Buddha rebuked a Demiurge god, who thought he was, The One True God.

originally posted by: AlephBet
a reply to: dominicus

Please reference the exact source by link if possible. Quote the pages as well, or just the quotes themselves.

Click on "Linked Explanation" at the very top of my post on front page of the thread.

Here it is again if you couldn't see it for who knows why:
Link here. Please Click on these words for link

Buddha didn’t like to deal with loquacious metaphysics. He wanted people to just get purified through the fire of practice…

I agree with Buddha on God in terms that to me “God” is irrelevant to success. Because he’s not around patting us on the back saying “ good job boy.” IMO, Buddha also thought God, as he was understood by humans ( A SKY GOD WITH HANDS AND FEET) was irrelevant and false, but also I don’t think he rejected God in the abstract.

It is often recorded that when asked about God he remained silent.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: AmenStop

"He that see's me see's the father".

This is the same thing that I said before, yes if God is all, then yes He that sees me sees my father. It is in the statement.

The current religion as put forth in the counsel of Nicaea in 300 ad, is a slave religion made to keep people docile. It is not what Jesus the man / profit preached.

a reply to: AmenStop

324ad actually...

And it had to do with the arian controversies... not what the religion was about...

By the way, Arius was correct even though he lost the argument... under suspicious circumstances of course

originally posted by: dominicus
Linked explanation

dominicus: After Buddha's Enlightenment, and something that is still part of reaching Enlightenment in Buddhism today, Buddha had free access to the Spirit realms, levels of heavens, hells, etc. So eventually he comes across this being (see demiurge) who really thinks, in ignorance, that he is God:

I have questions concerning this concept of a "demiurge". I see it as 'doubt'; (we all experience it question as to why we are here, some experience it as a doubting of faith); becomes a singularity; 'impure' and layered enough to become a 'tangible' negative thing (actually to be given a NAME no less). No single thought form can penetrate the ether to cause change for the positive that has even a micron of doubt 'sticking to it' (its the purity of the thought form; and even more complexly the purity of outcome of intent) as a major causal to the success of a small idea changing larger archetypes (oddly enough the negative seems to sweep itself in like a champion running the whole show). An individuals Ego is going to interfere with this process; and taking off that heavy many colored coat is very difficult. A one hour quick and simple read: "Light on the Path"; A TREATISE; written for the personal use of those who are ignorant of the Eastern wisdom, and who desire to enter within its influence. Reprinted at the Hajput Press, Chicago 1911 by Mabel Collins. One thought form of purity and intent can make significant change to whatever paradigm it is applied to.

They say monks were low-pitch muttering those suttas from the first days of buddhism before Tripittaka was written but there are so many of schools no one knows who said it. There were many schools of philosophy in those times and buddhism was not so different. What you know about the four noble truths and eight folded path is only a cover. There is interresting teaching about five elements and dhammas (not dharma).
I have always hated this one 'cause it stabs a wedge between soothing teachings of Buddha and my beloved Supreme which made everything with purpose.
This one is actually the point of no return for many and Dalailama should try to explain it rather than mumbling Kalachakra mantra and to stop pretending he has anything in common with christians and popes and people of faith.
According to this story it looks like if there ever was a dissenter (satan) it was Buddha with his teachings against life and he would like to put at least his teachings above baka Brahma. In this story he admits that in realms of being he and everyone else is under baka Brahma's will so he goes rather into non-existence playing hide and seek with Brahma even conforming it as a miracle.
I'm not saying you how it is or how it was. Just think about it rather than imagining universe as your projection 'cause it's only a virtualisation in your head.

This is the ancient SaTaNaMa mantra from kundalini yoga:

SA is the beginning, infinity, the totality of everything that ever was, is or will be.
TA is life, existence and creativity that manifests from infinity.
NA is death, change and the transformation of consciousness.
MA is rebirth, regeneration and resurrection which allows us to consciously experience the joy of the infinite.

