of sutras, etc.

With regard to rituals, your understanding of them is in significant need of updating. The rituals are skillful means providing practitioners with more rapid methods for accumulating of merit and wisdom.

Thanks Jawnie.

Can you give me specific examples of rituals which allow the accumulation of merit and wisdom?

For 'beginners', there is a standard set of personal rituals one performs: prostrations combined with the Refuge prayer (two separate practices done at the same time); the Mandala Offering; Vajrasattva recitation; and Guru Yoga. Each, except for Guru Yoga is repeating 100,000 times; for Guru Yoga the accompanying mantra is recited one million times. All of them include a fairly complex visualization to be held during the session.

Each of this generate merit which is dedicated to all sentient beings at the conclusion of each session. Life release generates merit.

How do they generate merit?

[Jawnie]

This is the Theravadin view, which Theravadins feel is complete and therefore exclude Mahayana and Vajrayana view points. Mahayana and Vajrayana practitioners don't have these issues because their practice includes Theravada: refuge, the Four Noble Truths, foundations of mindfulness, and the traditional set of sutras, etc.

With regard to rituals, your understanding of them is in significant need of updating. The rituals are skillful means providing practitioners with more rapid methods for accumulating of merit and wisdom.

Thanks Jawnie.

Can you give me specific examples of rituals which allow the accumulation of merit and wisdom?

For 'beginners', there is a standard set of personal rituals one performs: prostrations combined with the Refuge prayer (two separate practices done at the same time); the Mandala Offering; Vajrasattva recitation; and Guru Yoga. Each, except for Guru Yoga is repeating 100,000 times; for Guru Yoga the accompanying mantra is recited one million times. All of them include a fairly complex visualization to be held during the session.

Each of this generate merit which is dedicated to all sentient beings at the conclusion of each session. Life release generates merit.

How do they generate merit?

Acts of praising and honoring the Buddhas, making offerings, and purifying the obscurations generate merit.

[Xangsamhua]

There was neither existence or no existence.

Neither the world nor the sky that lay beyond it.

What lay enveloped and where?

And who gave it protection?

Was water there deep and unfathomable?

There was no death there nor immortality.

Nor of night or day was there any sign.

The One (Brahman) breathed airless by self impulse.

Other than that, there was nothing whatsoever.

Darkness was concealed by darkness there.

And all of this was indiscriminate kaos.

That One which had been covered by the void.

Through the might of Tapas (the fire behind creation).

In the beginning there was desire which was the primal germ of all minds.

For the sages searching in their hearts for wisdom found in the non existence the kin of existence.

Their divided line extended transversly.

What was below it and what was above it.

There was the sea bearer.

There was the might forces.

There was impulses from below, forward movement from beyond.

Who really knows and who can declare it here?

Whence was it born and whence came this creation?

The Devas are much later than this worlds production.

Then who knows from where it came into being?

That from which this creation came into being.

Perhaps it formed itself or perhaps it didn't.

He who surveys it in the highest region.

Only he truly knows it, or maybe he doesn't.

This quote is from the Rig Veda. The Puranic account of creation.

Are you quoting this as the Buddha's teaching, or is he just citing it as a reference in his discourse?

Can you cite the Sutta in which this quote appears?

The Vedic/Brahman teaching that there is a "ground of being" that underpins phenomena is not so much metaphysical as logical - in fact, tautological. For being to arise there must be being from which it arises. The metaphysical bit comes in when we speculate about what the ground of being is like and the process by which ground gives rise to "figure" (name and form), and how the ground relates morally, if at all, to beings like ourselves.

In the quoted passage, the Rig Veda is reasonably open about the mechanics of creation. The reference to Devas is standard Brahman/Hindu cosmology. Indra, Varuna, Agni, etc, came to India with the Aryans. The Godhead (Trimurti) of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva is an earlier construct.

[rockyysdt]

Acts of praising and honoring the Buddhas, making offerings, and purifying the obscurations generate merit.

How?

[rockyysdt]

This quote is from the Rig Veda. The Puranic account of creation.

Are you quoting this as the Buddha's teaching, or is he just citing it as a reference in his discourse?

Can you cite the Sutta in which this quote appears?

The Vedic/Brahman teaching that there is a "ground of being" that underpins phenomena is not so much metaphysical as logical - in fact, tautological. For being to arise there must be being from which it arises. The metaphysical bit comes in when we speculate about what the ground of being is like and the process by which ground gives rise to "figure" (name and form), and how the ground relates morally, if at all, to beings like ourselves.

In the quoted passage, the Rig Veda is reasonably open about the mechanics of creation. The reference to Devas is standard Brahman/Hindu cosmology. Indra, Varuna, Agni, etc, came to India with the Aryans. The Godhead (Trimurti) of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva is an earlier construct.

My understaning is that the Buddha quoted it and posed the questions.

I'll get back to you regarding the Sutta.

The Buddha often leveraged on existing beliefs/thought of the time.

Through his questions he is distancing himself from the metaphysical.

He is saying: "Who knows, and who can ever know".

This suggests his teaching, "Awakening", is in the real and not the metaphysical world.

Edited April 28, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Xangsamhua]

This quote is from the Rig Veda. The Puranic account of creation.

Are you quoting this as the Buddha's teaching, or is he just citing it as a reference in his discourse?

Can you cite the Sutta in which this quote appears?

The Vedic/Brahman teaching that there is a "ground of being" that underpins phenomena is not so much metaphysical as logical - in fact, tautological. For being to arise there must be being from which it arises. The metaphysical bit comes in when we speculate about what the ground of being is like and the process by which ground gives rise to "figure" (name and form), and how the ground relates morally, if at all, to beings like ourselves.

In the quoted passage, the Rig Veda is reasonably open about the mechanics of creation. The reference to Devas is standard Brahman/Hindu cosmology. Indra, Varuna, Agni, etc, came to India with the Aryans. The Godhead (Trimurti) of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva is an earlier construct.

My understaning is that the Buddha quoted it and posed the questions.

I'll get back to you regarding the Sutta.

The Buddha often leveraged on existing beliefs/thought of the time.

Through his questions he is distancing himself from the metaphysical.

He is saying: "Who knows, and who can ever know".

This suggests his teaching, "Awakening", is in the real and not the metaphysical world.

The whole passage is from the Rig Veda, including the questions.

http://www.boloji.com/index.cfm?md=Content&sd=Articles&ArticleID=1504

[rockyysdt]

This quote is from the Rig Veda. The Puranic account of creation.

Are you quoting this as the Buddha's teaching, or is he just citing it as a reference in his discourse?

Can you cite the Sutta in which this quote appears?

The Vedic/Brahman teaching that there is a "ground of being" that underpins phenomena is not so much metaphysical as logical - in fact, tautological. For being to arise there must be being from which it arises. The metaphysical bit comes in when we speculate about what the ground of being is like and the process by which ground gives rise to "figure" (name and form), and how the ground relates morally, if at all, to beings like ourselves.

In the quoted passage, the Rig Veda is reasonably open about the mechanics of creation. The reference to Devas is standard Brahman/Hindu cosmology. Indra, Varuna, Agni, etc, came to India with the Aryans. The Godhead (Trimurti) of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva is an earlier construct.

The Buddha made fun of this poem (Poem of Creation), by deliberately misquoting passages of it in the Agganna Sutta, found in the 27th sutta in the Digha Nikaya long discourses.

Buddhagosa interpreted this poem literally whilst the Buddha was making it to be a big joke.

The Buddha was pointing to the real world (actual), and was leading away from the unknowable (metaphysical).

The teaching of the way things are.

Edited April 28, 2012 by rockyysdt