Cheshire Cat

There was a schism between Sthaviravada and Mahasamghika and this is generally accepted as an historical fact. Although some valid hypothesis (that I'm not aware of) may exists which proves that this schism never happened... since historical proofs are quite rare here. As for the exact origins of Mahayana, there are different theories also. Personally, I think that it was a form of silent schism... people not directly involved where not concerned about it. But considering the Lotus Sutra and the story of the burning house One day, a fire broke out in the house of a wealthy man who had many children. The wealthy man shouted at his children inside the burning house to flee. But, the children were absorbed in their games and did not heed his warning, though the house was being consumed by flames. Then, the wealthy man devised a practical way to lure the children from the burning house. Knowing that the children were fond of interesting playthings, he called out to them, "Listen! Outside the gate are the carts that you have always wanted: carts pulled by goats, carts pulled by deer, and carts pulled by oxen. Why don't you come out and play with them?" The wealthy man knew that these things would be irresistible to his children. The children, eager to play with these new toys rushed out of the house but, instead of the carts that he had promised, the father gave them a cart much better than any he has described - a cart draped with precious stones and pulled by white bullocks. The important thing being that the children were saved from the dangers of the house on fire. In this parable the father, of course, is the Buddha and sentient beings are the children trapped in the burning house. The Burning House represents the world burning with the fires of old age, sickness and death. The teachings of the Buddha are like the father getting the boys to leave their pleasures for a greater pleasure, Nirvana. (from http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/buddhism/parable_burning_house.html) We may suppose that Mahayana was born in a place where many dharmas were already present. Mahayana didn't deny them, but plainly said that his Dharma was superior. And this story of the superior teachings goes on today, applied in any new form of mahayana path... But probably this was a common attitude among the various sects... imho.

This could be likely. For example, Woodward (translator of a famous and obscure buddhist yoga manual) mentions a Bikkhu, Doratiaveye, who lived in Ceylon. This monk learned by his guru the secret technique of this obscure yoga... but he never practiced it, because being a bodhisattva, he feared to reach Nirvana directly. This Bikkhu was alive in 1900. It's not a 100% mahayana view... but it's neither a 100% theravada approach, imho. The reasons of the schism is not clear at all. We cannot say that it was for vinaya rules. As I wrote, an account say that the controversy was caused by a scandalous monk, Mahadeva. I never associated Hinayana with the "right" Dharma and mahayana with a corrupted one or something in this line. I just wanted to point that the original movement was quite ascetic (middle way, but full of renunciations) without interest in deities, pujas and the like. The purpose was total and definitive extinction. We know this by reading the early canons. Then, in different phases, someone introduced deities as in catholicism someone introduced saints. The last phases of "deities introduction" was made trough tantra. In fact, theravadins have full and elaborate worship rituals.

Unless, we accept that mahayana is the direct teaching of the Buddha delivered to a special secret assembly of bodhisattvas (faith)... there's much space here for all kind of speculation. All theories are welcome.

There should be a way to use some sort of scapegoat... most of the fertility rites were based on that. The catholic mass is based on a similar concept, etc...

I think that he's a great Pandit: a smaller version of Osho.

The monk was asked specifically about differences This is a good approach because you can keep an open heart and cultivate what resonates with you Nonetheless, principles are theory... and only practice matters. I will explain this idea with an historical example. Christianity as it is known today was born by the hard work of St. Paul and some friends. The original idea was very simple and could be considered as the "core" of Christianity: "There's just one God and people cannot worship other deities, otherwise it's a sinful act. But since God has no image, you should worship Jesus because not only he have a form, but he retains his physical body in the Heavens" But people were not happy with this: they had thousands of deities. One God is just not enough. So, it was established devotion to Saints, Martyrs and Virgin Mary in replacement of the old pantheon. The old shrines were transformed in accordance with the new religion and the old gods became Saints: same functions, same roles, very similar rituals and beliefs ... but names changed. The theological argument was "You can pray them and they can perform miracles, but those miracles are not from their own: when you pray to them, they ask to God in turn. And God may intercedes in your favor." The principles is "There is just one God". The practice instead, is a nice polytheism because there's no difference in the way one worships a Saint or God. Personally, I think that a similar thing happened with buddhism: people were not happy in having no Gods... so, it was established the cult of bodhisattva. The principles are different from other religions.... but practice is the same since people worship bodhisattvas and Buddhas as Christians worship God and the Saints. Christian theory " I worship because in this way I will go to heaven" Buddhist theory "I worship because in this way I will be a bodhisattva and then a Buddha" But, since fundamentally they are doing the same thing, how could they expect different results?