Now if you consider yourself a buddhist aren't you a true Satana without Ma?
I would rather seek for my Creator before dying in nibbana without any resurrection.

a reply to: PapagiorgioCZ

Buddhism is not about "non-existence", even when you get to nirvana, you still exist. It's just pure peace without a "form" (body/image/appearance) to identify your "self" (consciousness/awareness) with - infinite peace.

The mantra is SATANAMA not SATANA, so yes there is MA also.

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: PapagiorgioCZ

Buddhism is not about "non-existence", even when you get to nirvana, you still exist. It's just pure peace without a "form" (body/image/appearance) to identify your "self" (consciousness/awareness) with - infinite peace.

The mantra is SATANAMA not SATANA, so yes there is MA also.

I don't want to return to a state of nothingness ; not yet. No experience gained THERE; just a fuzzy sense of a healing of damages occurred as a material being (a coma state of love force); no guarantee I will return as human, even though went through the vetting process of being everything that ever existed physically on this planet. There is always a negation/negotiation point (do I or don't I; because I have not incurred Karma not been forced to return to improve the progress of my soul). I chose to get into the game and play it as well or better than the next (understanding exactly what enlightenment involves to make a significant change within a paradigm).

a reply to: PapagiorgioCZ

maybe death without resurrection means: one ceases to identify with the limited (and changing) form and thoughts.
death and rebirth may still happen but only seen as animation/sensation (like when watching 4D shows in universal studio).

just like when you consciously play vid games, you know you are not the hero in the games, so if the hero dies, you know the real you always survive, you have nothing to lose.

peace

originally posted by: PapagiorgioCZ
They say monks were low-pitch muttering those suttas from the first days of buddhism before Tripittaka was written but there are so many of schools no one knows who said it. There were many schools of philosophy in those times and buddhism was not so different. What you know about the four noble truths and eight folded path is only a cover. There is interresting teaching about five elements and dhammas (not dharma).
I have always hated this one 'cause it stabs a wedge between soothing teachings of Buddha and my beloved Supreme which made everything with purpose.
This one is actually the point of no return for many and Dalailama should try to explain it rather than mumbling Kalachakra mantra and to stop pretending he has anything in common with christians and popes and people of faith.
According to this story it looks like if there ever was a dissenter (satan) it was Buddha with his teachings against life and he would like to put at least his teachings above baka Brahma. In this story he admits that in realms of being he and everyone else is under baka Brahma's will so he goes rather into non-existence playing hide and seek with Brahma even conforming it as a miracle.
I'm not saying you how it is or how it was. Just think about it rather than imagining universe as your projection 'cause it's only a virtualisation in your head.

This is the ancient SaTaNaMa mantra from kundalini yoga:

SA is the beginning, infinity, the totality of everything that ever was, is or will be.
TA is life, existence and creativity that manifests from infinity.
NA is death, change and the transformation of consciousness.
MA is rebirth, regeneration and resurrection which allows us to consciously experience the joy of the infinite.

Now if you consider yourself a buddhist aren't you a true Satana without Ma?
I would rather seek for my Creator before dying in nibbana without any resurrection.

I think Buddha knew that energy in any form (consciousness/life) only changes, and that when you are enlightened enough you will move beyond this vibrational reality to the next, so you will not be reborn into this earth. However you (used to the loosest extent of the word) of course will continue the endles journey (also used very loosely)

a reply to: dominicus

Totally on the page, friend. I've been doing some further digging into this.

a reply to: PapagiorgioCZ

According to this story it looks like if there ever was a dissenter (satan) it was Buddha with his teachings

What?!

Are you serious? Yikes. There isn't a hair's breadth of difference between what Buddha and Jesus really taught. Perhaps you could read further into it, and connect all of the common denominators. If you want.

Just, my suggestion. No charge.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: PapagiorgioCZ

According to this story it looks like if there ever was a dissenter (satan) it was Buddha with his teachings

What?!

Are you serious? Yikes. There isn't a hair's breadth of difference between what Buddha and Jesus really taught. Perhaps you could read further into it, and connect all of the common denominators. If you want.

Just, my suggestion. No charge.

