Sufis believing nothing exists except god while Buddhists believe nothing exists except samsara or some shit?
Buddhist believe there is a common ground of being that is unknowable called dharmakaya while sufis simply believe it's god.
Who are objectively correct? Sufists or Buddhists?
The sufis are more correct.
The tetralemma that Nagarjuna uses to assert his claims is kind of flimsy from a mathematical point of view
>Buddhists believe nothing exists except samsara
No. Samsara is the cycle of rebirth and fundamentally an illusion.
>Buddhist believe there is a common ground of being that is unknowable called dharmakaya
No. The Dharmakaya is the enlightened/liberated mind beyond duality. It is not something because it is beyond subject and object.
The view that "something exists" is called "eternalism", and is seen as an extreme view.
The view that "nothing exists" is called "nihilism" and is also seen as an extreme view.
The path to liberation, according to the Buddha, is the path beyond the extremes.
Yet the dharmakaya is sometimes alluded to be the source of everything, without explicitly saying that of course
Any articles that can help explain the nature of dharmakaya? From what I gather it's closer to the conception master eckhart had of god
>Dharmakaya constitutes the unmanifested, "inconceivable" (Sanskrit: acintya) aspect of a Buddha, out of which Buddhas arise and to which they return after their dissolution.
https://tibetanbuddhistencyclopedia.com/en/index.php/Dharmakaya
Basically, Buddhist ontology is all about processes. The Dharmakaya is basically reality as it is without an afflicted mind. A mind purified of beliefs of identity in essence and substances. I tis basically sometimes characterized by resultant goal of the wisdom of a Buddha but other times simply reality with the quality of emptiness. The more a Mahayana Buddhist tradition focuses on the conventional the more distant it is construed and the more pedagogically it is described. The more focused on the ultimate the more it is reality itself. Sometimes pedagogically different Buddhas will be considered the Dharmakaya but this is pedagogical. A Shin Buddhist for example would identify Amida Buddha, a Nyingma Buddha Samantabhadra, basically that just means the mental quality and related practices associated with that Buddha is the resultant state of mind a Buddha ultimately has when acquiring the cessation of Dukkha. Below is a video with an academic that describes some of the term.
The Dharmakaya is a pure flux and potentiality though. It is not a classical theist God or creator in a normal sense.
People forget that Sufi still have to follow a traditional Islamic aqedah like Deobandi or Ashari and follow traditional Islamic legal schools like Shafi or Maliki. Historically, they were partially populated by conquered Eastern Orthodox/ Oriental Orthodox, and various HIndu peoples.
>objectively correct
No such thing, both these traditions are beyond your capacity for scrutiny.
>unknowable thing called Dharmakaya
>unknowable yet namable
Ridiculous from a Buddhist perspective
>Sufis believe "it" is god
You know English Sufi sources then, originally written in English for an English-speaking audience? How do you suppose you could make an accurate comparison between two things you don't understand? You just have a few labels. Consider reading up on how Tibetan Buddhist debate works. It's not the same kind of gameshow-tier reasoning you bring to bear itt.
>both these traditions are beyond your capacity for scrutiny
lol
lmao
The hidden truth is that the Sufis and Buddhists secretly agree but are different at a purely semantic level.
Advaita Vedanta is about as close to the true metaphysics as it gets. Only the Absolute (the whole Self of impersonal awareness) exists fundamentally, all else is a figment of the Mind.
Jesus, on the other hand, is not about metaphysics or dogma but about the Eternal Love that abides deep within every heart.
sri vidya is like a more closer detailed advaita vedanta they are compatible
>Buddhists believe nothing exists except samsara
thats definitely not what Buddhists believe
correction: everything that exists has its base in the mind, mind is without mind
Sufi: the mind that exists is God
Then why don't Buddhists believe in the self?
I've spoken to Buddhists they told me they disagree with the statement cogito ergo sum.
The I-thought is just as illusory as any other, it does not constitute selfhood in either Buddhism or Advaita Vedanta.
While Advaita affirms that there is an eternal Self which is identical to God/Brahman, that which which underlies all phenomena but is unaffected by them, Buddhism does not call it that.