This post is based on the lessons of Prof. Malcolm David Eckel. Historians say that it is the Second Buddhist Council that led to the beginnings of Buddhist sectarianism. As the community expanded across northern India in that time, monks began to adapt the teaching to new situations and encountered much greater difficulty enforcing unanimity in doctrine or discipline. This is a natural thing. This resulted in a dispute in the samgha. Thus, we had a second Buddhist council. Historical accounts of this council are contradictory; it is difficult to be certain either about the source of the controversy or about its outcome. For example, one account says that the controversy was provoked by Mahadeva, a nice monk. Another says that it was provoked by disagreement over two prohibitions in traditional monastic discipline: one prevented monks and nuns from using gold and silver; the other prevented them from carrying salt from one day to the next. Those were very difficult problems: monks went mad for salt... Out of this dispute came a split between two major parties. The party known as the Sthaviravada, or “Doctrine of the Elders,” was the predecessor of the Theravada tradition that now dominates the Buddhist countries of Southeast Asia (with the exception of Vietnam). The party known as the Mahasamghika, or “Great Community,” was the predecessor of the Mahayana tradition that now dominates the Buddhist countries of North and East Asia. These disputes eventually gave rise to eighteen schools (nikaya), only one of which still survives in its traditional form. The sole surviving school is the Theravada (Pali for Sthaviravada) tradition of Southeast Asia.

Personally, I'm skeptical about this. In my opinion, if you want a downward movement of energy, you should use the front channel. I speak especially from the perspective of a practitioner who embraces semen retention. In the AYP of Yogani, people cultivate the central channel with spinal breathing (upward and downward movements): at first, they get an unusual need to urinate often, then practitioners find semen in their urine. They assume that this is a natural phenomena, a desirable effect because they think that the semen will be refined in this way. In my opinion, this is not correct cultivation because -in my actual understanding- if one cultivates the front channel can completely avoid this weird thing. Hope to be not too far from the truth

Yes!

Sure. I'll do my best in accordance with my limited understanding and my poor linguistic standard In Hsu Yun Ho Shang Fa Hui there's a section in which the master talked specifically on hua t'ou and doubt. If one doesn't rely on doubt, then there should be another expedient... you say that it is mindfulness, but in my experience this is just a way to "stabilize the mind". If you don't look into the three characteristics consistently, this won't work in producing wisdom. If the method is the state of non-discrimination, then one have a clear idea in his mind of what he wants to realize. This will produce some form of stabilization, but not wisdom. So, I greatly appreciate the method of Hua t'ou because my mind cannot tolerate faith nor delusions of any sort. The first step in this Path is to have doubts about one's own existence as a sentient being. You are looking for the source of the mind, and you cannot find it! Then one should nurture this doubt until stabilization. After some time in "killing Buddhas", abandoning desires, etc... one starts to get some insights. Sudden enlightenment? One could have many sudden enlightenments: minor ones and major ones. Hope to be helpful

This is the reason for which they don't achieve realization. Doubt is fundamental in the words of Master Hsu Yun.

Single minded concentration is the first half of the Buddha's method... the other half being prajna. If you practice PL, firstly you get dhyana (single minded concentration) and here you can see Buddha's Land and see all kind of uncanny phenomena. This happens in all religions, even Christianity: Padre Pio, a catholic saint could speak with Jesus and performed many miracles. Then you should abandon yourself to the Buddha, to completely let go of your own perceptions and ideas. This is Prajna. But this could be difficult since one usually retains the concept of being a Self... so Ch'an masters suggest "Ok, now you have a solid foundation in dhyana. It's time to use the hua t'ou method. Who is reciting the Buddha's name?" Chan practitioners skip the peaceful dhyana of Amitabha and try to develop the dhyana of doubt. This is a method that it's not suitable for lay persons because it's much more difficult (and faster, imho). In addition, the dhyana of doubt may cause illnesses and many troubles... this requires super-human efforts to keep the Path. So, it may happens that people who start with Ch'an cannot even get some dhyana attainments, while PL practitioners achieve this in a lifetime of devoted practice. This is sad.

