A god was key in saving Buddhism

[Sunya]

Surya Das... lol. The guys name is Hindu and he was never authorized to teach Dharma. I would ignore him :/

[Apech]

Surya Das... lol. The guys name is Hindu and he was never authorized to teach Dharma. I would ignore him :/

 

Surya Das authorisation

 

just for clarity's sake I looked him up (before rushing to judgement).

[3bob]

Surya Das authorisation

 

just for clarity's sake I looked him up (before rushing to judgement).

 

You are one smart cat

[3bob]

I certainly agree with this. We must be careful of what we throw out. We might leave ourselves lost and lonely. Before we create an open space by throwing something our we should have something to fill the emptiness that has been created by throwing stuff out.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Alright MH, and I'm also copying many of my lp 33's to cd before throwing them out

[3bob]

Its not fate in this sense, 3Bob, but the continual culmination of causes and conditions that gave rise to 'Buddhism' as we know it today. Who can say, for example, in some distant time, Buddhism might be extinguished, but this probability, even if it comes to pass, can never negate the fact that 2500 years ago, conditions arose favorably for the birth of the Tatagatha and the subsequent dissemination of Buddhism.

 

As regards to Primordial Being, what i meant was that the Buddha was the original head honcho who made it happen in this era of ours, and in that, refuge is taken by many, of whom the least significant is myself.

 

Thank you for the kind response. Much appreciated sir.

 

Hello CowTao,

Different forms may be extinguished over time but not so for Buddha Nature...

 

As for significance or lack there-of, is that not adding something extra?

 

Om

[Marblehead]

Alright MH, and I'm also copying many of my lp 33's to cd before throwing them out

 

 

Yea!!! I'm all done with mine. But I still have a lot of .wav files that need editing. But I'm not throwing mine out as I am not pressed for room. (Some of mine are even collector's items but I have no intention of selling them.)

 

Peace & Love!

[sifusufi]

Now were in my homefield! Something I'm remotely qualified to talk about (maybe). Vinyl, Wav. etc...

My quarter of Buddhism runs out at Da Mo trainin dem warriors.

Please appraise the vinyl! Hate to see something of value get tossed (this could apply to some posts as well).

 

Happy Tuesday,

Bobby

[Vajrahridaya]

"Lama Surya Das

Question:

Is there a God in Buddhism? I read in a book by the pope that Buddhism is atheistic and life-denying.

 

Answer:

I read the same thing in the pope's book "Crossing the Threshold of Hope," in a chapter called "Buddha?" But the pontiff should know better, or at least be better informed by his scholar-advisers.

 

Buddhism is neither atheistic nor life-denying. We can witness this in the great surge of socially activist Buddhists in the Western countries today, which includes the widespread movement of so-called "engaged Buddhism" founded in part by the Vietnamese Zen master, poet, and peace activist Thich Nhat Hanh. There is great affirmation and hope in Buddhist teaching, or Buddha-dharma, and great respect and reverence for life in all its forms, human and otherwise.

 

In fact, Buddhism is generally considered to be not atheistic but agnostic, in that, the Buddha himself did not deny the existence of God. The Indian teacher and social reformer teacher called Sakyamuni Buddha is reported to have either kept silent when asked whether God existed, or in other cases to have said that his Noble Eightfold path led to enlightenment and deathless peace, and did not require faith or belief in a divine being or supreme creator*. "Buddhism Without Beliefs," by the former monk and Buddhist scholar Stephen Batchelor, offers a fine argument for the agnostic thinking of basic Buddhism"

 

(*) a big difference stated here compared to what some profess.

 

Lama Surya Das is not a good source of Buddhist teachings for the most part. He mixes Kashmir Shaivism with Dzogchen. I'm not saying he's a bad person, but obviously from the Pali Suttas, and the Mahayana Sutras, Buddhism is an atheist spiritual tradition since always. Though, it is quite life affirming at the same time, as it is death affirming as well. As well as it sees past the appearances of life and death and understands the connections and dimensions beyond the 5 senses.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Surya Das authorisation

 

just for clarity's sake I looked him up (before rushing to judgement).

