Why doesn't buddhism call the emptiness as god??

[Joker_Theory]

@Ibn Sina You don't know how many hours they put in you keep on assuming stuff. At least a crack head has a reason why he is deluded.

[Ibn Sina]

22 minutes ago, Joker_Theory said:

You don't know how many hours they put in you keep on assuming stuff. At least a crack head has a reason why he is deluded.

You leave me no choice but to argue because you seem arrogant and egotistical.   I have other works to do, I will try to keep it short (I doubt it).

Yes, I know that I don't know how many hours they put, I am not saying I know that. However,a bullshit is a bullshit. If you write stuffs that have no value, that is not research based, but is just out of your own whim, then it can be said that you are  ignorant and you don't know shit. 
If you talk to an uneducated person, and a literate person, then it's not hard to know who is who unless you yourself are uneducated.

Imagine that you know a lot about physics. You are a teacher. You are taking their viva exam, one student comes to you and says good insightful stuffs and other student comes and speak non-sense. Now I don't know how much hour each student spent, but it can be one of 2 things

1- The first guy spent more hours then the second guy. 
2- The first guy is  smarter than the second guy.

Can't you apply even this simple logic?

You think that I am 'deluded'. Please tell me how I am deluded. I want to discuss more on the topic. For the time being, I will say you are even deluded then me. I am not going to give reasons unless you give me yours, and like you I am just 'saying it'.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Joker_Theory]

17 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

You leave me no choice but to argue because you seem arrogant and egotistical.   I have other works to do, I will try to keep it short (I doubt it).

Yes, I know that I don't know how many hours they put, I am not saying I know that. However,a bullshit is a bullshit. If you write stuffs that have no value, that is not research based, but is just out of your own whim, then it can be said that you are  ignorant and you don't know shit. 
If you talk to an uneducated person, and a literate person, then it's not hard to know who is who unless you yourself are uneducated.

Imagine that you know a lot about physics. You are a teacher. You are taking their viva exam, one student comes to you and says good insightful stuffs and other student comes and speak non-sense. Now I don't know how much hour each student spent, but it can be one of 2 things

1- The first guy spent more hours then the second guy. 
2- The first guy is  smarter than the second guy.

Can't you apply even this simple logic?

You think that I am 'deluded'. Please tell me how I am deluded. I want to discuss more on the topic. For the time being, I will say you are even deluded then me. I am not going to give reasons unless you give me yours, and like you I am just 'saying it'.

Your deluded cause you don't know you are deluded first of all. Second your think i am the one being arrogant and egotistical, i got news for you look in the mirror Mr arrogant and egotistical.

Your not the only one that put allot of time into this and just because i don't write a sort sentence which says what i needed to say does not mean it's fruitless. IT could help something click in some one. What you said is not even so great and fruitless so whatever Mr.know-i-tall and i did not say i do but i am not judging others and say my stuff is the only thing that's fruitless.

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Joker_Theory

[Ibn Sina]

The fact is , you all (60-70%) have come here to have a good time, to argue, to feel better by proving others wrong, you all have nothing good to contribute.  And when I try to help people with my knowledge, your ego is hurt,  because it might look like I am being smarter and you can't handle that. People like you are the most unconscious people who try to bring others down just because they are up. It's apparent from the thread, I have tried to help the OP , and you all are trying to show that I am wrong, not because I am really wrong (prove it if I am), but because you people feel bad about yourself. Good.  Keep feeling bad. 
If you also want to learn, then adopt a scholarly framework of thinking, but I know that most of you are just college drop outs, with low academic success, who probably don't have enough concentration to read a book for 10 mins or more and has probably never read one and have messed up life who watch Netflix and other unconscious shit then reading deep stuffs and have come here to have  a 'good time'. The thing is, I am snob, I hate it when when hippies on drugs come to discuss with a nuclear physicist on physics, and no one recognizes the value of  the physicist because everyone's ego is hurt and they don't want the physicist doing some deep calculation while they are high on pot , it gets their ego hurt.

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Ibn Sina]

10 minutes ago, Joker_Theory said:

Your deluded cause you don't know you are deluded first of all.

LOL what kind of reasoning is that?
I can also say the same to you. You are deluded because you are deluded and you don't know it. So profound. 

