Did Buddha come to Teach the Law of One?

[JJCarsonian]

Just curious, did Buddha come to teach the Law of One? The path itself seems similar to what we need to do, but from what i can gather, he doesnt believe in the Creator? Was Buddha from the confederation, also? Anyone know what density?

[Cainite]

Buddists don't concern themselves with concepts and thoughts that seem irrelevant. they think nothing's more important than easing man's suffering.

And they believe the creation is intelligent. so the creation is their creator.. if the creation needs a creator, then the creator needs a creator and so on...

[JJCarsonian]

Buddists don't concern themselves with concepts and thoughts that seem irrelevant. they think nothing's more important than easing man's suffering.

And they believe the creation is intelligent. so the creation is their creator.. if the creation needs a creator, then the creator needs a creator and so on...

That's interesting. Did Buddha believe in other entities - positive/negative influencing humanity? I'm interested to how it relates.

[Cainite]

They pay respects and praise some higher entities in rituals and mantras.

They believe in lower and higher beings. devas, hungry ghosts, ...

[Stranger]

Just curious, did Buddha come to teach the Law of One?  The path itself seems similar to what we need to do, but from what i can gather, he doesnt believe in the Creator?  Was Buddha from the confederation, also?  Anyone know what density?

The Buddha made a concerted effort to sidestep the whole issue of beliefs.  At the time, there were many ongoing arguments in India about what the correct beliefs are.  The Buddha's point of view was that they were not helpful. He realized that belief systems matter far less than how we lead our lives and the kind of people we make ourselves into.  In other words, spiritual transformation of the self is essential, and beliefs are of secondary importance at best.

He compared the human condition to having been struck by an arrow.  We need to focus on healing the wound.  Arguing about beliefs is like arguing about the material the arrow is made from.  It's irrelevant.

With time, his intentional avoidance of focusing on beliefs became interpreted as meaning that he did not believe in a Creator, etc., which became the correct thing to believe in for a Buddhist.

[Infinite Unity]

It's wood. The arrow, it's wood. =)

[Infinite Unity]

Just curious, did Buddha come to teach the Law of One?  The path itself seems similar to what we need to do, but from what i can gather, he doesnt believe in the Creator?  Was Buddha from the confederation, also?  Anyone know what density?

I've come to think of everything as an 'interpretation' of The One. That's what they see from within and interpret as real, or as what's happening. All humanity is just like you. When someone says they are christian, or anything etc.. That's not who they are, it's more 'evidence' of the material they drawn there paradigm from. I mean material in a building blocks type of way. And I mean paradigm in a, who they are and where there at as a being. As I agree with buddha, that how we lead are lives is more important. As the religious belief would only be positing an effect on how people lead there lives anyway....

Now I do believe in non attachment, though I do believe we should be grateful for the substance we do have and enjoy in our lives, and there's a key point. There must be a balance towards consumption and materials. You should only keep and use what you truly enjoy. I like feng shui a lot. Simple, ordered, yet yielding substance as well.

[JJCarsonian]

Just curious, did Buddha come to teach the Law of One?  The path itself seems similar to what we need to do, but from what i can gather, he doesnt believe in the Creator?  Was Buddha from the confederation, also?  Anyone know what density?

The Buddha made a concerted effort to sidestep the whole issue of beliefs.  At the time, there were many ongoing arguments in India about what the correct beliefs are.  The Buddha's point of view was that they were not helpful. He realized that belief systems matter far less than how we lead our lives and the kind of people we make ourselves into.  In other words, spiritual transformation of the self is essential, and beliefs are of secondary importance at best.

He compared the human condition to having been struck by an arrow.  We need to focus on healing the wound.  Arguing about beliefs is like arguing about the material the arrow is made from.  It's irrelevant.

With time, his intentional avoidance of focusing on beliefs became interpreted as meaning that he did not believe in a Creator, etc., which became the correct thing to believe in for a Buddhist.

Excellent answer, this gives me the perspective i was looking for. I just didnt understand Buddha's perspective, but this makesalot of sense.

[Ra1111]

They pay respects and praise some higher entities in rituals and mantras.

They believe in lower and higher beings. devas, hungry ghosts, ...

