Why e-sangha is starting to get on my nerves

[Unconditioned]

I don't think those are Buddhist ideas.

 

Exactly my point - other people may claim differently.

[Siliconvalley1]

ROFL!!! :lol:

But no, those are just stories. Hindu alien gods were for real though.

I'm just half joking about this really. From a long time ago I have some vague memory of reading about this. In general the gods from ancient civilations could be aliens. Heck, if we could go back in time with our tech it's not unlikely we wouldn't be considered gods ourselves.

 

BTW, off topic question. Do you have transformation into a diety in any part of Hinduism?

 

 

I am not sure what the Hindu Gods are 'real' really means here.

 

There is a domain of Maya which is characterized by Names and Forms and all Hindu deities - called Saguna Brahman - fall within this domain of names and forms. They are 'real' in the Vyavaharika or the lower domain and not ultimately in Pramarthika domain where the names and forms ascribed to one 'real' Brahman wear off.

 

Brahman is described as without names and forms or attributes. But, for the benefit of someone whose mind is unable to comprehend this lofty a principle which is there but 'almost' not there, there are preliminary practices including deities, mantras etc. It is stated clearly: sadhakanam hitarthaya brahmano roopakalpana - the names and forms - which also means the associated myths - are 'created' or 'imagined' for the sake of easy contemplation and these are tools which are dispensed off gradually. This is not really different from the concept of yidams which clearly is borrowed from the Hindu concept of deities. So these Hindu deities are no more "real" or "unreal" than any Buddhist deity. However, in an ultimate sense they are 'real' as the the Supreme Essence or Brahman who really is what these deities represent - is Existent to a Hindu. Replace Brahman by Shunyata and you get the Yidam part. However, they are treated as 'real' while actually using them as tools and some go overboard with this attachment and these kinds really have no big enlightenment goals. But there are similar examples on the Buddhist side as well where Masters have criticized Yidam attachments. Moreover, scriptures on the Hindu side are clear that liberation cannot be attained by worshiping deities as worship and adoration can grant material gains, and when used without petty desires, merit - so they are really tools and nothing more. But is this higher truth taught repeatedly while one is still using these tools - yes, subtly but not repeatedly like to a Vedantin as this could lead to ineffective use of the tool by the novice regarding it as inferior, unreal or something you need to abandon. Shunyata+Karuna is really the seed of Vajrayanic deities and this is hardly different from the concept of Saguna Brahman. And whether or not Brahman is Shunyata is not very relevant at this point.

 

Also, while later Buddhists rejected Buddhist deities as 'stories', that was not apparently the case earlier. There are ruins of various vihars with shrines dedicated to Tara, Vajrasattva etc. which are seen till today. Deities were actively worshipped by Mantrayana and Tantrayana followers in these shrines. The Hindu view of deity seems to be grossly misreprsented by Buddhists and it is not without a reason as this was the group that they were trying to fight and refute. But yes, the concept of Buddhist and Hindu deities are not at all that different. And it is exactly this reason why some non-vajrayana Buddhists have issues with Vajrayana deity practices.

 

I am not sure what you mean by 'Transformation' here. Generally the qualities we like in ourselves are what one ascribes to the Brahman, the formless - such as compassion, beauty, valor etc. - and deities are derived out of such conceptualization. With sincere practice, one is able to attain oneness with the worshiped form, in the sense, materialize these qualities within oneself and some other super-human qualities sometimes, mostly as by-products of their practice. This may be called a transformation? And there is possession, similar to the way a Vajrasaraswati or a Jvalanala is used in Vajrayana where the vajracharya is possessed by a deity to accomplish some goals such as oracle etc. There are similar practices in Hinduism but not sure if that can be called transformation.