Actually Buddha and Jesus may have had different methodologies but of course they are compatible.

Jesus taught similar to the Sufis. In-fact the Sufis considers Jesus their symbolic head.

Like them his main motif is love…its mysteries and his attachment, like the Sufis, to the beloved in their case…and Jesus to the Father.

Buddha, though, emphasizing love also had a different perspective somewhat because it’s not attached to an object like Jesus and the Sufi science which is God based.

This mystical methodology teaches about having an experience with the master or the beloved, so the aspirant can have a similar divine epiphany as the Master, Jesus, or the Sufi master or Guru, as well a transformative experience through transcending the state of the master onto a union with a higher source--God.

This is when the aspirant learns the reality of God.

What this tells us is the fact that Buddha himself taught: that these high energy words like Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, Vishnu, Chrisna, even Buddha is a knowledge or divine archetype that has to do with a metaphysical methodology to the divine.

Jesus is the proverbial Guru, Teacher archetype

Buddha is the proverbial awakener

Of course we all remember after Guatama was enlightened some man asked him was he God or Man

He said
“I am neither, I am awake!”

Then he became the Buddha

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: PapagiorgioCZ

According to this story it looks like if there ever was a dissenter (satan) it was Buddha with his teachings

What?!

Are you serious? Yikes. There isn't a hair's breadth of difference between what Buddha and Jesus really taught. Perhaps you could read further into it, and connect all of the common denominators. If you want.

Just, my suggestion. No charge.

The blind Apollonius; existing as an idea form within the film; tent (intent) CIRCUS TENT: "The Seven Faces of Doctor Lao" cannot say an untruth (brutally honest). Had Jesus or Buddha run into THIS soothsayer character first; might have had their fate foretold and backed out of the obligation first and the aftermath second (five cents please).

a reply to: dominicus

Got it. Your Demiurge thread got me thinking today. I believe I have finally put the puzzle together. We are each a Demiurge of sorts. Follow me on this. We each can only make something from other things. It is true that we can use our mind to make words into books that have never existed, but we must have a medium for the words to take form. In the sense of God (Elohim / Ruach Elohim), Genesis 1 is Bara, or Created. It is created from nothing.

When Yahweh (type of Demiurge) made the Snake, this is not bara (Create). It is made. He planted the Garden and formed Adam. He used preexisting materials. He then sheds Adam's blood (perfect lamb) to make Eve from the DNA extraction. This is the division of man's true image, or BOTH male and female. Only the Mother and Father in Genesis 1 create.

Now that you may see this, go to my new thread. Epiphany.

Dweller on the Threshold. 3 in one.

By this view, Adam is the dweller in the middle as the human (Son of God) below. Yahweh is the higher nature above. Satan is the lower nature of the same Adam. As you read the OT, you are reading the raising of a Son by the true God (Elohim). Adam is then mankind, a copy of the original to make more. In the same process. Each time a baby on Earth is born, perhaps an angel above is the true one born. They are entangled. From there, the lower nature is created by sin as a process for yeast to make bread rise.

See the thread and let me know what you think. Perhaps the Demiurge grows up and transcends his lower nature, reaching back to the creator he eventually finds. As above, so below I suppose.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: PapagiorgioCZ

According to this story it looks like if there ever was a dissenter (satan) it was Buddha with his teachings

What?!

Are you serious? Yikes. There isn't a hair's breadth of difference between what Buddha and Jesus really taught. Perhaps you could read further into it, and connect all of the common denominators. If you want.

Just, my suggestion. No charge.

The blind Apollonius; existing as an idea form within the film; tent (intent) CIRCUS TENT: "The Seven Faces of Doctor Lao" cannot say an untruth (brutally honest). Had Jesus or Buddha run into THIS soothsayer character first; might have had their fate foretold and backed out of the obligation first and the aftermath second (five cents please).