The rest of your argument is crap. It didn't hurt my ego since it wasn't logical enough to make me feel I had some shortcomings,  and it gave me an impression that you are just hurt and wanted to say things to me , so I won't be responding to that. If you want me to respond, you will need to really logically prove that I am being wrong and I lack knowledge in some areas.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Joker_Theory]

2 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

The fact is , you all (60-70%) have come here to have a good time, to argue, to feel better by proving others wrong, you all have nothing good to contribute.  And when I try to help people with my knowledge, your ego is hurt,  because it might look like I am being smarter and you can't handle that. People like you are the most unconscious people who try to bring others down just because they are up. It's apparent from the thread, I have tried to help the OP , and you all are trying to show that I am wrong, not because I am really wrong (prove it if I am), but because you people feel bad about yourself. Good.  Keep feeling bad. 
If you also want to learn, then adopt a scholarly framework of thinking, but I know that most of you are just college drop outs, with low academic success, who probably don't have enough concentration to read a book for 10 mins or more and has probably never read one and have messed up life who watch Netflix and other unconscious shit then reading deep stuffs and have come here to have  a 'good time'. The thing is, I am snob, I hate it when when hippies on drugs come to discuss with a nuclear physicist on physics, and no one recognizes the value of  the physicist because everyone's ego is hurt and they don't the physicist doing some deep calculation while they are high on pot , it gets their ego hurt.

Lolll You describing yourself and don't even know it. To me it's not that i am trying to prove you wrong but what you said about: It's almost like this forum doesn't deserve a good well informed post based on data, research and knowledge. A well educated post can easily be torn down  by an ignorant user just by spitting some one liner bullshit and the value of the gem just reduces. I don't think I am going to spend much time here writing down my posts. It's fruitless. 

Cause you are arrogant and egotistical, that's it. You should get yourself checked. reread the thread and read what you said above that's you buddy.

I am not here for fun and never used drugs so you assuming again. I am not going to play this ego game and not saying anything more. Goodluck

I am done here...

[Ibn Sina]

You say I am a 'know it all'
Imagine a hippie saying to a nuclear physicist he is a 'know it all' because he disagrees with what the physicist has to say about physics.

[Ibn Sina]

7 minutes ago, Joker_Theory said:

Lolll You describing yourself and don't even know i

Do you even have eyes to read. I am talking about you. I myself am an accomplished student  who is studying medicine and is currently on an ENT posting (which is no walk in the park). I said you people have less knowledge and less to contribute, not more to contribute. I am not projecting or anything. I would be projecting (the concept of projection, described by Jung) if I myself was like the way I described people like you @Joker_Theory.

I didn't say I am not egotistical. I am. What is wrong with that?

Thank you for being 'done here'. I want to give the left side of my brain a rest. 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Nahm]

@Alex bliss Because there isn’t one, because there is One.

@Ibn Sina ?

[Ibn Sina]

As you said,

26 minutes ago, Joker_Theory said:

Cause you are arrogant and egotistical, that's it.

so this is the  'problem' that you have with me. I have written about this on my 'The fact is , you all (60-70%)' post. I have some more to add.

If you have problems with other people behaving egotistical, then that's a sign of deep unconsciousness. It's the reason why people don't like other people making progress. It's unconsciousness 101 and is worse then being egotistical. Because why should you even bother if someone thinks they are great or not? Why should you try to put them down? Answer- deep unconsciousness, and the reptilian brain seeing a threat. 
A higher level of consciousness is you are not bothered by what  other people are doing on their own, you are bothered when people attack you , but you are not bothered  when  some person gets a good job, is earning huge money, gets A+ etc and flaunting it, some person says 'I am smart'.

If someone says - 'I am hot, smart, rich etc? then there are 2 ways to respond to that, a low conscious way and a high conscious way.

In the low conscious way, the reptilian brain gets activated, sees a threat, and tries to bring that person down. You can see such behaviours from monkeys to arthropods like Crabs.

The high conscious person doesn't see any threat there, because he is focused on himself. For  him its like "Good, I have yet to improve so much" but the low conscious person thinks " Ah I feel so bad that he is able to do this. I must bring him down some way"

You need to notice that the low consciousness sees problems where there is none. That is the problem with people like you who have 'problem' with me being egotistical. That is not a problem. The problem is , if I am directly attacking you for a reason that has none of your doing. I would never attack you just because you are being 'egotistical'.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[remember]

On 9/23/2019 at 5:43 PM, Ibn Sina said:

In Buddhism, 'Sunyata' is the basis of all reality. It is what underlies all forms and is the 'substance' that the world is made of.

The concept of 'God' is more associated with Hinduism. The Hindus believed in many Gods, they thought of Brahma as the supreme reality,  they believed in a soul or a self, while Buddha had nothing to say about them and thought of as irrelevant. Hinduism has all sorts of complex beliefs, rituals, creeds, rites, mantras, stories, legends, philosophy, etc etc.

wait, sunyata = brahman, brahma is the creator god. whyever buddha created another language for some aspects he probably was growing up with some kind of religion what was probably hinduism, right? so of course there are some aspects that are correlating but they get a different emphasis in buddhism.