 

Again, not all Buddhists take these to be stories, we have Vajrahridaya for example who stated that Shiva was actually liberated by Buddha and my refusal to accept this as nothing more than sectist Buddhist symbolism or story was interpreted again by him as my inability to look into other "cosmic" realms. So are these stories of bloody battle between Hindu and Buddhist deities merely stories to you in "all" realms or is there a selective (convenient usually) acceptance of truth in them? May be I can reply better to your question based on your stand of yidams, dharmapalas, herukas and other vajrayanic deities.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Siliconvalley1

[Wayfarer64]

Your dogma chased my karma all the way down the block. I think a tooth was left in my right rear tire...

[Vajrahridaya]

All religions that make exclusivist claims are guilty of intolerance (guised as tolerance, compassion, love, respect) of the highest order (ranging from subtle to crassly blatant).

 

 

So, your exclusive in thinking that all paths lead to the same destination? Sounds like Hindu absorb all-ism like the borge imperialism to me. This is also a dogma that blantantly lacks study and is rooted in ignorance.

 

Buddha and the Vedas disagree in what the "Truth" is.

 

Your Truth, is not my Truth.

 

They are fundimentally different and if one understands the fundimentals, one can only agree that they differ in how they define enlightenment and in how it is experienced on a deeply subtle level.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Vajrahridaya, I think you put too much importance on personal experience. Like, especially your own. Which is often how it is with most people.

 

All paths definitely don't lead to the same realization. Scientology would probably lead me to go broke and get beaten up while playing musical chairs. . Or is that a path?

 

But that also doesn't mean that Buddhism is the best. Tell me that it is the best once you've become a Bodhisattva. Unless you yourself think that you've reached the highest state possible in Hinduism. Or do you just guess on contextual text?

 

My observation. .

 

On another note,

 

The visualizations of Buddhist gods slicing and dicing Hindu deities actually reminds me of certain meditation practices where you visualize cutting off all your bodily and mental attachments. I see some parallels.

 

 

And on a very different note,

 

I'd like to thank goldisheavy for what he represents. At first I thought he was an obnoxious prick. But really people like him need to be appreciated. They might not teach you anything, but that is precisely why they are so valuable on subjects like these. *bows.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[ralis]

Vajrahridaya refers to deeply subtle levels as being only in the realm of certain Buddhist practices. How does one know how subtle, subtle is? How many subtle levels are there? Vajrahridaya's use of the term subtle is just another semantic game that leads nowhere. Just another trance.

 

ralis

[markern]

I think the outcome of that conversation was that it's better to believe in rebirth. But then I could be confusing this with something else.

We are talking about Buddhism. If someone says he's a Buddhist but doesn't believe in rebirth, that pretty much amounts to nihilism. Because when you die, there is nothing. Even if it weren't nihilism, not believing in rebirth would make parts of Buddhism really strange, like uhm, trying to end rebirth...

 

And if you believe you'll go to heaven or hell, or something else, that is irrelevant, since that's not a Buddhist belief in the first place.

Most my friends are actualy atheists or at least agnostic and non of them are anywhere close to nihilism. Budhism woldnt have to be strange that way at all. You could just aspire to get enlightened and stay that way for as long as you live. I know of a bunch of people who both belive in enlightenment but no afterlife or that are agnostic and they are not nihilistic at all.

[Apech]

Most my friends are actualy atheists or at least agnostic and non of them are anywhere close to nihilism. Budhism woldnt have to be strange that way at all. You could just aspire to get enlightened and stay that way for as long as you live. I know of a bunch of people who both belive in enlightenment but no afterlife or that are agnostic and they are not nihilistic at all.

 

 

If death is the cessation of activity of the body - and then at this point there is no 'afterlife' - no continuation of consciousness in any sense, then the consciousness is dependent on the body and this is nihilistic materialism. Equally if one were enlightened and this was the same, in other words one's enlightenment is extinguished because the physical body ceases to function then also that enlightenment is dependent on a functioning body. As such it is some kind of body state. This may be what you believe (and obviously that is your right) but it is not any form of Buddhism as far as I can see.

 

If I have misunderstood forgive me - but that's how I see it.

[Vajrahridaya]

Vajrahridaya refers to deeply subtle levels as being only in the realm of certain Buddhist practices. How does one know how subtle, subtle is? How many subtle levels are there? Vajrahridaya's use of the term subtle is just another semantic game that leads nowhere. Just another trance.

