Pleroma refers to the totality of divine powers. The word means fullness from πληρόω comparable to πλήρης which means "full", is used in Christian theological contexts: both in Gnosticism and by St. Paul the Apostle in Colossians 2:9. Pleroma is used in the general Greek language and is used by the Greek Orthodox Church in this general form since the word appears in the book of Colossians; the word itself is a relative term, capable of many shades of meaning, according to the subject with which it is joined and the antithesis to which it is contrasted. It denotes the result of the action of the verb pleroun, it may emphasize totality in contrast to its constituent parts. A further ambiguity arises when it is joined with a genitive, which may be either subjective or objective, the fulness which one thing gives to another, or that which it receives from another. In its semi-technical application it is applied to the perfection of God, the fulness of His Being,'the aggregate of the Divine attributes, energies': this is used quite in Colossians 1:19, but further defined as pan to pleroma tes theotetos,'the whole completeness of the Divine nature,' in Colossians 2:9, as pan to pleroma tou theou,'the whole perfection, characteristic of God,' in Ephesians 3:19.
Secondarily, this same pleroma is transferred to Christ. This indwelling emphasizes the completeness. One further application of the phrase is made in (Ephesians 1:23, where it is used of the Church, to pleroma tou ta panta en pasin pleroumenou. Here the genitive is subjective—the fulness of Christ, His full embodiment, that fulness which He supplies to the Church—emphasizing the thoroughness with which the Church is the receptacle of His powers and represents Him on earth; the analogy of the other uses of the word with the genitive of the person, the stress throughout these books on Christians being filled by Christ, favours this view. But the genitive may be objective,'the complement of Christ,' that which completes Him, which fills up by its activities the work which His withdrawal to heaven would have left undone, as the body completes the head; the analogy of the body, the stress laid on the action of the Church, St. Paul's language about himself in Colossians 1:24, support this, it is impossible to decide between the two.
The former view has been most common since the thorough examination of the word by Fritzsche and Lightfoot, was taken by von Soden. But the latter view, that of Origen and Chrysostom, has been advocated by Pfleiderer, T. K. Abbott. Outside the NT the word occurs in Ignatius in a sense, influenced by the NT, in the meaning of the Divine fulness, as going forth and blessing and residing in the Church. In Gnosticism the use becomes yet more stereotyped and technical, though its applications are still variable; the Gnostic writers appeal to the use in the NT, the word retains from it the sense of totality in contrast to the constituent parts. Thus in Cerinthus it expressed the fulness of the Divine Life out of which the Divine Christ descended upon the man Jesus at his baptism, into which He returned. In the Valentinian system it stands in antithesis to the essential incomprehensible Godhead, as'the circle of the Divine attributes,' the various means by which God reveals Himself
In Buddhism, buddhahood is the condition or rank of a buddha "awakened one". The goal of Mahayana's bodhisattva path is Samyaksambuddhahood, so that one may benefit all sentient beings by teaching them the path of cessation of dukkha. Mahayana theory contrasts this with the goal of the Theravada path, where the goal is individual arhatship. In Theravada Buddhism, Buddha refers to one who has become awake through their own efforts and insight, without a teacher to point out the dharma. A samyaksambuddha re-discovered the truths and the path to awakening and teaches its to others after his awakening. A pratyekabuddha reaches Nirvana through his own efforts, but does not teach the dharma to others. An arhat needs to follow the teaching of a Buddha to attain Nirvana, but can preach the dharma after attaining Nirvana. In one instance the term buddha is used in Theravada to refer to all who attain Nirvana, using the term Sāvakabuddha to designate an arhat, someone who depends on the teachings of a Buddha to attain Nirvana.
In this broader sense it is equivalent to the arhat. Buddhahood is the state of an awakened being, who having found the path of cessation of dukkha is in the state of "No-more-Learning". There is a broad spectrum of opinion on the universality and method of attainment of Buddhahood, depending on Gautama Buddha's teachings that a school of Buddhism emphasizes; the level to which this manifestation requires ascetic practices varies from none at all to an absolute requirement, dependent on doctrine. Mahayana Buddhism emphasizes the bodhisattva ideal instead of the Arhat; the Tathagatagarba and Buddha-nature doctrines of Mahayana Buddhism consider Buddhahood to be a universal and innate property of absolute wisdom. This wisdom is revealed in a person's current lifetime through Buddhist practice, without any specific relinquishment of pleasures or "earthly desires". Buddhists do not consider Gautama to have been the only Buddha; the Pāli Canon refers to many previous ones, while the Mahayana tradition additionally has many Buddhas of celestial origin (see Amitābha or Vairocana as examples, for lists of many thousands of Buddha names.