Edited September 24, 2019 by remember

[Ibn Sina]

7 minutes ago, remember said:

wait, sunyata = brahman, brahma is the creator god. whyever buddha created another language for some aspects he probably was growing up with some kind of religion what was probably hinduism, right? so of course there are some aspects that are correlating but they get a different emphasis in buddhism.

Yes you are right, there is a difference between sunyata and brahma and I wasn't saying Brahma=Sunyata, but I am saying that they are similar ideas and like positives and negatives. 

wikipedia says , Sunyata is "the tenet that "all things are empty of intrinsic existence and nature "

Brahma is "the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe"

They are similar because both give a comment about the nature of the 'universe' or 'everything that exists', but they are different in that one is a negative other is  a positive. 

You are right, buddhism gets a different emphasis.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[remember]

6 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

Yes you are right, there is a difference between sunyata and brahma and I wasn't saying Brahma=Sunyata, but I am saying that they are similar ideas and like positives and negatives. 

wikipedia says , Sunyata is "the tenet that "all things are empty of intrinsic existence and nature "

Brahma is "the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe"

Both are similar because both give a comment about the nature of the 'universe' or 'everything that exists', but they are different in that one is a negative other is  a positive. 

You are right, buddhism gets a different emphasis.

yes i already realized english wikipedia might get it wrong. i found a german source of a huge yoga school and also on german wikipedia it says: don`t confuse brahman with brahma. or in this case brahma with brahman.

Edited September 24, 2019 by remember

[Ibn Sina]

4 minutes ago, remember said:

yes i already realized english wikipedia might get it wrong. i found a german source of a huge yoga school and also on german wikipedia it says: don`t confuse brahman with brahma.

Oh yes, brahma brahman they are confusing terms and I also get confused. Ofcourse I was talking about 'Brahman' and compared it with 'Sunyata'. I wrote Brahma which is  a mistake. Brahma is a God in Hinduism and that is different from the metaphysical idea of Brahman.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[remember]

@Ibn Sina yes you could say buddha personificated brahma through his life and path and teaching, he probably was guided by the hindu gods at first. that`s why it`s interesting to study hinduism from a buddhist perspective and vice versa. not considering that, it`s like holding a key and then saying i don`t need it i take the door, dropping the key in the water, to then understand the door is locked.

Edited September 24, 2019 by remember

[Ibn Sina]

13 minutes ago, remember said:

yes you could say buddha personificated brahma through his life and path and teaching, he probably was guided by the hindu gods at firs

Ummmm I am not sure if Buddha was influenced by the Hindus Gods. Is it written somewhere? I think that Buddha was  a Hindus by birth, but I don't think he 'personificated brahma' as you say, but he must have been familiar with the Hindus idea of 'Moksha'(Liberation from cycle of birth and death), he knew about the ascetic and spiritual practices and the ways to attain altered states of consciousness and samadhi, and the  concept of yogas, all of which have their basis in Hinduism.

Also, 'Brahma' is  also not considered a great God in hinduism. Almost no one prays to Brahma, there are no temples for Brahma, it is said that  it was Brahma's fault that brought all this maya and the world into existence. The greater Gods are Shiva and Vishnu, where Shiva is like the main founder of all these yogic and meditational practices. 
But I haven't read about any influence Hindus Gods in Buddha's life. Buddha was a radical, he wasn't a reader of hindus scriptures, he developed completely new concepts out of no where as he sat in the Bodhi tree,  but I think the only Hindus influences he had was the spiritual practices that he did which inevitable have their roots in Hinduism.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[remember]

@Ibn Sina you think of buddha as a physical body? as a spiritual body?

there is a temple in trivandrum that was built for trinity.

[Ibn Sina]

@remember 
Siddartha Gautama/ The 'Buddha' was probably a real man who was  born in Lumbini in Nepal.

'Buddha' - is an honorific title given to the one who has achieved full enlightenment. The Buddhists have  their own complex criterias.

I think ' Buddha' might also be a spiritual body. But I am not sure what that means. Sure his spirit lives on. But I still I don't think I fully understand.

 

[Leo Gura]

Very few Buddhists understand how deep this goes.

Buddhism still has a lot of dogma in it. Even when people speak of the classical Buddhist enlightenment, they speak of it dogmatically, not from deep personal experience.

And even if they've had some degree of awakening, it's still far shy of full God mode.

So in practice 99.999% of Buddhists don't fully understand their own teachings.

[Key Elements]

Some do. They call God, No-self. It means the same thing as Emptiness. Some Hindus also call God, No-self. They don't consider Buddhism a different "religion" as Hinduism. Buddha himself was born into the Hindu religion. So, no @Leo Gura, I don't quite agree with the 99.99...%. The majority maybe. But, that goes for any other religions.