Is there anything that is not Buddhism?

I think so. But it's neither here nor there, is it? Self, by virtue of being an absolute concept, leaves room for nothing else.
But self, by virtue of what the word implies, cannot be said to be everything. That would sort of negate the neccessity of the concept itself, since it is nothing but a familiar sense of all that it doesn't see as part of itself.

Btw, how would that work as a definition of self? "Self is the familiar sense of all things not percieved as part of it."

Unfortunately, the Abrahamic religions have a copyright on the term "God". When anyone uses the term, what is communicated is their definition. The quoted statement was enough to get a person burned alive only 500 years ago. I firmly believe that Buddhist theology, while denying the existence of gods, better defines the term.

"God" is accessible at every time and location regardless of the seeker's cleverness, literacy, or station in life.

"God" is infinite, with time and space being mere attributes. Space and time are related to change, yet "God" is unchangeable.

"God" is the source of all perceptual reality, though we can never know why "God" dreams infinite universes. Perceptual reality is a projection of "God", but is only one of an infinite number of projections that are simultaneous. The Abrahamic god, if existing, is caught up in time/space and is therefore limited to finite existence ... a sub-set of infinity from which "God" projects all worlds substantial and abstract.

"God" is not human-like. "God" has no body, ego, mind or personality; "God just IS". If we find alien creatures with multiple eyes and appendages on some distant star, they too will be a mere projection of "God" and no different than ourselves. If "God" has a purpose, it is both doubtful and unknowable. "God" has no "self", and "self" for sentient beings is entirely illusory because we, and the entire universe, are only expressions of "God".

Without "God" our lives are filled with suffering and a constant yearning for the wholeness that comes from the absorption of our egos back into "God".


Why shouldn't the "Buddhist" definition of "God" work just as well for followers of the Abrahamic faiths? The difference in definition is a product of the different cultures and traditions of Siddhartha and Abraham, not necessarily in the fundamentals of the message. There is room for ecumenical discussion at the very least; if only the Abrahamics can entertain the possibility of a different definition of "God".

Yes, the Abrahamic religions have unfortunately made the word "god" meaningless, since there are as many misguided variations of what it means as there are misguided people.

In the privacy of thought I tend to use the description Krishna.
When we see the world in terms of dualism, we see Krishna as many. When we see Krishna, we are looking at the world as one.

Yes, Asherman, the Abrahamic religions do have what resembles a copyright on the term "God"; and Dualism has a monopoloy on the term "self". God, as the Grand Other, implies "us" as isolated and alienated egos. And (lower case) "self" implies all that is not ego: a universe of others.
You, Ashers, Fresco and Cryacuz understand my use of God and Self to be very different, to be, in fact, synonyms in the sense of the equation Brahman=Atman.

Bringing to mind another important equation: Nirvana=Samsara.

That's interesting JL.

Some initial thoughts,
I guess this too deals with our perception. We either percieve samsara or nirvana, depending on what our minds are immersed in. In both instances is is the same reality being observed, but from two different viewpoints they might as well be worlds apart.
I think I'll give it a rest until I've given it some more thought though..

As I see it, Cryacuz, we do not perceive Nirvana or Samsara; together they are the unitary condition of existence. Nirvana, is our unity with all things and Samsara is the necessity with which we act as if there is multiplicity. Samsara is the way Nirvana operates, and Nirvana is what Samsara is about.

But when we refer to a person who reached Nirvana, are we not referring to a person who has truly come to understand everything seamlessly from Brahman to Atman? A person with the vastness of mind to encompass Samsara in it's entirety in his mind's eye. He is the master of his own karma, an intelligence not ruled by self, and even though his physical exixtence is bound by Samsara he does not exist within it. Rather, it exists in him.

But isn't it all a matter of perception?

... and then he blinks and duality returns.

