The test for all religions

If we were to jump into a time machine and go back to the beginning of most religions we would not find a single one to be about believing in an external deity or God who from their throne, so to speak, created heaven and earth.  This very idea is dualistic in the sense of creating an unbridgeable difference between the absolute, or the One, and its expression. 

The world we live in is no more of a difference from the One than an ocean wave can be believed to be different from water or wind to be different from the air that we breathe.  But for the mind held in bondage by religious dualism, viz., God and his creations, there can be no salvation—only blindness.  It is somewhat the same with those who adhere to physicalism; who are in bondage to physical plurality and relativity; who cannot see that this is but an outward, illusory expression of the One that serves to reveal the intrinsic power and essence of the One to itself.

Judaism, Christianity and even Islam show an almost total corruption of the original revelation.  Buddhism, fortunately, because it rests upon the teaching of direct gnosis is far less corrupted although I dare say that it is not completely without corruption.  The test for all these religions is can they return to each their original revelation which was, essentially, mystical and non-dual?

I certainly would not bet on Judaism, Christianity or Islam.  On that same score, it was Zen Buddhism that saved Buddhism in China from being corrupted which was, subsequently, allowed to spread its wings and deliver the Buddha’s authentic revelation.  But even Zen became corrupted turning Zen on its head where it grew into a teaching of seated-Zen rather than spiritual gnosis or kensho.

Comments

[smith]

thank you yeti!,, (smiles).

[n. yeti]

Smith:

Perhaps someone can set up a complaint box for skeptical non-Buddhists. Would that put your doubts to rest?

[smith]

yeti- lol. very amusing. not anything i havent heard before, etc. But, you do realize that its saying Nothing. Its saying its this and not this simultaneously. Which can sound quite awesome, or so mysterious that one predisposed one predesiring to believe , to know , to understand, than rationalizes , submits, tells them-self that it is wisdom beyond themselves such that they must accept and belive it to be meaningfully true. But, really its using words to say nonsense but within a context that you if you identify with wanting to be a buddhist must embrace as truth. It makes no sense, but who are you to say so? believe its a mystery beyond your present ability to comprehend, and simply accept it as a mysterious impenetrable truth, one that defies all logic, yet say it think it belive it becuase one of whom you have faith knows has said it. this is blind faith ultimately. The words in our reality are meaningless in as much as they are nonsense- illogical , defying the laws of logic, and saying believe that which makes no sense, even as you have no way of validating or knowing whether the nonsensical statements are true. This is blind faith. And even the so called enlightened experienced who are not enlightened right now, will make or agree with such nonsense. Its better to remain silent than to speak nonsense. Which any truely enlightened person knows and understands. To simply say the duality is vanquished by blind faith, is to be irrational. But, hey, like i said, the buddhist reply is their is no such thing. But, then making statements that a and b mutually exclusive are both the truth simultaneously. That is nonsense. But the circularity of buddhism is just that as you can see in any discussion, words, that try to answer/adress circular reasoning that defaults to blind faith in nonsense in the end. These criticisms of buddhism are still waiting for a reply. Hinduism of which buddhism is really only an offshoot or within, gives a more coherent reply, or at least offers an attempt beyond simply denying everything through irratinality and nonsense -simultaneous negation of nothingness. But, this is not personal, and not a personal attack in reply. But simply a re-illustration of the incoherence that plagues buddhism. Frustrating and amusing, and never ending words written in reply that can't escape the circular, the duality. or the blind faith demanded in the end.

[n. yeti]

Smith:

From the lankavatara sutra:

Mahamati Bodhisattva addressed the Buddha, "As for entering nirvana, Bhagavan, what is meant by 'nirvana?'"

The Buddha replied, "Witnessing the transformation of the habit-energy of self-existence of the repository consciousness, the will, and the conceptural consciousness, this is what is meant by nirvana. The nirvana of other buddhas and myself is the realm that is empty of self-existence.