 

For clarities sake, this doesn't mean he is the same person anymore since this qualification. If you read his teachings, he mixes Hindu Tantra and Buddhist Tantra. I'm not saying there is no fruit to this, but he does lack clarity on the Buddhist position of things as he confuses the two distinguishable goals of Hindu and Buddhist Tantra.

[Sunya]

Surya Das authorisation

 

just for clarity's sake I looked him up (before rushing to judgement).

 

Have no clue about that letter but he generally isn't a respected Dzogchen teacher for various reasons. He teaches a watered down version of Buddhism and doesn't have right view. He also recently lost many students because of a sex scandal. I'm hesitant to say this because I'm sure he benefited many due to his popular books, but for serious students I would sincerely recommend they read a different teacher to truly understand the dharma. He sugarcoats and simplifies. That is great for housewives and beginners but if you're sincere then that will only create problems. Sorry

[Tao99]

Have no clue about that letter but he generally isn't a respected Dzogchen teacher for various reasons. He teaches a watered down version of Buddhism and doesn't have right view. He also recently lost many students because of a sex scandal. I'm hesitant to say this because I'm sure he benefited many due to his popular books, but for serious students I would sincerely recommend they read a different teacher to truly understand the dharma. He sugarcoats and simplifies. That is great for housewives and beginners but if you're sincere then that will only create problems. Sorry

 

Housewives are such losers!

[3bob]

Its not fate in this sense, 3Bob, but the continual culmination of causes and conditions that gave rise to 'Buddhism' as we know it today. Who can say, for example, in some distant time, Buddhism might be extinguished, but this probability, even if it comes to pass, can never negate the fact that 2500 years ago, conditions arose favorably for the birth of the Tatagatha and the subsequent dissemination of Buddhism.

 

As regards to Primordial Being, what i meant was that the Buddha was the original head honcho who made it happen in this era of ours, and in that, refuge is taken by many, of whom the least significant is myself.

 

Thank you for the kind response. Much appreciated sir.

 

Hi CowTao,

I would like to revisit your lines of thought above and also add some sentences from an earlier post of yours and then ask you about your a point of view on a Buddhist saying or term...

 

"According to many sources, long before the birth of Gotama, the wheels were already set in motion for the people to receive Buddhism, to be introduced by this man called Shakyamuni. Your promulgation of the affirming notion that a god was key is therefore quite debatable" by CT

 

Ok, this all sounds understandable and reasonable, (even if looking from the outside in so to speak) my question to you is that if many Buddhists accept the lines of reasoning above then where or how does the saying, "rightly self awakened one" apply since we have all of these mountains of factors that helped bring about or that were involved with the Shakyamuni Buddha's awakening - when this saying then sounds like it is implying that he did it all by his, "rightly self awakened one" of independent effort? (thus is that saying also "quite debateable"?)

 

Regards, and your gentleman-ship is appreciated,

Bob

[C T]

Hi CowTao,

I would like to revisit your lines of thought above and also add some sentences from an earlier post of yours and then ask you about your a point of view on a Buddhist saying or term...

 

"According to many sources, long before the birth of Gotama, the wheels were already set in motion for the people to receive Buddhism, to be introduced by this man called Shakyamuni. Your promulgation of the affirming notion that a god was key is therefore quite debatable" by CT

 

Ok, this all sounds understandable and reasonable, (even if looking from the outside in so to speak) my question to you is that if many Buddhists accept the lines of reasoning above then where or how does the saying, "rightly self awakened one" apply since we have all of these mountains of factors that helped bring about or that were involved with the Shakyamuni Buddha's awakening - when this saying then sounds like it is implying that he did it all by his, "rightly self awakened one" of independent effort? (thus is that saying also "quite debateable"?)

 

Regards, and your gentleman-ship is appreciated,

Bob

Hello Bob..