The various Buddhist schools hold some varying interpretations on the nature of Buddha. All Buddhist traditions hold that a Buddha is awakened and has purified his mind of the three poisons of craving and ignorance. A Buddha is no longer bound by saṃsāra, has ended the suffering which unawakened people experience in life. Most schools of Buddhism have held that the Buddha was omniscient. However, the early texts contain explicit repudiations of making this claim of the Buddha; some Buddhists meditate on the Buddha as having ten characteristics. These characteristics are mentioned in the Pāli Canon as well as Mahayana teachings, are chanted daily in many Buddhist monasteries: Thus gone, thus come Worthy one Perfectly self-enlightened Perfected in knowledge and conduct Well gone Knower of the world Unsurpassed Leader of persons to be tamed Teacher of the gods and humans The Blessed One or fortunate one The tenth epithet is sometimes listed as "The World Honored Enlightened One" or "The Blessed Enlightened One".
In the Pāli Canon, Gautama Buddha is known as being a "teacher of the gods and humans", superior to both the gods and humans in the sense of having nirvana or the greatest bliss, whereas the devas, or gods, are still subject to anger and sorrow. In the Madhupindika Sutta, Buddha is described in powerful terms as the Lord of the Dhamma and the bestower of immortality. In the Anuradha Sutta Buddha is described as the Tathagata—the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment."And so, Anuradha—when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality in the present life—is it proper for you to declare,'Friends, the Tathagata—the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment—being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'? In the Vakkali Sutta Buddha identifies himself with the Dhamma: O Vakkali, whoever sees the Dhamma, sees me Another reference from the Aggañña Sutta of the Digha Nikaya, says to his disciple Vasettha: O Vasettha!
The Word of Dhammakaya is indeed the name of the Tathagata Shravasti Dhammika, a Theravada monk, writes: In the centuries after his final Nibbāna it sometimes got to the stage that the legends and myths obscured the real human being behind them and the Buddha came to be looked upon as a god. The Buddha was a human being, not a'mere human being' as is sometimes said but a special class of human called a'complete person'; such complete persons are born no different from others and indeed they physically remain quite ordinary. Sangharakshita states that "The first thing we have to understand - and this is important - is that the Buddha is a human being, but a special kind of human being, in fact the highest kind, so fa
Ātman is a Sanskrit word that means inner self or soul. In Hindu philosophy in the Vedanta school of Hinduism, Ātman is the first principle, the true self of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual. In order to attain liberation, a human being must acquire self-knowledge, to realize that one's true self is identical with the transcendent self Brahman; the six orthodox schools of Hinduism believe. This is a major point of difference with the Buddhist doctrine of Anatta which holds that there is no unchanging soul or self. "Ātman" is a Sanskrit word which means "essence, soul." It is derived from the Proto-Indo-European word *h₁eh₁tmṓ.Ātman, sometimes spelled without a diacritic as atman in scholarly literature, means "real self" of the individual, "innermost essence", soul. Atman, in Hinduism, is considered as eternal, beyond time, "not the same as body or mind or consciousness, but is something beyond which permeates all these". Atman is a metaphysical and spiritual concept for the Hindus discussed in their scriptures with the concept of Brahman.
The earliest use of word "Ātman" in Indian texts is found in the Rig Veda. Yāska, the ancient Indian grammarian, commenting on this Rigvedic verse, accepts the following meanings of Ātman: the pervading principle, the organism in which other elements are united and the ultimate sentient principle. Other hymns of Rig Veda where the word Ātman appears include I.115.1, VII.87.2, VII.101.6, VIII.3.24, IX.2.10, IX.6.8, X.168.4. Ātman is a central idea in all of the Upanishads, "know your Ātman" is their thematic focus. These texts state that the core of every person's self is not the body, nor the mind, nor the ego, but "Ātman", which means "soul" or "self". Atman is the spiritual essence in their real innermost essential being, it is eternal, it is the essence, it is ageless. Atman is that; the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad describes Atman as that in which everything exists, of the highest value, which permeates everything, the essence of all and beyond description. In hymn 4.4.5, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad describes Atman as Brahman, associates it with everything one is, everything one can be, one's free will, one's desire, what one does, what one doesn't do, the good in oneself, the bad in oneself.
That Atman is indeed Brahman. It is identified with the intellect, the Manas, the vital breath, with the eyes and ears, with earth, air, ākāśa, with fire and with what is other than fire, with desire and the absence of desire, with anger and the absence of anger, with righteousness and unrighteousness, with everything — it is identified, as is well known, with this and with that; as it does and acts, so it becomes: by doing good it becomes good, by doing evil it becomes evil. It becomes virtuous through good acts, vicious through evil acts. Others, say, "The self is identified with desire alone. What it desires, so it resolves; this theme of Ātman, soul and self of oneself, every person, every being is the same as Brahman, is extensively repeated in Brihadāranyaka Upanishad. The Upanishad asserts that this knowledge of "I am Brahman", that there is no difference between "I" and "you", or "I" and "him" is a source of liberation, not gods can prevail over such a liberated man. For example, in hymn 1.4.10, Brahman was this before.