 

ralis

 

Ralis,

 

I knew that would be pulled out and stomped on and completely misunderstood as I should have been more clear in what I meant.

 

Subtle as in transcending subtle trance states or formless states of all absorbing meditations which Hindu's call Brahman without attributes, etc.

 

These are all subtle states that dependent origination subtely subverts and transcends.

 

Emptiness is not a state of meditation, but rather a state of intuitive recognition of dependent origination. No grasping, no foothold, no "final state" of consciousness. Just recognition of the beginningless and endless flow that has no inherent identity. Of course this recognition is a state of consciousness that is freed from itself and all things, thus attains steady omniscience. But, not based on itself as an essence.

 

 

 

Vajrahridaya, I think you put too much importance on personal experience. Like, especially your own. Which is often how it is with most people.

 

 

I should have never mentioned my personal experiences. I did only because Michaelz asked me to, and he said it would be different here. But, no, it's the same. People use these things against you if it challenges their view point, the'll discontextualize and use these things to mash you out. It's fine, it's human nature.

 

I should have just stuck with scriptural context.

 

 

On another note,

 

The visualizations of Buddhist gods slicing and dicing Hindu deities actually reminds me of certain meditation practices where you visualize cutting off all your bodily and mental attachments. I see some parallels.

And on a very different note,

 

 

 

Yes, these visualisations were for converting Hindu or Shaivite/Shakta tantrics. Not to be taken as literal use of violence against hindus. But cutting away of attachment to identity as a Hindu, or theism in general.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Siliconvalley1]

Yes, these visualisations were for converting Hindu or Shaivite/Shakta tantrics. Not to be taken as literal use of violence against hindus. But cutting away of attachment to identity as a Hindu, or theism in general.

 

Well, one thing you accept is that Buddhists have their conversion tactics as well .. probably the bloodiness is symbolic and less literal than some others that Buddhists like to frequently criticize. But, it is rather convenient to accept what suits one's image as "true" in one or more "cosmic realms" and reject the other as "metaphors". But historically there is sufficient documentation to show that the violence was hardly limited to such metaphorical displays.

 

Also, some older quotes of yours where you insisted there is truth in many of the Buddhist versions of such stories. Again, selective interpretation to back one's belief system. It may not be unacceptable but is at same time not reasonable either.

 

Yes, they do at times just appear as metaphors. But these realms also do exist and there are Jealous gods. I like history. I've read many of these stories and some can just be metaphor and some can actually be real occurrences in other realms. I been to some realms, so I don't dismiss things in the same way that you do

 

I was listening to it at a friends house the other night, going into a samadhi, and realizing, even Shiva knows he does not inherently exist and that he has not created anything, having been taught by a Buddha in the yuga before this. But, he understands the need for theism, thus manifests as a worldly deity, because many do not have the capacity to understand directly the wisdom of dependent origination.

 

even the Gods, Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu, probably until the Buddha taught them a thing or two, taught limited paths, called by the Buddha, eternalism. Buddhas are the teachers of the Gods.

 

All the God's of Hinduism that teach Hinduism, including Shiva are dated, were born and die. Well actually not Shiva because Chakrasamvara liberated Shiva before the Kali Yuga, but he still manifests as a worldly deity until his time to manifest as a Buddha sometime in the future where he will teach the 4 noble truths, the 8 fold noble path and dependent origination. These are Dharma seals

 

Also, it is quite strange that you take these gory tales and representations in Buddhist tantras as symbolic and tools for metaphysical vizualisation, but don't apply the same logic to explain deities and representations in other religions. So why point a finger when Buddhism is filled with such takes as well? I can, apart from the instances of Buddhist vs Hindu deities I showed earlier, list instances of fights between two Bodhisattvas or yidams as well, if need be. So, is it not better to study, understand and think with an open mind before passing baseless judgments? Just one of the example of many such instances ...