 

Its been a while since i actually made any concerted effort to study the suttas, (this makes me the most unworthy source to engage in Dharma discussions of any substance) but if i remember correctly, there was mention made about how the Buddha, in his past incarnations, had accumulated certain supreme merits that culminated in His final awakening. In one we were told how He, out of supreme compassion, sacrificed His body to feed an injured tiger and her 5 cubs, which then reincarnated to become His disciples, and in another spoke about how He undertook his friend's punishment when the both of them were in the hell realm. I guess the point is not so much to take these tales at face value, because it can sound rather fantastical, but to look for the meaning they convey, and in my limited understanding, it speaks very clearly that the Tatagatha had been refining and clearing his karmic store in all His previous lives, so to speak, in preparation for His final attainment.

 

On the one hand we can very well deduce that indeed He was solely responsible for attaining Buddhahood, in that there was no dependence on any 'raft' to carry Him to the other shore, but on the other hand, based on the 2 instances cited, are we to say that all the other factors present then did not somehow contribute in some way towards His attainment? The tiger, the cubs, his fellow hellmate, etc, may well have been linked inextricably in the whole unfolding, which by the way, is still carrying on even now as we speak, in our mindstreams. Which, should we ask, is the primary link? Difficult to determine i'd say. Perhaps it is you and I, thru this exchange of ideas? Who knows for sure? So we can rest in the thought that there is simply this one Continuum that fundamentally links everything together. Isn't this what we understand by the term 'karma'?

 

Are we to assume then that there is an independent being called Gotama who attained to complete and perfect enlightenment? If my understanding of the Vajracchedika Sutra is of any value, the Buddha here pointed out quite clearly that in fact there was no independent being then who attained to complete and perfect enlightenment, for by thinking in this way, there is still clinging to the notion of there being a 'self' who attains. What i have also come to understand from this immense teaching is that because there is no self to be enlightened, there is also no self not to be enlightened, and once these notions are surrendered, then what remains is simply the abiding in transcendent insight, with no 'self' or 'being' who actually does the abiding. All things spontaneously arise and cease on their own energetic level, without the need for there to be a 'self' to influence it - for if there is such a view taken, even if its very very subtle, then no matter what we think or do, therein lies clinging to 'self'. "When the karmic winds blow, there has to be movement. Yet these movements are never separate from the winds. When the winds dissipates, cessations naturally follow. It is as sure as night follows day and day follows night, so why worry so much about this body, and this busy world?", one master asked. How true...

 

I am not a Buddhist scholar by any means, so i may have completely confused you by this post. If so, i offer apologies in advance. Perhaps the more learned members who post regularly, like Xabir, Mikaelz, Vajraridhaya or Nac could elucidate and expand on your question more effectively. Thanks for seeking clarification nonetheless.

 

Warm regards,

Ananda

 

 

 

Reference (the above-mentioned Sutra): http://www.io.com/~snewton/zen/diamond.html and http://reluctant-messenger.com/diamond_sutra.htm

[3bob]

Hello Bob..

 

Its been a while since i actually made any concerted effort to study the suttas, (this makes me the most unworthy source to engage in Dharma discussions of any substance) but if i remember correctly, there was mention made about how the Buddha, in his past incarnations, had accumulated certain supreme merits that culminated in His final awakening. In one we were told how He, out of supreme compassion, sacrificed His body to feed an injured tiger and her 5 cubs, which then reincarnated to become His disciples, and in another spoke about how He undertook his friend's punishment when the both of them were in the hell realm. I guess the point is not so much to take these tales at face value, because it can sound rather fantastical, but to look for the meaning they convey, and in my limited understanding, it speaks very clearly that the Tatagatha had been refining and clearing his karmic store in all His previous lives, so to speak, in preparation for His final attainment.

 

On the one hand we can very well deduce that indeed He was solely responsible for attaining Buddhahood, in that there was no dependence on any 'raft' to carry Him to the other shore, but on the other hand, based on the 2 instances cited, are we to say that all the other factors present then did not somehow contribute in some way towards His attainment? The tiger, the cubs, his fellow hellmate, etc, may well have been linked inextricably in the whole unfolding, which by the way, is still carrying on even now as we speak, in our mindstreams. Which, should we ask, is the primary link? Difficult to determine i'd say. Perhaps it is you and I, thru this exchange of ideas? Who knows for sure? So we can rest in the thought that there is simply this one Continuum that fundamentally links everything together. Isn't this what we understand by the term 'karma'?

