Apech

I think we can accept the skandha idea as true - I know for instance that the tree in my yard is a collection of 'trillions' of cells, water, mycelia, insect life .... and so on ... in this sense ... I could say the tree itself is an epi-phenomenon and dependent on causes and conditions. Despite knowing this the experience if the tree, its sight, it's tough, the 'aura' of its presence are all real. Perhaps not in a strict philosophical way but in an immediate way. And moreover things can be empty and real. Because empty doesn't mean void or nothing. But my question is - where does that reality come from? Why is the tree real?

No but read this: https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/budd/hd_budd.htm#:~:text=In the earliest Buddhist art,empty space beneath a parasol. The Muslim invasion was about 1200 AD and Naropa dates to the 10th century. Their practices were transmitted to Marpa and this became one of the four schools of TB namely Karma Kagyu. But there were various waves of Buddhism to Tibet including Padma Sambhava in 9th Cent and Atisha in 10th.

Is anyone at home? 😀

Skandha banana I am sure we are all familiar with the idea that phenomena at five levels (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness) are the result of 'bundles' 'heaps' or 'baskets' of causes and conditions and that the phenomena have no independent existence, are temporary and empty. This is basic Buddhist doctrine. But on the other hand - if we see, touch, experience a tree - it is real. Indisputably real. Where does its reality come from?

A bit like pinning the tail on the donkey

Excuse me!?!

Young man, there's no need to feel down, I saidYoung man, pick yourself off the ground, I said Young man, 'cause you're in a new town There's no need to be unhappy Young man, there's a place you can go, I said Young man, when you're short on your dough you canStay there and I'm sure you will findMany ways to have a good time

Just imagine an eternal big gay disco!

Bored but not broken, we the DaoBums shuffle along, While high above the Big Gay Disco Glitter ball spins ever on.

The gulag awaits you, comrade. True. That implies that some will be. I wonder what comprises a good qi gong practice and how would another be harmful? Can you explain why? Don't talk to the servers!

I think I should perhaps mention that the purpose of my 'Unpopular Opinions' threads - of which this is the third I think - is for us all to post ideas which might challenge the mainstream or just amuse so that we can all debate them. It's not meant to just be me holding forth with my wacky views. So please feel free to post your own unpopular opinions.

His take on the 12 steps of dependent origination is poor to say the least - even modern Buddhologists say so.

The Theravada had tantric practices but they purged them (not completely tho). Sorry I can't cite reference for this but it might be in Gombridge's History of Theravada (not sure). PS. I've read a lot on this but I didn't keep notes as at the time it was purely for my own self education. There are tho some good academic books on Buddhism which are quite useful.

I've never practiced Theravada so perhaps I shouldn't comment. I am sure there is a lot of good in it and a good fit for many. When I was researching the history of Buddhism the work of certain bhikshus was very useful, sincere and well researched. But I never found it attractive as a vehicle for my work ... but this may be a personal thing. I think originally this is how it was and according to the testimony of Chinese Buddhsts visiting India it was the case that monks in same monastery would practice sutrayana and mahayana side by side. It is thought that mahayana was at one time just a monority practice in many communities which grew in popularity over time to gradually replace the sravaka tradition. There was no schism just a gradual growing apart over time.

Theravada likes to present itself as something like pure Buddhism but it has a long history of its own which is worth looking at. If you have read Buddhaghosa for instance you might wonder what is going on. lol.

I think that at least in some respects the Pali Canon is the result of Ashoka's imperial capture of what was previously a minority religion. An attempt at orthodoxy like what happened with early Christian texts at Nicea and so on. I think this might be hinted at in the video I posted above.

I have no idea ...can they???

There are various theories, including the suggestion that it is comparable to Muslim artists not portraying the prophet (pbuh) - but I think this is unlikely. I think it is because the Buddha was the Tathagata - 'thus gone one' and so it was an artistic device to show that although he was present ... he was also beyond 'self' and thus shown as a void.

I was using Constantine for comparison - I'm not saying they are the same but that they both practiced Imperial patronage of a religion. If you have the time this video is quite interesting:

I use the term shamanism in its broadest acquired sense and of course not the original Siberian sense. I mean being in contact with hidden realities - gaining knowledge from there and transmitting it back to mankind. Well yes Tantric practices came from Oddiyana from sometime maybe 6th Century or thereabouts. Oddiyana is believed to be the Swat valley now part of modern Pakistan/Afghanistan where the kingdoms deriving from Alexander the Greats invasion held sway. Also on the silk route and thus a passageway to and from China and also Rome and the West. There was much mixing - which incidently included Ashoka sending Buddhist 'missionaries' as far as Libya. So historically the emergent vajrayana is far from the original Buddhism as would have been found in the 5th Century BC Maghada. But that depends one what you mean by close and far in terms of approach and attitude. We often confuse historical closeness with actual proximity of thought - which I believe is a mistake. Why not assume it? He practiced various forms of Samhkya based meditation and ascetic practices before his enlightenment. Magic spells were practiced generally by Buddhist monks in all periods including the Theravada. We have much more than that. We have our own minds and buddha-nature which if we realise them as they really are we will see as the Buddha did without any need for textual authority. Many people make the mistake that thinking there was some kind of pure Ur-Buddhist stream, which journeyed to Tibet and became corrupted by gods, demons, magic and folk religion leading to Tibetan Buddhism. This is completely historically inaccurate. The Buddhism which came to Tibet in two main waves (9th C and 11 C) was the prominent form of Buddhism practiced in Northern India at the time - namely the Mahayana of Atisha and the Vajrayana of Padmasambhava and others. The Tibetans did of course add commentaries and some new practices over the years - and while there were periods of decadence and so on - they were corrected by the great teachers like Sakya Pandita and brought into alignment with the Buddha's teachings.

It all makes sense now.

That’s the big gay disco version!

Wait! Hush! Is that Gloria Gaynor singing? Just follow the sound!

It’s a DaoBums rule not to attack or demean another poster that’s all - it’s not the end of the world.