Apech

Donald Lopez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_S._Lopez_Jr. has talked about a 'European construction of original Buddhism' - which upholds Buddha as a perhaps Socrates-like philosopher/sage - atheist and rationalist. It is my position that this is a false narrative - but one by which we are all affected. Rather like the Mahayana as schism meme. The most extreme proponents of this modern rationalist Buddha are Stephen Batchelor and his chums. From this perspective tantric Buddhism is dismissed as degenerate, contaminated and more or less non-Buddhist. When I mention 'shock' I meant the link (not an internet link an actual one) between Buddha and tantra. Some tantric texts are shocking as they deal in sex and other transgressive behaviour. To me, and this is only my intuition I have yet to prove it, the Buddha was a complete teacher on all levels and in all ways, and thus original Buddhism was broad or even vast in its range and not a kind a back projected ascetic Theravada. This is what I am setting out to investigate. So for instance - although the Vajrayana in terms of iconography and so on is drawn from Medieval India it was actually a popularisation of Buddhas esoteric teachings which had been handed down to them - exactly as the Vajrayana Buddhists claim.

This would be the view supported by Herbert Guenther and others. In a way I agree with it because Buddhatantra uses terms in specific ways and as you say sees the meditation 'deities' as aspects of Buddha-nature (although what exactly this means needs careful thought as Buddha-nature is more 'real' than you or I I don't know enough about Hindu tantra to say whether you are right about the channels or not. Some of the tantric deities seem to be much older than I thought. For instance Vajrapani (lit: vajra-in-hand) appears in the Pali Canon: The Pali Canon's Ambattha Suttanta tells of one instance of him protecting the Buddha's honor. A young Brahman named Ambatha visited the Buddha and insulted him by saying the Shaykya clan (the enlightened one's family) were abjects who should revere the Brahmins. In return, the Buddha asked the Brahmin if his family was descended from a “Shakya slave girl”. However, Ambatha further insulted the Buddha by not answering his question. When he failed to answer the question for a second time, the Buddha warned him that his head would be smashed to bits if he failed to do so a third time. Ambatha was frightened when he saw Vajrapani manifest above the Buddha's head ready to strike the Brahmin down with his thunderbolt. http://www.tamqui.com/buddhaworld/Vajrapani http://buddhasutra.com/files/ambattha_sutta.htm Vajrapani is described as a Yaksha which means 'spirit': Yaksha (Sanskrit: यक्ष yakṣa, Tamil: யகன் yakan, இயக்கன் iyakan,[1] Odia: ଯକ୍ଷ jôkhyô, Pali: yakkha)[2] are a broad class of nature-spirits, usually benevolent, but sometimes mischievous and sexually aggressive or capricious caretakers of the natural treasures hidden in the earth and tree roots.[3] They appear in Hindu, Jain and Buddhist texts, as well as ancient and medieval era temples of South Asia and Southeast Asia as guardian deities.[3][4] The feminine form of the word is yakṣī[5] or Yakshini (yakṣiṇī).[6] Here is a picture of a Yakshi statue from the stupa at Sanchi (2nd century BC) which is from the early Buddhist Period - just to give a flavour. Actually the Ambattha Sutta is quite interesting overall and I may write about it a little. Most of all I would question the 'Buddha was a rationalist, humanist, philosopher' type view entirely. I think it may only be possible to sustain this type of view by very selective reading. Which makes the Buddha/tantra link less shocking.

Well guys, I think the time has come to move on to the thorny subject of the growth of Tantric Buddhism or the Vajrayana. Again rather like the birth of the Mahayana the study of this subject has been marred by the attitude of the Western scholars who first discovered the tantras. They were categorised as impure, decadent and the product of contamination and decay. This was probably at least partly due to the sexual imagery (which Victorian scholars reacted badly to) and the accounts of the behaviour of the Mahasiddhas who deliberately broke taboos and so on. So for a long time it was very unfashionable for an academic to study these texts - although this view seems now to be changing. The rough dates are that around 500 AD the first Kriya Tantras appear and by 700 AD the term Vajrayana is in use. From 600 - 1200 AD Tantric Buddhism slowly grows in strength and prominence spreading to Tibet (where it is the main form of Buddhism) and also China and Japan. There are four main models for the development of Tantric Buddhism: 1 ) Tantric Buddhism as a direct lift from Hindu (mainly Shaivite) Tantra - by changing the names and adapting the practices. 2 ) Tantra itself as an ancient India wide movement (possibly going back to the IVC) which affected not only Hinduism, Buddhism but also Jainism - and Buddha-tantra as but one off shoot. 3 ) Buddha tantra as a distinct development of Buddhist thought and practice and having only a superficial similarity to Hindu Tantra - but actually a unique new movement in Buddhism. 4 ) That the historical Buddha taught a tantric style approach which was handed down esoterically until the conditions were right for its popular promotion. (this is more or less what the Vajrayana Buddhists themselves believe). If anyone can think of another model - please let me know. So what do you think? and why?

Ladybird Book of Mindfulness

Si

simpleton

insult everyone

fat lady sung

Everlasting snot

Started in India and developed by Chinese and Japanese.

and french fries

does that come with noodles?