 

Are we to assume then that there is an independent being called Gotama who attained to complete and perfect enlightenment? If my understanding of the Vajracchedika Sutra is of any value, the Buddha here pointed out quite clearly that in fact there was no independent being then who attained to complete and perfect enlightenment, for by thinking in this way, there is still clinging to the notion of there being a 'self' who attains. What i have also come to understand from this immense teaching is that because there is no self to be enlightened, there is also no self not to be enlightened, and once these notions are surrendered, then what remains is simply the abiding in transcendent insight, with no 'self' or 'being' who actually does the abiding. All things spontaneously arise and cease on their own energetic level, without the need for there to be a 'self' to influence it - for if there is such a view taken, even if its very very subtle, then no matter what we think or do, therein lies clinging to 'self'. "When the karmic winds blow, there has to be movement. Yet these movements are never separate from the winds. When the winds dissipates, cessations naturally follow. It is as sure as night follows day and day follows night, so why worry so much about this body, and this busy world?", one master asked. How true...

 

I am not a Buddhist scholar by any means, so i may have completely confused you by this post. If so, i offer apologies in advance. Perhaps the more learned members who post regularly, like Xabir, Mikaelz, Vajraridhaya or Nac could elucidate and expand on your question more effectively. Thanks for seeking clarification nonetheless.

 

Warm regards,

Ananda

 

Reference (the above-mentioned Sutra): http://www.io.com/~snewton/zen/diamond.html and http://reluctant-messenger.com/diamond_sutra.htm

 

Ah, thank you for the detailed reply CowTao! I'll have to take a look at those links when I get off of my graveyard shifts. So far an agnostic type of view makes the best sense to me when it comes to certain parts of Buddhism... and along that line the agnostic like "four-fold negation" spoken by the Buddha points that way to me when it comes to some of these questions that arise or develop. Thus to me certain concepts, even subtle and refined ones do not equal the truth which can not really be nailed down in that way.

 

In the meantime and what is also helpful, pure, simple and revealing are mantras like,

 

"May all beings be happy"

[Seth Ananda]

Lama Surya Das is not a good source of Buddhist teachings for the most part. He mixes Kashmir Shaivism with Dzogchen. I'm not saying he's a bad person, but obviously from the Pali Suttas, and the Mahayana Sutras, Buddhism is an atheist spiritual tradition since always. Though, it is quite life affirming at the same time, as it is death affirming as well. As well as it sees past the appearances of life and death and understands the connections and dimensions beyond the 5 senses.

 

Hi Vajra, it's good to see you back in action here but i find it kind of strange to see your Longchenpa quote under everything you write about 'not accepting or rejecting' as that seems to be the entire basis of your communication style.

My friend was with Namkai Norbu at his last retreat here in Oz, and told me that there was a guy there who kept quoting Narga Juna, till Namkai cracked it at him, and said stop quoting that rubbish, it will only take you further from Rigpa...

lol Not an exact quote but the gist of how he told me about it.

 

Also, Mickhailz, on Dzogchen teachers Norbu Rinpoche is not particularly respected either. (which doesn't mean he doesn't have the goods...) Tulku Urgen for instance had a quite low opinion of Him and his students.

[~jK~]

--- Imagine that, a God being the pivotal key in saving Buddhism (as from Shakyamuni Buddha) right at its beginning! Maybe this sutta will give anti-goders something new to consider but I'm not betting on it

 

Imagine this: The Belief Religions have reached a point of WAR that people are seeing the truth behind them and leaving the churches to rot where they stand as the priests rape and pilage the comunities for what they can take. Read the News.

 

And NOW the leaders of the dieing churches are willing to do anything to try to bring back their vanishing power over the people.

 

At the churches highest point, during the 1970's the 3 main points of USA's economy was the Churches, Oil and Drugs.

 

 

"Priests Rape Boys: an air-tight, three word case against the Catholic church. The Catholic Church is the largest, most well-funded and organized pedophile group in the history of man! No further proof need be given on the Judgment Day against every single person of authority in that monstrous organization of perverts. The case is as open and shut as a murder case where the murder is actually witnessed by the judge and jury themselves. "

http://www.priestsrapeboys.com/

 

Well, at least we know where you-all stand or rather prostrate yourselves on the issue.