"Moreover, Mahamati, nirvana is the realm of the personal realization of buddha knowledge. It is free from the existence or nonexistence of projections of permanence or impermanence. And why is it not permanent? Because projections of individual or shared characteristics are impermanent. Therefore it is not permanent. And why is it not impermanent? Because it is the personal realization attained by all sages of the past, the present, and the future. Therefore it is not impermanent.

"Mahamati, nirvana is not annihilation or death. If nirvana were death, there would be the continuity of something reborn. And if nirvana were annihilation, it could be characterized as something created. Therefore, nirvana is free from annihilation and free from death. This is why it is the refuge of practitioners.

"Moreover, Mahamati, nirvana isn't lost, and it isn't found. It isn't impermanent, and it isn't permanent. It doesn't have one meaning, and it doesn't have multiple meanings. This is what is meant by nirvana.

[smith]

i appreciate the reply, the conversation on this subject, as I think it is at the heart of the question that all 'religions' or world views must answer in order to either be coherent or incoherent. Coherent if the answer is logical, rational, makes sense. and or incoherent if the opposite, irrational. illogical, mot make sense, or simply refuse to or dent to answer the question of coherence. I think given your reply that i was not very clear in my question. I will now try to be clearer. you addressed duality. I understand this. I think that discussing duality, of consciousness, is actually discussing the nature of God or your term used 'the One'. The One has what characteristics, what defining traits? On this I think we wil agree that the One is eternal, and not changing, not passing away, and therefore not subject to anything else, not dependent, and not the ocean of samsara its antithesis. The duality only exists in as much as there is a One and a non-One. The one being fully enlightened, fully aware, knowing, and true(all truth). the non-One being all degrees of not knowing, false truth, lack, ignorance, untruth. So, this is not confined or restricted to humanity per se. this is universal and infinite in scope. So, we see a material world, which is changing and passing, full of samasara. And either we must believe that this samasara is only delusion and not actual, and thereby we are actually really not suffering in samasara, because it doesnt exist, or we must ask how is it that we are not enlightened? how is it we are outside of the one, the real, the true. The answer replied historically is that we arent! we are just thinking falsely we are, we are simply asleep. But, the question remains, if the one precedes and is eternal, how can anything but it be? Time itself is not it. Its beyond all. The material world, therefore is also denied of reality, since it too is passing forever. Or should not we all go and take and devour everything within the material world knowing that the answer given says that the material is only real in as much as the truth the one is unattachedly infinitely manifesting not only the material but the delusions of the not-ONe?? If we are buddhas, yes then this would be fine form that standpoint to do, it would not be wrong action. But also, if there is nothing outside the one, and therfore nothing samsaric, no suffering, then why would buddhas choose to remain(as buddha did once enlightened) or choose to incarnate to help other beings become enlightened, become buddhas? since a buddha knows that there is nothing but buddhahood, nothing but the one, and therefore nothing actually to be done. For a Buddha to remain and to choose to incarnate to help, is to acknowledge a duality, no?? and do then the question finally is how can the not- one, the ignorance's(varying degrees) death, samasara, suffering, have been manifested form the eternal true and infinite and timeless, perfect, One?? This question has been answered by simply saying, denying that samasara exists, saying because its not real, and illusion/delusion, that the question is non-sense. But, Buddha himself, gave the eightfold path, the teachings, and suffering is taught is something that is, even if it only is to be overcome. Or would say to realize that there is no thing suffering, no such thing in reality, and rather its only to become aware that there is no suffering. Through enlightenment once achieved one sees that there is only enlightenment, the oneness. but still the question remains even for Buddhas as to why every bit of that which is is ever at all not the one?? ever at all not aware fully, and how this can have possibly come to be? and why? for what end, for what purpose? for what reason does the one exist in the form of both the enlightened and the non-enlightened simultaneously and in unity(non-dualistically)?? even in a dream why would an enlightened dreamer dream of ignorance's??