The closest you can get is the spontaneously present awareness (rigpa), but that means you've peeled the onion (of your mind) all the way into emptiness so that there is no onion to speak of.
Buddhism isn't a consistent singular entity
They would reject the substance dualist interpretation of it, they can believe it is simply a succession of mental qualities though. Although, a Buddhist would most likely reject epistemic foundationalism and opt for reliablism, or epistemic coherentism .
The Dharmakaya is very much not the ground of being because the whole point of Mahayana Buddhism is that there is no ground of being because to be a ground of being requires something that is impossible because of dependent origination. Basically, they apply dependent origination to everything and not just th self.
Sufism is most likely closer to this actually. Basically, seeing everything as grounding in Allahs ideas caused by Allah's will. Realizing you are really only Allah's ideas and Allah's will is the goal. This is also why they literalist in ways other Muslims aren't. Muslims to begin with a very literal in terms of their religion across all the orthodox Aqedah. However, some Sufi's will take the world to be flat or hold to a firmament view because they believe it has to be that way because it exists in God's mind that way and because Allah wills it to be that way.
I should mention that it is mentioned as the ground as in object but as an object is the lack of an object but that is. Buddhist scholastic use and not the western philosophical view of ground of being like in Thomism. It is mainly the Tibetan Buddhist tradition that uses that term. Far East Asian traditions focus on interpenetration of dharmas or unimpeded dependent origination instead of those terms. Impeded referring to cognitive error and self-grasping as an essence.
>Realizing you are really only Allah's ideas and Allah's will
I would agree this is similar to Suddhadvaita.
It is the Monism of Advaita, but instead of an Impersonalist oneness, it is a Personalist Oneness.
In a sense, it can be considered a form of Divine Solipsism. A recognition that there is only one person and all existence extends from that one person.
The difference between Suddhadvaita and Solipsism would be that Suddhadvaita claims Bhagavan is that one person, not your or I or any of us limited beings.
I agree. I would also state it is very similar to Eastern Orthodox views of Heyschastic mysticism and philosophy too. The Cappadocian fathers specifically. Their the personalist element is fixed by the divine persons of the Trinity as well and is used to explain why reality seems oddly fixed to human experience. Maximos the Confessor's metaphysics is an example and his freedom from nature as the goal of theosis. Here is an explanation of it.
>Realizing you are really only Allah's ideas and Allah's will is the goal.
I don't think that's true
There are entire branches of Vedanta that agree with you, maybe. At least on the rejection of Suddhadvaita.
It is important to remember that most works on Sufism in English are not not real Sufi work and are often misinterpreted. Below is a lecture on the issue.
>It is important to remember that most works on Sufism in English are not not real Sufi work and are often misinterpreted.
I would like to see this demonstrated/justified by virtue of something like a web article that shows original works, and (popular) translations in english which are clear misinterpretations. Without that, I'll take this comment and file it in "Something I heard but would never repeat without qualifying because I've not seen it substantiated."
You could watch the attached video. Dr. Nauman Naqvi and Dr. Omid Safi are secular academicians. They cite their sources. Only Dr. Sajjad Rizvi is within a religious tradition.
A 1 hour 47 minute zoom recording is, and perhaps always will be, a massive ask for a random internet suggestion.
Here is an academic article laying out the same view.
Secular Sufism: Neoliberalism, Ethnoracism, and the Reformation of the Muslim Othermuwo_1389 427..440
G. A. Lipton
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 1
https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/36273345/Lipton_Secular_Sufism_2011-libre.pdf?1421290333=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DSecular_Sufism_Neoliberalism_Ethnoracism.pdf&Expires=1715045006&Signature=fUCdIp8RoWIVd4BHcVWpLyrR2qxoFVVI4YNn5JeZpd-qXNIupzYv6gGzj-goLQQtBtZyg5Cr3xWPP5tmgWO60Fle8Lx7BPiO9neK4EI~7dH81tXv-iR99ritHtBArqNH~Fara-V8TeAtB1XRGl0Uweeq3ZA7l7xIzbZ-GY-kFJfSLLsg3TDTlf2EKW1VkF5azy3eb1s-MB9ZpnxkpX0WbZxXaz4-5ZXbNs7HyPX~LaNPaBCXAbQ-EvhfelcVyINZo0WH9Huc4wVk9xRLg4Sh9yrIAfpTXUhjPAniqjapeOsh7N5Q-1DmPnskmAT2MYFrJD15~lGEBjoh2FdtgP-aQA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
Pretty sure what they mean is they want a nice picture with original script on one side, the "modern" English translation in the middle, and the "correct" English translation on the other side.