Those two individuals having come here, literally changed the world. Though in many regards for worse (See Fundamentalists), on other regards they unleashed the keys to liberation and many people have reached Enlightenment via Buddha's teachings, or Union via Christ. Now it just has to keep spreading, one by one awakening

originally posted by: dominicus
Things are starting to get interesting the deeper I dig. For, after I have received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit by the following the teachings of Christ, I have, since that day, come to intuitively want nothing to do with OT (except for Psalms), and have fallen in Love with Mysticism that is Perenial, Buddhism being one of them (See Gospel of Thomas for a Buddhist styled Christ)

The god of the OT is mainly the tribal god of the Jews. It displays traits of an emerging universal diety, like the one described in the NT, but in the end, being the tutelary god of the Jews it is still sometimes racist or warmongering.

All 3 great monotheisms evolved from the same mystical teachings about a universal god that is all-encompassing (and thus all loving).

Many people mistakenly believe that monotheist religions are about "pray to go to heaven, don't be a jerk to god or you'll go to hell", some kind of scare tactics and attempt to get people into submission. That's off course not only a misunderstanding of what religion is, and a deformation of the spiritual teachings by the more naive people.


In reality, there are not that many differences between the spiritual teaching of monotheistic religions and buddhism.

The supreme deity of monotheisms, as all mystic traditions explain it, is a reality-encompassing god. God is in you, and you are in god.

As such, hurting someone else is hurting god, is hurting yourself. Being an asshole leads to "hell" when you realize one day that you were hurting your human family all along, or when said family turns back against you for being an asshole. Being a nice person leads to "heaven" because you are helping making this world a better place and it comes back around, and you have no regrets about your life.

All the rest is mainly cultural traditions and various interpretation of religious texts out of their mystical context.


Buddhism and Christian faith (based on the teachings of Jesus) are not that different when seen through the correct lens and free from cultural bias.

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: dominicus

Things are starting to get interesting the deeper I dig. For, after I have received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit by the following the teachings of Christ, I have, since that day, come to intuitively want nothing to do with OT (except for Psalms), and have fallen in Love with Mysticism that is Perenial, Buddhism being one of them (See Gospel of Thomas for a Buddhist styled Christ)

The god of the OT is mainly the tribal god of the Jews. It displays traits of an emerging universal diety, like the one described in the NT, but in the end, being the tutelary god of the Jews it is still sometimes racist or warmongering.



All 3 great monotheisms evolved from the same mystical teachings about a universal god that is all-encompassing (and thus all loving).



Many people mistakenly believe that monotheist religions are about "pray to go to heaven, don't be a jerk to god or you'll go to hell", some kind of scare tactics and attempt to get people into submission. That's off course not only a misunderstanding of what religion is, and a deformation of the spiritual teachings by the more naive people.





In reality, there are not that many differences between the spiritual teaching of monotheistic religions and buddhism.



The supreme deity of monotheisms, as all mystic traditions explain it, is a reality-encompassing god. God is in you, and you are in god.



As such, hurting someone else is hurting god, is hurting yourself. Being an asshole leads to "hell" when you realize one day that you were hurting your human family all along, or when said family turns back against you for being an asshole. Being a nice person leads to "heaven" because you are helping making this world a better place and it comes back around, and you have no regrets about your life.



All the rest is mainly cultural traditions and various interpretation of religious texts out of their mystical context.





Buddhism and Christian faith (based on the teachings of Jesus) are not that different when seen through the correct lens and free from cultural bias.

Nice one spoken like the singularity itself! I can only say that I agree 100% with this. All gods and angels are but the one god, all demons and devils are also the one god, all humans and animals are the one god, all thoughts are the one god, all actions are the one god and all times are the one god.

The singularity is all encompassing and truly eternal and any division becomes dissolved in that great all encompassing unity.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: PapagiorgioCZ

According to this story it looks like if there ever was a dissenter (satan) it was Buddha with his teachings

What?!

Are you serious? Yikes. There isn't a hair's breadth of difference between what Buddha and Jesus really taught. Perhaps you could read further into it, and connect all of the common denominators. If you want.

Just, my suggestion. No charge.

This supposition is about the most uniformed thing one could find on ATS. Have seen it before. Its ridiculous. Not the result of comparison.