Interesting points, thanks. Obviously we must all make up our own minds as to the value of these different ideas. But I would make the following response. Buddha-fields or Pure lands (of which there are many - in fact Ashobhya's is mentioned before Amitabhas) are explained by the idea that our experience of our environment is conditioned by our awareness. So for instance a fish experience water as it's 'air' or total environment, we experience as something to drink or wash ourselves with and gods experience it as ambrosia (or so we are told). So an enlightened being experiences the same universe as we do but as a pure land or Buddha field. Amitabha specifically through his intent created a pure land where even beings with confused and afflicted minds could reside and receive teachings which hastened their path to realisation. I don't think it is true that to access Dewachen/Sukhavati is effortless as one has to be pure intentioned etc. which does imply a certain moral effort on the part of the devotee. Pure land Buddhism is particularly prevalent in China and Japan and the idea was that we are living in a third age in which it is very hard if not nearly impossible to achieve enlightenment by one's own effort and so a leg up was required. So I don't think it is intended as a cosmic get out jail free card but more a devotional form of Buddhism which developed to suit the temperament of the Chinese and Japanese - or some of them. But as I say it is up to each of us to form our own perspective and I would say I don't find Far Eastern Pure Land style very attractive - though whether this counts as a view or not I couldn't say.

constipation

Thanks - a good read - Drewes quotes Harrison extensively. I'm not sure if we are done with the growth of the Mahayana - for which we can confidently discount the usual narrative - with the slight caveat that what the academics are discounting are the rather casual conclusions of previous academics and not the teachings of Buddhism itself. It's very revealing that while we tend to think we can look at eastern religions objectively - they have already been (since the 19 th. century) 'contaminated' by Western rationality and misapprehension especially the projection of Judeo-Christian values onto them. I think this is true of Daoism also - especially Philosophical and New Age Daoism which probably bears no, or little relation to the original Daoism but is a reflection of our views and sometimes fantasies.

Hi, Its impossible to advise you fully over the net as there are probably many factors in your life, lifestyle and history which we don't know. But I would say the following: 1 ) first go see a doctor about your tinnitus to eliminate any physical cause such as infection 2 ) don't take up any strong detox or new meditation for at least three months and avoid any 'energy' practices 3 ) eat well and regularly - it doesn't matter much what as long as not processed foods 4 ) take regular daily exercise which is enjoyable 5) set yourself simple tasks of sorting out factors in your life which annoy you or feel like loose ends (simplest easiest first) 6) do some things you like doing some symptoms/ energy reactions are self generating simply because of the attention we give them - the capacity to change and establish good health and balance already exists inside you - you can generate the capacity to heal yourself without any outside intervention if you are patient and listen to your own body and mind.

crushed nuts?

Bomb day

Growth of Mahayana - conclusions? As you know from my OP my contention is that the Mahayana style practice came from the Buddha himself but was a minority (or possibly esoteric practice) for the first 300+ years and 'broke out' into the mainstream when the historical conditions demanded it or allowed it. I haven't managed to prove this - but current academic thinking does support some of this and also refutes most of the misconceptions which built up since Buddhism came west. The papers linked by CT contain a number of ideas based on current textual evidence - that the term Mahayana probably derives from Mahajnana (colloquialized into Mahajana) - thus meaning 'great wisdom' and first occurs in written form in the 1st century CE but derived from the first century BC - which interestingly makes them contemporary with the Pali Canon. But more and more appear in the first few centuries CE. That this was not a separate school but a different form of practice which occurred within existing Buddhist monasteries - sometimes alongside Hinayana - but still a minority in say 400 - 600 CE - and did not really become totally distinct until after Buddhism died out in India - whence the Sri Lankans threw out the Mahayana which was practice there and the Chinese/Tibetans and so on retained it. The Mahayana practice focused on the sutras themselves which were taught by 'dharmabhanakas' - they recited the texts, taught its meaning and guided the students in memorising it. In fact hearing, memorising and chanting the text were the practice. What these texts introduced was the 'world' or eternal, comic Buddhas such as Maitreya (the future Buddha), Amitabha and also Bodhisattvas like Avolokiteshvara - who embodies compassion. I think it is important to understand that idea of a text is not like a western one. It comes from an oral teaching of course where transmission would be by memorising and repeating and not just reading (of course). The Mahayanists regarded the dharmabhanakas who gave the text as being 'like Buddhas' - so there was something supra-mundane going on in the sense that receiving, learning, memorising and chanting the text was more like a meditational practice than a passive reading one. And engagement with this may be, in my mind why they call Hinayanists shravakas 'listeners' as that is what the audience for a nikaya text would do. But the Mahayana process would be more like the Vajrayana 'lung' transmission - to which I can attest is not a mere passive reading.

Why do you think Pure Land Buddhism is antithetical to the spirit of Buddhism? I'm not saying that it isn't but would just like to know your reasons.

If anyone is interested in Early Buddhism this (apart from books (!)) is the best thing to watch. if you have several hours to spare

Thanks. the quotes are accurate but anything I've said is just me rapping ... so take with big pinch of salt

the Mahayana upholds 4 Noble Truths, dependent origination and no-self (as part of emptiness) so actually they are not rejecting the contents of the nikayas - Theravada denies the authenticity of Mahayana sutras - but then I have seen Thai/Sri Lankan monks attend lectures by Sakya Trizin and DL - so maybe not that far apart in some ways

sugar coated