They obviously arent interested in spending a lot of time understanding this, or they would watch the video.
Nah. I'm the anon they're replying to and I think what they linked is exactly what I'm looking for. It seems pretty short. I'll check it out.
Glad to hear. As I listen to the vid, it gives very very clear examples, along with direct quotes from some of the translators saying "I had a dream, and even though I did not and do not speak the language, I'm going to translate these poems."
buddhism is closer to reality, yet nothing like what you described it as
sufism is laughable, as is all forms of abrahamism and even more ridiculous than vedanta
there is no god, no one, no brahman, no unity
those are all cope the weak cling to escape reality
Buddhists are literally idol worshippers
>but Buddha isn't a god
You still bow down to him, give him blessings, pray to him etc... frick you
>respecting your superiors is... le bad!!!
Into the fire pit pagan
> you are SATAN. SATAN SATAN SATAN SATAN AAAAAH HE HAS MY SOUL
>respecting your superiors is... le bad!!!
ironically every single higher deity I've met in life never demanded such things. Rather it was their history and good natured willpower in them journeying and aiding you in various spiritual lifetimes that built a sense of respect.
Respect comes as a natural consequence of meritable behaviour.
>ironically every single higher deity I've met in life never demanded such things
Meds now
worshipping buddha is not a precept in ANY buddhist religion, even ones where they give buddha offerings and respect. giving offerings and respect to fallen ancestors and heroes is quite common in cultures that are not semitic in origin
>Buddhism is closer to reality
>"detach yourself from life completely bro and live like a hermit in the mountains"
Life is more real in solitude. In town life and especially on the internet you are immersed in fabrications: dreams, feuds, ideologies, taboos, stigmas, customs, memes, etc. A hermit in the mountains is free from these things and can thus penetrate to unfabricated reality.
What makes Buddhist monks more in tune with reality as opposed to christian monks or Sufi ascetics?
Christians and Muslims have a tendency to posit things about their experiences, 99% of the time with respect to "God". So while some of those monks may attain very high states, equivalent to what Buddhists call jhana, they're still grasping (upadana) instead of simply knowing (vijja). Most of them I suspect hardly get past first jhana, which is the mind purified of sensuality but still engaging in discursive thought, which is to say the part of reality bounded by "logos".
This is of course with reference to more conservative Buddhists. The theistic strains in Mahayana and Vajrayana have a whole panoply of bodhisattvas and deities that probably limit them in the same way as Christian/Muslim ascetics.
To be fair, Sufis may employ methods of guru yoga that are similar to what Vajrayana does, where the mind of the practitioner merges non-dually with the guru or deity.
So it's no longer a question of there's the Buddha, that's the deity, mind is Buddha.
No evidence that any of these "states" exist. They could just be made up by whomever felt them
There's no more evidence for the existence of dreams, sleep, and other states of consciousness. Do you feel just as skeptical when someone says "I had a strange dream" or "I didn't sleep well"?
Advaita is more logical than Buddhism. Sunyata doesn't make any sense without brahman
>Buddhists believe nothing exists except samsara or some shit?
why are you asking complex questions about two religions you probably know nothing about? have you even read any buddhist texts?
One hundred random different Buddhists believe one hundred different things. There's not a religion that is more varied and undefinable. Well Hinduism I guess
There are a hundred trillion thousand factorial different paths to the Dharmakaya. Being immersed in sectarian nonsense and judging others' paths is for ignorant children.