 

If you remember in various Puranas, even the three gods, Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu fight over who's the real source of the universe. In Buddhism this never happens because there is no identity behind anything

 

when I was in India I took a class on Hindu Mythology. It was so ridiculous reading all the stories about Gods fighting, and really made me appreciate the Buddhist teachings on the realm of the Gods who are full of pride. I wondered how can people read these stories and worship these beings who seem as selfish as humans? ::shrug

Edited July 10, 2009 by Siliconvalley1

[Vajrahridaya]

Yes, some are visualisation metaphors and some are actual occurences.

 

I am not responsable for those that take things litereally for the sake of justifying violent behavior.

[Siliconvalley1]

Yes, some are visualisation metaphors and some are actual occurences.

 

I am not responsable for those that take things litereally for the sake of justifying violent behavior.

 

 

You are certainly not and I am not saying you are ....

 

Like I said, violence can be at various levels - verbal, intellectual, visual or physical. None of these are justified, especially for a Buddhist. Moreover, lets say there is a tantra, for example the chapter of Prasannatara - there are 6 stories. How can you take one of them to be literally true and others as merely symbolic? There has to be a much more scientific, wholesome and rational approach in analyzing Mythology and lack of historical perspective and relevant study cannot be substituted by selective interpetation or boisterous claims of inner revelation.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Siliconvalley1

[Josh Young]

If death is the cessation of activity of the body - and then at this point there is no 'afterlife' - no continuation of consciousness in any sense, then the consciousness is dependent on the body and this is nihilistic materialism.

Can there be such a thing? Nihilism presupposes zero presuppositions and thus cannot be materialistic.

 

Lets put at least one concept of immortality found in the Dhammapada into the topic:

114 And whoso lives a hundred years not seeing the immortal place, a life of one day is better if a man sees the immortal place.

So here we have immortality, and mortality.

 

And then:

126 Some people are born again; evil-doers go to hell; righteus people go to heaven, those who are free from evil attain Nirvana.

 

Where in this section, (evil) is the mention of death for those mentioned above? It is not there because these attainments, being born again, going to hell, going to heaven, obtaining Nirvana are not presented in the context of death and afterlife, but rather are presented in the context of life itself. The early verses of this section clearly state that happiness (heaven) is the outcome of good, but that when evil deed ripen then evil is the outcome of evil, this is not in reference to death, but to life.

 

Clearly even in the next section, where it is said that there are those who do and don't find happiness after death, Nirvana is put into the context of being attained in this life:

134 if like a shattered gong, thou speakest not, then thou hast reached Nirvana, contention is not found in thee.

Clearly Nirvana is attained in life, not death. However Punishment, which is the section is addressing the fears of those who would otherwise commit evil if they were not afraid of "punishment" however the teachings stress that punishment occurs in this life. It is my belief that these teachings address several levels of realization, they offer reward and punishment in the context of afterlife, as motivators for those sheeple who require such motivators, however for those who are concerned with this life the teachings inform that the rewards and punishments are found in this life, and more importantly if you are concerned with reward and punishment then you cannot become enlightened, for you are not free of desire.

 

and:

148 This body is wasted, frail,a nest of disease; this heap of corruption breaks into pieces, life indeed ends in death

As it was said, Life indeed ends at death

And later in this section (old age):

153/154 Looking for the maker of this tabernacle I ran to no avail through a round of many births; and wearisome is birth again and again. But now, maker of the tabernacle, thou has been seen; thou shalt not rear this tabernacle again. All thy rafters are broken, thy ridge pole is shattered; the mind approaching the eternal, has attained to the extinction of all desires

 

It says wearisome is birth again and again, not wearisome is birth and death again and again. The maker of the tabernacle is the true mind, being known proper there is no more incarnation of the self, the function of mind, being freed, approaches the eternal, this eternal is the same as the immortal place mentioned above, which is attained in life, not death, and does not save one from mortality.