I’ve been thinking more and more lately that dogs are hungry ghosts right now

[APeacefulWarrior]

Q'uo has commented about the Buddha on a few occasions, along with most of the other major philosophical/spiritual figures in history. The best discussion I could dig up is here, with Q'uo contrasting the teachings of Jesus and the Buddha. The TL;DR is that, in Q'uo's view, neither was teaching the LOO specifically. Rather, Jesus was teaching Love and Buddha was teaching Wisdom - both useful in their own ways for those seeking awakening or reunification.

[Cainite]

They pay respects and praise some higher entities in rituals and mantras.

They believe in lower and higher beings. devas, hungry ghosts, ...

I’ve been thinking more and more lately that dogs are hungry ghosts right now

Hungry ghosts constantly seek to quench their unquenchable thirst. some humans do resemble them. not dogs though.

Q'uo has commented about the Buddha on a few occasions, along with most of the other major philosophical/spiritual figures in history.  The best discussion I could dig up is here, with Q'uo contrasting the teachings of Jesus and the Buddha.  The TL;DR is that, in Q'uo's view, neither was teaching the LOO specifically.  Rather, Jesus was teaching Love and Buddha was teaching Wisdom - both useful in their own ways for those seeking awakening or reunification.

Yeah, but why would buddha teach wisdom when mankind hadn't learned unconditional love yet? this has always confused me.
Sufism focuses on both.

[APeacefulWarrior]

Yeah, but why would buddha teach wisdom when mankind hadn't learned unconditional love yet? this has always confused me.
Sufism focuses on both.

Nothing says Love has to be learned in a vacuum.  Offering a message of Wisdom created another path for those that, for whatever reason, weren't connecting to the messages of Jesus or Zarathustra or some of the other previous prophets/messengers.  Presumably, the entity which would become the Buddha was simply offering another alternative path towards truth.  Learning Wisdom might even lead some to discover the wisdom of Love, if they wouldn't understand the appeal of Love by itself.  Really, Jesus's message was somewhat unique in its near-exclusive focus on Love.  Most other major prophets and soforth tended to be a bit more blended in their messaging.  

I mean, if I wanted to get deconstructionist, I could point out that while Jesus's message may be the most distilled version of 4D Love understanding we got, it wasn't exactly the most practical of philosophies for actually living on Earth.  Which in turn could help explain why it was so quickly and readily distorted\misunderstood even by early followers of Jesus.  That's certainly not to say other paths like Buddhism or Islam haven't also been distorted over the centuries, but it seems like the mainstream versions have tended to stay a bit closer to their roots, whereas most mainstream modern Christians preach a faith that would be nigh-unrecognizable to Christ himself.

Which is all to say, more or less, sh*t's complicated and the best laid plans of higher entities rarely play out as intended once actually set in motion on Earth.  

[Cainite]

Yeah, but why would buddha teach wisdom when mankind hadn't learned unconditional love yet? this has always confused me.
Sufism focuses on both.

Nothing says Love has to be learned in a vacuum.  Offering a message of Wisdom created another path for those that, for whatever reason, weren't connecting to the messages of Jesus or Zarathustra or some of the other previous prophets/messengers.  Presumably, the entity which would become the Buddha was simply offering another alternative path towards truth.  Learning Wisdom might even lead some to discover the wisdom of Love, if they wouldn't understand the appeal of Love by itself.  Really, Jesus's message was somewhat unique in its near-exclusive focus on Love.  Most other major prophets and soforth tended to be a bit more blended in their messaging.  

I mean, if I wanted to get deconstructionist, I could point out that while Jesus's message may be the most distilled version of 4D Love understanding we got, it wasn't exactly the most practical of philosophies for actually living on Earth.  Which in turn could help explain why it was so quickly and readily distorted\misunderstood even by early followers of Jesus.  That's certainly not to say other paths like Buddhism or Islam haven't also been distorted over the centuries, but it seems like the mainstream versions have tended to stay a bit closer to their roots, whereas most mainstream modern Christians preach a faith that would be nigh-unrecognizable to Christ himself.

Which is all to say, more or less, sh*t's complicated and the best laid plans of higher entities rarely play out as intended once actually set in motion on Earth.  

I understand. I was very skeptic until buddhism and sufism were introduced to me.

Like nine years ago, As I was walking aimlessly, I got into a trance and for some reason thought that Lucifer/Satan was actually a cool guy to not bow down before man and he disobeyed authority.. then I googled about Lucifer that night and got interested in Occult. then Suffism and Buddism. and finally the Law of One.