I am Brahman, therefore it became all. And whoever among the gods had this enlightenment became That, it is the same with the same with men. Whoever knows the self as “I am Brahman,” becomes all this universe; the gods cannot prevail against him, for he becomes their Ātma. Now, if a man worships another god, thinking: “He is one and I am another,” he does not know, he is like an animal to the gods. As many animals serve a man, so does each man serve the gods. If one animal is taken away, it causes anguish; therefore it is not pleasing to the gods. Along with the Brihadāranyaka, all the earliest and middle Upanishads discuss Ātman as they build their theories to answer how man can achieve liberation and bliss; the Katha Upanishad, for example, explains Atman as immanent and transcendent innermost essence of each human being and living creature, that this is one though the external forms of living creatures manifest in different forms, for example, in hymns 2.2.9 and others, its states As the one fire, after it has entered the world, though one, takes different forms according to whatever it burns,so does the internal Ātman of all living beings, though one, takes a form according to whatever He enters and is outside all forms.
Katha Upanishad, in Book 1, hymns 3.3 to 3.4, describes the cited analogy of chariot for the relation of "Soul, Self" to body and senses. Stephen Kaplan translates these hymns as, "Know the Self as the rider in a chariot, the body as the chariot. Know the intellect as the charioteer, the mind as the reins; the senses, they say are the horses, sense objects are the paths around them". The Katha Upanishad declares that "when the Self understands this and is unified, integrated w
In philosophy, being means the existence of a thing. Anything that exists has being. Ontology is the branch of philosophy that studies being. Being is a concept encompassing subjective features of reality and existence. Anything that partakes in being is called a "being", though this usage is limited to entities that have subjectivity; the notion of "being" has been elusive and controversial in the history of philosophy, beginning in Western philosophy with attempts among the pre-Socratics to deploy it intelligibly. The first effort to recognize and define the concept came from Parmenides, who famously said of it that "what is-is". Common words such as "is", "are", "am" refer directly or indirectly to being; as an example of efforts in recent times, Martin Heidegger adopted after German terms like Dasein to articulate the topic. Several modern approaches build on such continental European exemplars as Heidegger, apply metaphysical results to the understanding of human psychology and the human condition generally.
By contrast, in mainstream Analytical philosophy the topic is more confined to abstract investigation, in the work of such influential theorists as W. V. O. Quine, to name one of many. One of the most fundamental questions, contemplated in various cultures and traditions and continues to exercise philosophers is articulated thusly by William James: "How comes the world to be here at all instead of the nonentity which might be imagined in its place?... from nothing to being there is no logical bridge." The deficit of such a bridge was first encountered in history by the Pre-Socratic philosophers during the process of evolving a classification of all beings. Aristotle, who wrote after the Pre-Socratics, applies the term category to ten highest-level classes, they comprise one category of substance existing independently and nine categories of accidents, which can only exist in something else. In Aristotle, substances are to be clarified by stating their definition: a note expressing a larger class followed by further notes expressing specific differences within the class.
The substance so defined was a species. For example, the species, may be defined as an animal, rational; as the difference is potential within the genus. Applied to being, the system fails to arrive at a definition for the simple reason that no difference can be found; the species, the genus, the difference are all being: a being is a being, being. The genus can not be nothing; the trivial solution that being is being added to nothing is only a tautology: being is being. There is no simpler intermediary between non-being that explains and classifies being. Pre-Socratic reaction to this deficit was varied; as substance theorists they accepted a priori the hypothesis that appearances are deceiving, that reality is to be reached through reasoning. Parmenides reasoned that if everything is identical to being and being is a category of the same thing there can be neither differences between things nor any change. To be different, or to change, would amount to becoming or being non-being. Therefore, being is a homogeneous and non-differentiated sphere and the appearance of beings is illusory.
Heraclitus, on the other hand, foreshadowed modern thought by denying existence. Reality does not exist, it flows, beings are an illusion upon the flow. Aristotle knew of this tradition when he began his Metaphysics, had drawn his own conclusion, which he presented under the guise of asking what being is:"And indeed the question, raised of old is raised now and always, is always the subject of doubt, viz. what being is, is just the question, what is substance? For it is this that some assert to be one, others more than one, that some assert to be limited in number, others unlimited, and so we must consider chiefly and and exclusively what, which is in this sense." And reiterates in no uncertain terms: "Nothing, not a species of a genus will have an essence – only species will have it....". Being, for Aristotle, is not a genus. One might expect a solution to follow from such certain language but none does. Instead Aristotle launches into a rephrasing of the Theory of Act and Potency. In the definition of man as a two-legged animal Aristotle presumes that "two-legged" and "animal" are parts of other beings, but as far as man is concerned, are only man.
At the point where they are united into a single being, the being, becomes actual, or real. Unity is the basis of actuality: "...'being' is being combined and one, and'not being' is being not combined but more than one." Actuality has taken the place of existence, but Aristotle is no longer seeking to know what the actual is. He has found a "half-being" or a "pre-being", the potency, being as part of some other substance. Substances, in Aristotle, unite what they are now with everything they might become; some of Thomas Aquinas' propositions were reputedly condemned by Étienne Tempier, the local Bishop of Paris in 1270 and 1277, but his dedication to the use of philosophy to elucidate theology was so thorough that he was proclaimed a Doctor of the Church in 1568. Those who adopt it are called