I personally think that if those three factors work properly, one can achieve anything imaginable... As for the unimaginable... one should rely on Ch'an, in my opinion.

http://www.byki.com/

EDIT

Maybe I'm a pessimistic type with an obscured mind. But I think that I will use that technique of "the old soul" to seduce women... we all like self-importance: if we cannot be special, we want -at least- be immortals on a spiritual level. Even in a negative way "Damn! I'll be reborn". I was in a spiral of self-delusion in a tulku-like system a few time ago. A bad story for me... Of course, imho. Maybe I'm wrong

I think that before one achieves the rainbow body, he gets various kinds of emanation body as well. There are various levels of yin Shen in which "night-oobe" is the lower. ...and various level of yang shen (rainbow body) in which "the material is turned into immaterial at the time of death" is one stage. There are legends of persons who could materialize and de-materialize at will: this is another level of rainbow-body yang-shen. Imho, one necessarily develops yin-shen, before achieving any stage of yang-shen. P.s. Can you tell us something more about the nine solar practices? Are they some form of Thodgal-like meditations? Thank you

Cool! Maybe this could be a "contributed article". A disclaimer like "The author is not responsible for...... Do the exercise at your own risk, etc..." Maybe you can post here and then eventually transfer it in the "contributed article section" And... Thank you very very very much

It would be interesting to ask to the author what does he means by saying "third eye opened".

In the West, we have a christian cultural basis that it's present even amongst those who deny it. Because of this background, we can hardly believe that someone could follow many different religions (as many buddhist sects at once)... it's our frame of mind: in christianity, one cannot be muslim or buddhist at once. It's our delight to find differences, where people of the East find similarities. We have judaism, many christian sects and two Islamic sects... we are at war since time immemorial And those religions are quite similar ... We want to put very accurate tags on people. This situations are very common in the west.

Personally, I think that vedic culture isn't an universal one. It's an ancient model, suited for ancient time... He also said that every spiritual practice except mahamantra is useless. Lots of very questionable statements. I was interested in this movement a few years ago: reality is far from theory here.

ri-bump

Hi Jeff, light transmission is a phenomena that isn't directly related with realization of emptiness, imho. For example, Muhammad Subuh Sumohadiwidjojo was able to give to anyone an incredible mystical experience through initiation. But maybe I didn't get what you mean with "light transmission"....

I'm not apech, but I want to speak from my personal understanding of this matter. I don't know if emptiness is something objectively real or some form of supreme view... what matters to me is the practical application of something. Emptiness is the essential device to transform the body in meditation. In gtu-mo for example, if you practice with a certain understanding of emptiness, you get bliss (mahamudra)... if you practice with undivided attention and nothing else, you get heat. In my opinion, the real understanding of emptiness is reflected in the physical conditions of the individual. Of course, this is not a general rule because you should know if the person had accident or illnesses, etc...

If it is so, then the buddhist scriptures should be extremely difficult to understand: if the Buddha gave so many different teachings, (sometimes contradictory), then we should find this characteristic (of being various and not coherent) even in the early canon used by the theravadins. A disciple who live with his teacher, listen carefully to what it is said. In addition, Buddha's teachings were give openly and not in secrecy. We should have this statement "Some need a certain way and others need something else" from the very beginning. Instead, we have a distinct "break" with the Lotus Sutra and the story of the burning house. Unfortunately, we have little historical information and the choice here is made just by faith. But I think that it is fair here not to say that a teaching is higher than the others. I'm not willing even to say that hinayana disappeared because it was suited for inferior persons. Just different Dharma gates for different minds