 

In the next section:

158 Let each man establish himself first in the way he should go, then let him teach others; (so doing) the wise man will have no cause to grieve

This establishment of self by self is nothing other than the making of the tabernacle, even the next line starts: "if a man makes himself as he teacher others to be" this very concept of making the self is key to understanding these teachings. At the very beginning of this work this is discussed by the statement " all that we are is a result of what we have thought" this is a direct allusion to the making of the tabernacle, the making of self.

 

Anyway I have no intention to continue at this pace.

I mean to say that the recognition of total mortality is a key part of the teachings that I cherish and indeed is tenant of some forms of Buddhism at the least. Living enlightened means no fear of death, and provides the experience of eternity in each moment. How could an enlightened person fear death? What do they prize so that death may take from them? Not even nothing.

 

385 when the Brahman has reached the other shore in two states (tranquility and insight) he is freed from all bonds as a result of his knowledge Again, attainment and enlightenment, but not death.

 

in other words one's enlightenment is extinguished because the physical body ceases to function then also that enlightenment is dependent on a functioning body.

Enlightenment is not like putting on a hat, it is like taking off a hat. It cannot be lost, because it cannot be gained. It is a release, not a containment. How can a release be released by death?

 

As such it is some kind of body state. This may be what you believe (and obviously that is your right) but it is not any form of Buddhism as far as I can see.

 

This may be what you believe, and it is your "right" but it "is" the Buddhism that I can "see". Please forgive me for countering your opinion though, I mean no conflict.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Ralis,

I should have never mentioned my personal experiences. I did only because Michaelz asked me to, and he said it would be different here. But, no, it's the same. People use these things against you if it challenges their view point, the'll discontextualize and use these things to mash you out. It's fine, it's human nature.

 

People have shared their experiences here without getting too bashed. And some of it has been great contributions. But I've only been reading the past year, so I don't reeeealllly know the full history.

 

BTW, I really appreciated that you shared your experiences. *Bows

 

But sharing experiences doesn't necessarily mean that you post/talk about certain meditative states you had and so forth. The content of what the person says and the way he conducts himself (even though this is an online forum ) is what really shows the amount of wisdom he/she has attained.

 

I personally find it odd that you dove yourself very deeply into Hinduism and then "converted" to Buddhism. I don't think any true seeker should belong to a particular sect or a religion nowadays, especially when so much of the original teachings have been muddled. I mean, isn't it good to be a bum?

 

Haha, it is also human nature to act high and noble by pointing out others' so called "human nature" .

 

And the visualized sword shouldn't only cut the Hindu deities, but the Buddha as well.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Josh Young]

If there's nothing after death, then why not just end your life right now, you will have complete peace in death.

If there is nothing after death, why not cherish life all the more and care so much more about right mindedness?

 

I cannot understand why life should be forsaken if there was not afterlife.

 

Does not the imminence of death make life all the more precious?

 

Does not the brevity of the bloom account all the more for it's beauty?

 

You could say that the point of Buddhism is to stop rebirth, if there's no rebirth what is the point of Buddhism?

Clarity of an absolute nature.

[dwai]

So, your exclusive in thinking that all paths lead to the same destination? Sounds like Hindu absorb all-ism like the borge imperialism to me. This is also a dogma that blantantly lacks study and is rooted in ignorance.

 

Buddha and the Vedas disagree in what the "Truth" is.

 

Your Truth, is not my Truth.

 

They are fundimentally different and if one understands the fundimentals, one can only agree that they differ in how they define enlightenment and in how it is experienced on a deeply subtle level.

 

Go troll on e-sangha!

[Josh Young]

If,

that you knew there was no afterlife,

would the life you live be the same?

 

Perhaps it is best to answer this question in the reincarnation thread here: http://www.thetaobums.com/Reincarnation-t10712.html

 

I do believe in rebirth, but not the transference of consciousness or the succession of bodies. I would like to see someone use the teachings of Buddha, and not Buddhism, to illustrate that he taught the transference of consciousness or the succession of bodies in and of reincarnation.

 

I only wish i could share more, but there are things I do not know how to present in a way that they will be considered fairly. The absolute unity, and lack of origin of the trimurti, is one such thing.

 

anyway, thank you for this chance to share...