Although - I would not try to suck others into it.

[Pero]

Also, Mickhailz, on Dzogchen teachers Norbu Rinpoche is not particularly respected either. (which doesn't mean he doesn't have the goods...) Tulku Urgen for instance had a quite low opinion of Him and his students.

 

That's interesting, I didn't think Tulku Urgyen was one of his critics, I thought they were friends. May I ask where you heard this?

[3bob]

Imagine this: The Belief Religions have reached a point of WAR that people are seeing the truth behind them and leaving the churches to rot where they stand as the priests rape and pilage the comunities for what they can take. Read the News.

 

I take your remark as being way out of context to this string... namely because it has been recognized here by many that the Buddha was not an anti-godder type of reactionary. (as shown by his interactions with and recognition of the particualar god mentioned, and also with other god type of beings that He mentioned in various suttas. The term "Belief religions" is one giant negative generalization in the context you have presented it, for I feel that most Buddhists also have degrees and or forms of faith and belief; for instance in prayers and hopes to the Goddess Quan Yin.

 

Om

[Pero]

I take your remark as being way out of context to this string... namely because it has been recognized here by many that the Buddha was not an anti-godder type of reactionary. (as shown by his interactions with and recognition of the particualar god mentioned, and also with other god type of beings that He mentioned in various suttas.

 

Uh yeah.. Gods. Not a creator. These gods are poor saps just like us, living in samsara, except they have much longer life spans, more enjoyment, less suffering and things like that.

 

 

for I feel that most Buddhists also have degrees and or forms of faith and belief; for instance in prayers and hopes to the Goddess Quan Yin.

 

Yes but this Quan Yin is a Buddha/Bodhisattva, not a creator god or something like that, and Buddhists can also become just like her.

[~jK~]

I take your remark as being way out of context to this string... namely because it has been recognized here by many that the Buddha was not an anti-godder type of reactionary. (as shown by his interactions with and recognition of the particualar god mentioned, and also with other god type of beings that He mentioned in various suttas. The term "Belief religions" is one giant negative generalization in the context you have presented it, for I feel that most Buddhists also have degrees and or forms of faith and belief; for instance in prayers and hopes to the Goddess Quan Yin.

 

Om

You can take my points any way you wish.

Although:

My obvious points are outsourced, provable and well within the scope of Taoist concepts.

 

It is your thread that is the one contrary to this website.

 

The Taoist way as well as Buddhism is about philosophy - not religious insainity.

[3bob]

You can take my points any way you wish.

Although:

My obvious points are outsourced, provable and well within the scope of Taoist concepts.

 

It is your thread that is the one contrary to this website.

 

The Taoist way as well as Buddhism is about philosophy - not religious insainity.

 

Moderators, I don't need this, how about you?

[Vajrahridaya]

Hi Vajra, it's good to see you back in action here but i find it kind of strange to see your Longchenpa quote under everything you write about 'not accepting or rejecting' as that seems to be the entire basis of your communication style.

 

My quote is in reference to inward experience. As far as view goes though, one must reject wrong view and accept right view. This is what I communicate on here. One's view must be refined in order to be truly vast.

 

The view of there being an eternal personality that rules all things is accepting "Eternalism" and rejecting the middle way as well as nihilism. The middle way of emptiness gives space for all views but is free from them. Because all things including mind are empty, you have the space to be attached to your view of there being an Eternal God that created everything that you communicate with, or that communicates with you as well.

 

But, this doesn't mean you have realized Rigpa or the middle way. This also doesn't mean you have realized the internal meaning of the Longchenpa quote.

 

The quote for me basically just means that no matter what arguments arise here. I neither accept nor do I reject them, but let them pass through as the view of Rigpa illuminates it all and sees the empty and interconnected nature of everything. So, I am unaffected and my bliss remains anchored in "right view"... which is an inner experience. Of course... at best... I am still just a Buddhist, not a Buddha.