[JJCarsonian]

Q'uo has commented about the Buddha on a few occasions, along with most of the other major philosophical/spiritual figures in history.  The best discussion I could dig up is here, with Q'uo contrasting the teachings of Jesus and the Buddha.  The TL;DR is that, in Q'uo's view, neither was teaching the LOO specifically.  Rather, Jesus was teaching Love and Buddha was teaching Wisdom - both useful in their own ways for those seeking awakening or reunification.

Thank you sir, i have seen this and it does make sense.... My main question, was through all of Buddha's meditation and soul searching, how did he not receive information that we are all one, and that there is a God, etc... An earlier poster said that Buddha didn't want to have that debate with people.

[APeacefulWarrior]

Q'uo has commented about the Buddha on a few occasions, along with most of the other major philosophical/spiritual figures in history.  The best discussion I could dig up is here, with Q'uo contrasting the teachings of Jesus and the Buddha.  The TL;DR is that, in Q'uo's view, neither was teaching the LOO specifically.  Rather, Jesus was teaching Love and Buddha was teaching Wisdom - both useful in their own ways for those seeking awakening or reunification.

Thank you sir, i have seen this and it does make sense....  My main question, was through all of Buddha's meditation and soul searching, how did he not receive information that we are all one, and that there is a God, etc... An earlier poster said that Buddha didn't want to have that debate with people.

It's very difficult to speculate to concretely about such things, particularly since we have very limited insight into the Buddha as a person or personality, just texts composed long after his death that had already begun to deify him. Broadly speaking, I'd say there are a few possibilities. An obvious one, for example, would be the idea that the Buddha knew -or at least strongly suspected- a central intelligence in the universe, but deemed the concept unhelpful to his teachings. Following this line of thought, if someone came to embrace concepts like non-self and voidness, they would discover the Creator in their own way, in their own time. To speak openly of the Creator would encourage an unhelpful blind faith, and/or push certain people down what we call the Service-to-Self path by causing them to identify directly with the Creator.

After all, I see quite a few parallels between the Buddha's teachings regarding topics like nirvana and non-self as being quite like what Ra describes the transition between 6D and 7D.

I could also believe the interpretation that he simply didn't want to discuss the subject because there was so much unknown or up for debate. Ancient Hindu philosophers had pondered the idea of Brahman for untold centuries before him, and not gotten anywhere. Or Laozi, founder of Daoism, was basically forced to throw up his hands and admit he has no idea whether the Dao is sentient or dumb, creator or created, actor or reactor, or any other concrete knowledge of the topic. Not to mention that, the more one digs into the topic, they start to wonder if the answer is "All of the above, and more, all at once."

If the Buddha's primary goal was, as stated, to help people live happier/less-suffering lives on earth while nudging them towards the self-awareness needed to escape the cycle of rebirth, such debates would really just be distractions. After all, one holding a concrete opinion on the nature of God/Creator/Brahman/Dao/etc would just interfere with the embrace of non-self and nirvana.

Or it could even be possible that during his pre-incarnative planning, the entity-to-be-Buddha specifically ordained that he would be blocked off from knowledge of the Creator, for any of the above reasons or even others we can't imagine. Perhaps, in the view of that entity, only by having no knowledge or expectations of the Creator whatsoever can one meet the Creator with an entirely open and receptive mind.

It's really hard to say. Personally, I'd say it's best to apply the same advice to the teachings of Buddhism which Ra and Q'uo readily apply to their own teachings: Take away what resonates; leave behind the rest.

[Cainite]

Q'uo has commented about the Buddha on a few occasions, along with most of the other major philosophical/spiritual figures in history.  The best discussion I could dig up is here, with Q'uo contrasting the teachings of Jesus and the Buddha.  The TL;DR is that, in Q'uo's view, neither was teaching the LOO specifically.  Rather, Jesus was teaching Love and Buddha was teaching Wisdom - both useful in their own ways for those seeking awakening or reunification.

Thank you sir, i have seen this and it does make sense....  My main question, was through all of Buddha's meditation and soul searching, how did he not receive information that we are all one, and that there is a God, etc... An earlier poster said that Buddha didn't want to have that debate with people.