 

Vajrahridaya,

Buddha and the Vedas disagree in what the "Truth" is.

Could you please explain this?

 

What do the vedas say "truth" is and how does this contrast with the teachings of Buddhism and Tao?

 

Thank you kindly.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Josh Young

[dwai]

 

Vajrahridaya,

 

Could you please explain this?

 

What do the vedas say "truth" is and how does this contrast with the teachings of Buddhism and Tao?

 

Thank you kindly.

 

hehe...brother don't go into that one...that landmine has been shat on ad infinitum, ad nauseum!

[Josh Young]

If reading such a discussion is not to your taste then perhaps I have a solution.

 

Vajrahridaya,

 

Could you please explain this to me in a PM?

 

What do the vedas say "truth" is and how does this contrast with the teachings of Buddhism and Tao?

 

Thank you kindly.

[Apech]

Hi Josh,

 

Thanks for the answer with quotes above - your ideas are very interesting.

 

I still have a problem though with matching up the idea of 'the immortal place' and the mind approaching the eternal - without this meaning that death (as with birth) being a temporal and illusory event which the mind can go beyond. Given especially that 'immortal' means not subject to death and eternal means beyond time.

 

Perhaps if you have time you could explain what you believe happens when you die.

 

BTW when I said that this did not seem to be any form of Buddhism that I knew of, I simply meant that I am not aware of anyone teaching Buddhism without rebirth. I realise that there are Western Soto Zen practitioners who say this - but I have been unable to locate a full explanation of their position. Many schools of Buddhism while accepting rebirth do not dwell on it as important - save as a spur to dharma - I think the Tibetan Tulku tradition has made this confusing for some as it seems to offer a way for the personality to persist (even though technically this is not the case).

 

Cheers.

 

A.

[Josh Young]

I still have a problem though with matching up the idea of 'the immortal place' and the mind approaching the eternal - without this meaning that death (as with birth) being a temporal and illusory event which the mind can go beyond. Given especially that 'immortal' means not subject to death and eternal means beyond time.

127 Not in the sky, not in the midst of the sea, not if one enters into the clefts of the mountains, is there known a spot in the whole world where if a man abide, death could not overcome him.

 

When the incarnation of self by thought statements ceases; the infinite nature of mind is revealed. Mind is limitless, but if it is trapped by a focus on finite thinking then this will not be noticed.

 

Yet when vast, uncountable, immeasurable numbers of beings have thus been liberated, verily no being has been liberated. Why is this, Subhuti? It is because no Bodhisattva who is a real Bodhisattva cherishes the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality.

The above passage, from the diamond sutra, refers to ego incarnation.

and here is more:

if such men allowed their minds to grasp and hold on to anything they would be cherishing the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality; and if they grasped and held on to the notion of things as having intrinsic qualities they would be cherishing the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality. Likewise, if they grasped and held on to the notion of things as devoid of intrinsic qualities they would be cherishing the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality.

This ego-entity is incarnation in the teachings of Buddha, who does not address the succession of bodies or rebirth cycles including death.

 

Subhuti, what do you think? Does a holy one say within himself: I have obtained Perfective Enlightenment?

 

Subhuti said: No, World-honored One. Wherefore? Because there is no such condition as that called "Perfective Enlightenment." World-honored one, if a holy one of Perfective Enlightenment said to himself "such am I," he would necessarily partake of the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality.

 

Again the topic at hand of enlightenment is presented in a context of living and it pertains directly to the cessation of the incarnation of ego, not bodies in successive lives after death.

 

Bodhisattvas should leave behind all phenomenal distinctions and awaken the thought of the Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment by not allowing the mind to depend upon notions evoked by the sensible world - by not allowing the mind to depend upon notions evoked by sounds, odors, flavors, touch-contacts, or any qualities. The mind should be kept independent of any thoughts which arise within it. If the mind depends upon anything it has no sure haven. This is why Buddha teaches that the mind of a Bodhisattva should not accept the appearances of things as a basis when exercising charity

 

Subhuti, if a Bodhisattva practices charity with mind attached to formal notions he is like unto a man groping sightless in the gloom; but a Bodhisattva who practices charity with mind detached from any formal notions is like unto a man with open eyes in the radiant glory of the morning, to whom all kinds of objects are clearly visible.