Buddhism tends to be unified in the Four Seals of the Dharma. Below is a video on this. However, there are more precise technical documents unifying Buddhism. Academically, philosophers like Jay Garfield and Mark Siderits point out this is more of an effect because of their ontology and view of processes and dependent origination. They differ in practices to realize though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_points_unifying_Theravāda_and_Mahāyāna
Both believe in fantasy nonsense.
You are trying to grab smoke with your hands, try using your lungs
I'm low IQ . Explain this to me in other terms
>Buddhists believe nothing exists except samsara or some shit
That isn't the case in Theravada, generally. To be to the point, Mahayana is to Theravada Buddhism what the Church of Latter Day Saints is to early Christianity/
>Buddhist believe there is a common ground of being that is unknowable called dharmakaya
I think that's a fabrication by those that came after early Buddhists.
I believe there is truth and a path to discovering truth. Part of that path, I think, is not arbitrarily believing or disbelieving something merely because you've heard it or read it. Regarding something with neither belief nor disbelieve is a valid stance when you've yet to verify or falsify it, I think.
You must have a weird definition of "objective" because the only way to get the objective truth when it comes to spiritual/religious beliefs is to die and find out yourself.
None of them are objectively right, we don't have any real proof for either side.
I get better vibes off the Buddhists, the Sufis still come across as rapemonkeys like the rest of the Muslims, you will know them by their fruits... I've noticed there tends to be a large gap between how people describe religions and what the religions' founders actually said, but the statement God is everything is flat-out wrong, God is not evil, God is not the wretched creatures calling themselves "liberated" human beings today, we can have attributes of God like his son Jesus but that doesn't make us God.
>Buddhists believe nothing exists except samsara or some shit?
That is not what Buddhists believe lol.
Buddhists believe nothing exists but the True Self; Samsara is a byproduct of the True Self losing itself in its own creations.
>Buddhists believe nothing exists but the True Self
spectacularly wrong
Suddhadvaita.
It's the same thing
Bastami introduced the concepts of fana and khud'a into Sufism.
Fana = the cessation of existence, the complete destruction of the ego, becoming one with Allah;
khud'a = means deception or trickery and describes the material world.
Al ghazali borrowed Buddhist stories to describe in metaphorical form the fragmentary knowledge of Islamic scholars.
Al sindi probably converted from eastern religions to Islam and imported some of these ideas.
Both refer to the same thing, the same goal. Sufism is essentially the same defined path as Buddhism, albeit from a different cultural perspective.
Sufism is an initiatory path that relies more heavily on a guru.
So, unlike Buddhism, where one could simply read the canon, Sufism keeps information more secret and passes it on from master to student.
Sufism also openly refers to what we call God, whereas Buddhism is very careful not to label him wherever possible.
The goal of Buddhism is the cessation of dukkha, while the goal of Sufism is reunion with divinity in the heavenly planes of existence.
---> In material terms, it is always about getting rid of our ego-centered lifestyle and developing compassionate love for other people <---
The same path, different language to describe it. The same coin, but we're looking at a different side.
Rumi wrote :
"Though he is fallen asleep, God will not leave him In this forgetfulness. Awakened, he Will laugh to think what troublous dreams he had. And wonder how his happy state of being He could forget, and not perceive that all Those pains and sorrows were the effect of sleep And guile and vain illusion. So this world Seems lasting, though 'tis but the sleepers' dream; Who, when the appointed Day shall dawn, escapes From dark imaginings that haunted him, And turns with laughter on his phantom griefs When he beholds his everlasting home."
The real masters are the loyal followers of The Aryan Teaching!
卍卐卍卐卍卐卍卐卍卐卍卐卍卐卍卐卍卐卍卐卍卐卍卐卍卐卍卐
卐 The Four Aryan Truths 卍
I. Suffering is inseparable from existence.
II. Craving is the root cause of suffering.
III. Suffering can be ended by ending craving.
IV. There is a path to ending craving and suffering.
ᛟ archive.org/details/WhatTheBuddhaTaught_201606
ᛋ buddhanet.net/audio-lectures.htm