It's very difficult to speculate to concretely about such things, particularly since we have very limited insight into the Buddha as a person or personality, just texts composed long after his death that had already begun to deify him.  Broadly speaking, I'd say there are a few possibilities.  An obvious one, for example, would be the idea that the Buddha knew -or at least strongly suspected- a central intelligence in the universe, but deemed the concept unhelpful to his teachings.  Following this line of thought, if someone came to embrace concepts like non-self and voidness, they would discover the Creator in their own way, in their own time.  To speak openly of the Creator would encourage an unhelpful blind faith, and/or push certain people down what we call the Service-to-Self path by causing them to identify directly with the Creator.

After all, I see quite a few parallels between the Buddha's teachings regarding topics like nirvana and non-self as being quite like what Ra describes the transition between 6D and 7D.

I could also believe the interpretation that he simply didn't want to discuss the subject because there was so much unknown or up for debate.  Ancient Hindu philosophers had pondered the idea of Brahman for untold centuries before him, and not gotten anywhere.  Or Laozi, founder of Daoism, was basically forced to throw up his hands and admit he has no idea whether the Dao is sentient or dumb, creator or created, actor or reactor, or any other concrete knowledge of the topic.   Not to mention that, the more one digs into the topic, they start to wonder if the answer is "All of the above, and more, all at once."

If the Buddha's primary goal was, as stated, to help people live happier/less-suffering lives on earth while nudging them towards the self-awareness needed to escape the cycle of rebirth, such debates would really just be distractions.  After all, one holding a concrete opinion on the nature of God/Creator/Brahman/Dao/etc would just interfere with the embrace of non-self and nirvana.

Or it could even be possible that during his pre-incarnative planning, the entity-to-be-Buddha specifically ordained that he would be blocked off from knowledge of the Creator, for any of the above reasons or even others we can't imagine.  Perhaps, in the view of that entity, only by having no knowledge or expectations of the Creator whatsoever can one meet the Creator with an entirely open and receptive mind.

It's really hard to say.  Personally, I'd say it's best to apply the same advice to the teachings of Buddhism which Ra and Q'uo readily apply to their own teachings:  Take away what resonates; leave behind the rest.

Maybe that's why Buddhism is not as corrupted as other religions. If it can be called a religion..
Although it certainly has it's own faults. specially the way monks escape reality and build their own reality in their temple.

[Ra1111]

They pay respects and praise some higher entities in rituals and mantras.

They believe in lower and higher beings. devas, hungry ghosts, ...

I’ve been thinking more and more lately that dogs are hungry ghosts right now

Hungry ghosts constantly seek to quench their unquenchable thirst. some humans do resemble them. not dogs though.

Q'uo has commented about the Buddha on a few occasions, along with most of the other major philosophical/spiritual figures in history.  The best discussion I could dig up is here, with Q'uo contrasting the teachings of Jesus and the Buddha.  The TL;DR is that, in Q'uo's view, neither was teaching the LOO specifically.  Rather, Jesus was teaching Love and Buddha was teaching Wisdom - both useful in their own ways for those seeking awakening or reunification.

Yeah, but why would buddha teach wisdom when mankind hadn't learned unconditional love yet? this has always confused me.
Sufism focuses on both.

I have lived with dogs all of my life and they are always , always, always searching for the next thing to eat. And they seem so pitiful for it. That’s what I mean.

[Cainite]

They pay respects and praise some higher entities in rituals and mantras.

They believe in lower and higher beings. devas, hungry ghosts, ...

I’ve been thinking more and more lately that dogs are hungry ghosts right now

Hungry ghosts constantly seek to quench their unquenchable thirst. some humans do resemble them. not dogs though.

Q'uo has commented about the Buddha on a few occasions, along with most of the other major philosophical/spiritual figures in history.  The best discussion I could dig up is here, with Q'uo contrasting the teachings of Jesus and the Buddha.  The TL;DR is that, in Q'uo's view, neither was teaching the LOO specifically.  Rather, Jesus was teaching Love and Buddha was teaching Wisdom - both useful in their own ways for those seeking awakening or reunification.

Yeah, but why would buddha teach wisdom when mankind hadn't learned unconditional love yet? this has always confused me.
Sufism focuses on both.

I have lived with dogs all of my life and they are always , always, always searching for the next thing to eat. And they seem so pitiful for it. That’s what I mean.

Yeah.. you're right.

My female cat is always searching for somewhere to get trapped in.. luckily my male cat always figures out where she's ended up..