 

As I said, a goal of Buddhism is absolute clarity, this is only had through the cessation of the incarnation of self, in life, by mind, as Buddha teaches.

 

If a Bodhisattva cherishes the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality, he is consequently not a Bodhisattva, Subhuti. This is because in reality there is no formula which gives rise to the Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment...

 

Subhuti, there is really no such condition as that called Bodhisattvaship, because Buddha teaches that all things are devoid of selfhood, devoid of separate individuality

This all pertains to incarnation which is manifestation of self, Buddha teaches not to attain freedom/liberation from incarnation/selfhood after death, but in life.

 

And as I said enlightenment is not attained, it is more like taking off a hat than putting one on, but my words carry little weight so:

Buddha replied: Just so, Subhuti. Through the Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment I acquired not even the least thing; therefore it is called "Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment."

 

And what of Buddha, when he teaches self does not exist?:

Subhuti then said to Buddha: World-honored One, as I understand the meaning of Buddha's words, the Tathagata may not be perceived by the thirty-two marks.

 

Whereupon the World-honored One uttered this verse:

 

Who sees Me by form,

 

Who seeks Me in sound,

 

Perverted are his footsteps upon the Way,

 

For he cannot perceive the Tathagata.

 

Too many people worship Buddha.

 

Perhaps if you have time you could explain what you believe happens when you die.

I have time.

I have no belief about death, having not died I cannot know. Death is permanent, the temporary shut down of the body is not death, thus those who claim to have died and come back, have not died.

What I believe about death is that nobody knows.

Perhaps there is an afterlife, perhaps not. It has no bearing on the truth.

 

I simply meant that I am not aware of anyone teaching Buddhism without rebirth.

Buddhism is not a teaching of Buddha that I am aware of.

 

 

I hope my reply is good enough,

thank you for allowing me to make it.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Also, it is quite strange that you take these gory tales and representations in Buddhist tantras as symbolic and tools for metaphysical vizualisation, but don't apply the same logic to explain deities and representations in other religions. So why point a finger when Buddhism is filled with such takes as well? I can, apart from the instances of Buddhist vs Hindu deities I showed earlier, list instances of fights between two Bodhisattvas or yidams as well, if need be. So, is it not better to study, understand and think with an open mind before passing baseless judgments? Just one of the example of many such instances ...

 

Talking to yourself again SV?

 

Visualisations of plenty of Hindu Tantric deities are also for the sake of metaphor, like the gory Kali image. As well as the image of Kali dancing on top of Shiva, etc.

 

 

You are certainly not and I am not saying you are ....

 

Like I said, violence can be at various levels - verbal, intellectual, visual or physical. None of these are justified, especially for a Buddhist. Moreover, lets say there is a tantra, for example the chapter of Prasannatara - there are 6 stories. How can you take one of them to be literally true and others as merely symbolic? There has to be a much more scientific, wholesome and rational approach in analyzing Mythology and lack of historical perspective and relevant study cannot be substituted by selective interpetation or boisterous claims of inner revelation.

 

To practice and read the tantras properly one needs a qualified Guru who one can relate experience to and ask about clarification of meaning.

 

 

 

And the visualized sword shouldn't only cut the Hindu deities, but the Buddha as well.

 

In Chod we practice cutting off our own limbs and offering them to hungry ghosts and debters.

 

Buddhist deities are also never seen or identified as a supreme source of all existence. There are those that are identified as certain teachings, or as representations of the nature of mind or consciousness, but the Guru is there to help clarify.

 

I changed because I realized directly that Buddhist realization is deeper, and the scripture is more clear.

 

There is nothing in Hinduism that teaches dependent origination.

 

In history there are plenty of Brahmin's and Hindu's including Gotama the Buddha who was raised with the Vedas who realized something deeper through the teachings based on realization of dependent origination, known as Buddhism.