As I "understand" it the awakened person is not a vast computer containing all factual knowledge. Enlightenment is not omnicience, it is merely the transcendence of Dualism, the intuitive awareness of unity. It is something simple, ultimately devoid of Buddhism, Buddha, Brahma, Atman, Karma, Zen, Dharma and Enlightenment. It's the simple taste of tea, if I may be so corny.

JL, this brings us back to my half-joke from page 1...

That is a lot like I see it too. Enlightenment is not omnicience. It is "clear sight", so to speak. It is viewing the world without "self" highlighting some aspects, fear or love distorting or amplifying others, making it so that what we see is to a large extent shaped by what we want to see and what we dread to see. The enlightened mind is free of all this.

Eori, beautiful.

Enlightenment may be said to be viewing the world without self-otherness. And then one blinks....

At the moment/eon/infinite moment of awakening, the perceptual worlds experienced simultaneously aren't seen, so much as understood. One's surroundings in this perceptual world vanish along with the ego. The most important part of the experience is rejoining, merging into the Great Ineffable, God. I think that if one were to be follow a "temptation/curiosity, etc." to focus on any of the infinite possibilities, the experience would terminate and we would be pulled back into our own perceptual world.

In this heightened transcendental state time/space do not exist, and when returning to this perceptual world no time has passed. Our illusory nanoseconds are just a false means of measuring infinity.

This is the peak experience of any life, but it isn't something that can be achieved by a direct frontal assault. You can, and should prepare, prepare for it by your daily practice. Learn to focus and control your thoughts. Tailor your words and actions to mitigate suffering. Dampen the control that your emotions have over your thoughts and judgment. Learn patience. Let go of the past, and don't become too fixed upon an abstract future. Live the moment fully and with awareness. Learn to accept what can't be controlled. When asked, explain the Teachings as well as you are able. Make your ego subordinate to our common mission of mitigating suffering in this perceptual world.

As humans we want to fully explore the intellectual foundations of the Buddha's Teachings. That isn't a "bad" thing, and it plays a part in the effort to extend the Teachings to people who might otherwise not "hear". There is a danger in intellectualizing Buddhism. It can build and inflate egos. Intellectualism is, without practice, masturbation; pleasurable, but without permanent issue. Talking about a thing isn't doing it, and without putting the Teaching into practice we may never mitigate even our own suffering, much less the suffering of the wider world.

I was considering this topic in my library the other day as I read a little of 'Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind', phrases like "zazen", "just sitting" & a "beginner's mind" really stuck me in a different light than previously, especially in the consideration of what is and what we want to be. Without being interested in categorising and labelling things, I'm wondering if you guys note any changes in your perception of a lot of this with years of meditation in particular? As I settled myself for a bit of meditation the other day, in light of some of the stuff I'd been considering (or intellectualising I guess), on reflection, if it's possible, I sensed a difference between "just sitting" with all the thoughts and considerations that jump out from that statement like, "Am I just sitting?", "Oh I shouldn't be thinking", "Am I seated correctly?", "Must concentrate on sitting" etc - in comparison to "just sitting" when everything seemed to fall away. There wasn't "just sitting" and the consideration of that statement, even the statement fell away never mind other worries. It seems fair to say, you don't know when you're meditating, you just know when you're not and if so, I appreciate that more so now I think.

Maybe I was just feeling particularly serene, either way I'm not thinking in terms of good and bad meditation, just commenting all the same.

When sitting, it is almost inevitable that stray thoughts will occur. Acknowledge them, and return to your meditative focus. Chanting, or consideration of a koan are designed to so fill the mind that errant thoughts can't intrude. Once a glass is full, additional water just runs down the sides leaving the contents placid.

I've never experimented with koans or chanting but I like the glass of water analogy. Normally I just sit, acknowledge thoughts and sit, every now and then "I", "enter" a quiet place. That reminds me of the pathless land and gateless gate ideas. I think for myself there can be a certain amount of expectation sometimes, wanting to meditate well etc, which is along the same lines as wanting to be enlightened...

Ashers, I have been meditating for three decades and my achievement is no greater than yours. Keep it up.