 

 

My friend was with Namkai Norbu at his last retreat here in Oz, and told me that there was a guy there who kept quoting Narga Juna, till Namkai cracked it at him, and said stop quoting that rubbish, it will only take you further from Rigpa...

lol Not an exact quote but the gist of how he told me about it.

 

You should understand the context. Namkhai Norbu also always teaches to understand emptiness according to Nagarjuna when referencing emptiness in Dzogchen. Obviously this one person was having a block and interpreting Nargarjuna on an internal level that was creating obstacles.

 

Also, Mickhailz, on Dzogchen teachers Norbu Rinpoche is not particularly respected either. (which doesn't mean he doesn't have the goods...) Tulku Urgen for instance had a quite low opinion of Him and his students.

 

I can understand this of him maybe when he was much younger, before Tulku Urgen passed on. Norbu Rinpoche has progressed as a teacher since then though. When Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche first started teaching he was quite reluctant and he was a university professor at the time in Italy. He was young. He is not the same person anymore.

Edited June 4, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Encephalon]

Moderators, I don't need this, how about you?

 

Are you seriously asking to be rescued over this challenge!?

 

To your credit, I don't recall any of your postings possessing the slightest bit of animus, but your mental universe seems to harbor no skills of critical thinking. Even theological arguments can be waged with sound reasoning, but we are obliged out of intellectual humility not to presume more than we know, and especially not more than we CAN know. Your posts regularly indicate that you have not yet acquired the ability to tell the difference.

 

I think you have a rich spiritual life in store but you've got a brutal academic experience ahead of you if you don't practice some cognitive hygiene. You might want to consult the information on this link.

 

I'm making the assumption that you are young and haven't had the privilege of going to college yet. Neither of these conditions constitute criminal acts!

 

http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/valuable-intellectual-traits.cfm

[3bob]

Are you seriously asking to be rescued over this challenge!?

 

To your credit, I don't recall any of your postings possessing the slightest bit of animus, but your mental universe seems to harbor no skills of critical thinking. Even theological arguments can be waged with sound reasoning, but we are obliged out of intellectual humility not to presume more than we know, and especially not more than we CAN know. Your posts regularly indicate that you have not yet acquired the ability to tell the difference.

 

I think you have a rich spiritual life in store but you've got a brutal academic experience ahead of you if you don't practice some cognitive hygiene. You might want to consult the information on this link.

 

I'm making the assumption that you are young and haven't had the privilege of going to college yet. Neither of these conditions constitute criminal acts!

 

http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/valuable-intellectual-traits.cfm

 

A statement on this site (or string) that directly says or implys that all religions and those who practice them are "insane" is not any kind of rational or intellectual challenge to me Blasto, and imo if you see such as being so then your unasked for advice is further compounded in a bad way. (although in some small way I think you may mean well) Btw, imo your continued projections towards me and the strangely twisted, smarter than thou academic stance could use some introspection towards your own person, I'm not that interested in it frankly. Good luck.

[C T]

A statement on this site (or string) that directly says or implys that all religions and those who practice them are "insane" is not any kind of rational or intellectual challenge to me Blasto, and imo if you see such as being so then your unasked for advice is further compounded in a bad way. (although in some small way I think you may mean well) Btw, imo your continued projections towards me and the strangely twisted, smarter than thou academic stance could use some introspection towards your own person, I'm not that interested in it frankly. Good luck.

Well said. Blasto's post above reeks of much haughtiness. It makes one wonder why seemingly intelligent people quite often find it difficult to germinate their seed of humility.

 

jK's post hardly represented a challenge. The way i see it, he was making a declaration, and one that left quite a bit to be desired actually. This is 3Bob's thread, and if jK is truly an ambassador of Raja Yoga or whatever, the least he could do, having chosen not to engage in sensible discussion, was to either keep his views to himself, and/or show a bit of respect to the OP in what he writes. It really is not that hard, especially for those who have had the privilege to count themselves as academicians.

 

Sorry Bob.. its not my intention to comment on your behalf. I am just blowing off a bit of steam here.

Edited June 4, 2010 by CowTao