 

Only awareness of dependent origination can be muddled. I have found Dzogchen to be quite clear and there are plenty of current realized masters who show it's fruit to be clean and without worms.

 

 

 

If there is nothing after death, why not cherish life all the more and care so much more about right mindedness?

 

I cannot understand why life should be forsaken if there was not afterlife.

 

Does not the imminence of death make life all the more precious?

 

Does not the brevity of the bloom account all the more for it's beauty?

Clarity of an absolute nature.

 

So I suppose you consider experiences (spiritual, meditational) beyond the 5 senses as some brain malfunction?

 

What about all those kids who had past life memories and then had them corroberated with facts. Many of them are not dismissable as fluke at all.

 

Anyway... whatever helps you have more joy and peace in life not at the expense of others.

 

Buddhism without rebirth does not work for me. Life doesn't make sense without understanding re-birth... to me.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Apech]

 

 

Perhaps if you have time you could explain what you believe happens when you die.

I have time.

I have no belief about death, having not died I cannot know. Death is permanent, the temporary shut down of the body is not death, thus those who claim to have died and come back, have not died.

What I believe about death is that nobody knows.

Perhaps there is an afterlife, perhaps not. It has no bearing on the truth.

 

I simply meant that I am not aware of anyone teaching Buddhism without rebirth.

Buddhism is not a teaching of Buddha that I am aware of.

I hope my reply is good enough,

thank you for allowing me to make it.

 

Josh,

 

Thank you for this reply. I will think about what you have said.

 

 

A.

[Pero]

I am not sure what the Hindu Gods are 'real' really means here.

 

Real, as in aliens.

I was more or less joking about it hehe. And actually come to think of it, I think I confused something, it's been a long time since I read about it.

 

This is not really different from the concept of yidams which clearly is borrowed from the Hindu concept of deities. So these Hindu deities are no more "real" or "unreal" than any Buddhist deity.

 

Ok.

 

Also, while later Buddhists rejected Buddhist deities as 'stories', that was not apparently the case earlier. There are ruins of various vihars with shrines dedicated to Tara, Vajrasattva etc. which are seen till today. Deities were actively worshipped by Mantrayana and Tantrayana followers in these shrines.

 

Do you mean that they're not anymore?

I think this just depends on whether you're talking about inner or outer tantra. Also, maybe it's disorienting to call them dieties, when they're actually Buddhas. And there are plenty of Buddhist temples with Buddha statues around.

 

I am not sure what you mean by 'Transformation' here. Generally the qualities we like in ourselves are what one ascribes to the Brahman, the formless - such as compassion, beauty, valor etc. - and deities are derived out of such conceptualization. With sincere practice, one is able to attain oneness with the worshiped form, in the sense, materialize these qualities within oneself and some other super-human qualities sometimes, mostly as by-products of their practice. This may be called a transformation?

 

Something like that I guess. I meant more like self-generating as the diety like in Vajrayana.

 

So are these stories of bloody battle between Hindu and Buddhist deities merely stories to you in "all" realms or is there a selective (convenient usually) acceptance of truth in them?

 

I don't know since I don't have the capacity to look in the past or other realms. I don't think this is particulary relevant to ones practice though.

 

May be I can reply better to your question based on your stand of yidams, dharmapalas, herukas and other vajrayanic deities.

 

They're just as real as you and I (but with yidams it's a little different). But that doesn't mean I have to believe the newspapers if they come out with a story that you're an astronaut who landed on the moon in a secret mission last week. True or not, it would be irrelevant to my having discussions with you about Hinduism and Buddhism.

 

If there is nothing after death, why not cherish life all the more and care so much more about right mindedness?

 

I cannot understand why life should be forsaken if there was not afterlife.

 

Does not the imminence of death make life all the more precious?

 

Does not the brevity of the bloom account all the more for it's beauty?

 

This being so, why not just have fun in life to the fullest. Drugs, sex and rock 'n' roll.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Edited July 10, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes