A Couple of Questions about Buddhism

[Pero]

I challenged the so called Tibetan Buddha Padmasambhava to appear on the front seat of my truck and have a heart to heart conversation. Maybe, he was busy somewhere else. Supposedly he has around 5 billion emanations. One of those dudes should of had some free time.

 

Yes, how dare he not appear before the great Ralis. I'll ask him about it if I ever get to see him mkay?

[xabir2005]

Asanga was born in the region of Purusapura, Peshawar, the present Kashmir in the 4th century. His birth had been predicted by Buddha Shakyamuni, who announced that about 9 hundred years after his parinirvana, the venerable Asanga would appear in this world to protect the teachings of the Mahayana. His younger brother was no other than Vasubandhu. Their mother, Prasannasila, from Brahmin caste and a former nun had made the vow to give birth to two sons whom she would rear to help spread and strengthen the teachings of the Buddha, particularly the Abhidharma, which had been in a period of decline after the destruction of a great part of the library of Nalanda university by a devastating fire.

 

Asanga took monastic vows, studied the tripitaka of the Theravada and the Mahayana, and pursued his search for a definite understanding of ultimate reality by entering the path of the tantras. During an initiation, at the moment of tossing a flower on a mandala indicating the karmic link between the deity and the initiatee, Asanga's flower fell on the field of Buddha Maitreya. Consequently, Asanga decided to meditate on Buddha Maitreya. He journeyed to the mountain called Riwo Tchakang, at the Indian Tibetan border, and sat down to meditate in seclusion.

 

After three years without result, he felt very depressed and left his cave. On his way he saw a pigeon leaving its nest through a small hole in the rocks. Noticing how that hole had been worn smooth by the feathers of generations of pigeons, Asanga was inspired to more diligence and returned to his practice. After three more years of fruitless meditation, he again felt like giving up. On his way to town he met a man who was rubbing an iron bar with a smooth cloth. Upon asking the man what he was doing, he was told that he was making a needle! So much diligence for such a small worldly aim encouraged Asanga to return to his retreat place once more.

After 12 years of meditation, he still had not met Maitreya. Desperate and discouraged, he again left his retreat place and on the way to the next town, he passed a sick old dog on the side of the street. The dog's hind part was paralyzed and eaten by worms. Although the animal tried to attack him, Asanga only felt overwhelming compassion. He thought of removing the worms, but realized that he would squeeze them to death with his fingers. Therefore he decided to remove them with his tongue. He knelt down, closed his eyes, unable to bear the sight of the dog's wounded flesh, lowered his head and - touched the dusty ground. He opened his eyes and saw Maitreya in front of him.

 

Asanga, surprised, asked him why he hadn't appeared earlier. Maitreya answered: « I have been with you since the very beginning, but your mind was not open enough to see me. Now, because of your great genuine compassion, your karmic obscurations have been purified, and you are able to see me. »

 

They left in order to introduce Maitreya to the town's people. But none was able to see Maitreya, only an old woman perceived one of Maitreya's feet. And so Asanga understood what it meant to be veiled by mental obscurations. Without great compassion and understanding, karmic obscurations could not be dispelled.

 

Asanga's perception was now purified, and he experienced the pure dimension of Tushita, the dwelling place of Maitreya. There he received from Maitreya the « Five Great Treatises of Maitreya. » Returning with them to our world, he taught them widely.

Edited August 25, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

How does this benefit anyone? Claims such as these are just more posturing in an attempt to put Buddhism above all other isms and are not substantive.

 

 

ralis

Claims such as these are simply stating facts and experiences as they are, they are not made in an attempt to postulate Buddhism as being special from other religions, since practitioners from other religions also remember past lives - thus remembering past lives is nothing special. Buddha did talk about his dharma as being special and different from other religions and being the sole way to liberation, and yet remembering past lives was definitely not part of what he said was different. (Cula-sihanada Sutta (MN 11) -- The Shorter Discourse on the Lion's Roar {M i 63} [Ñanamoli Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi, trans.]. The Buddha declares that only through practicing in accord with the Dhamma can Awakening be realized. His teaching is distinguished from those of other religions and philosophies through its unique rejection of all doctrines of self. [bB])

 

Many modern day masters also remembered uncountable past lives. It's not just the Buddha. I personally know and met people, friends and teachers who can remember lots of their past lives.

Edited August 25, 2010 by xabir2005

[Brian]

...

[ralis]

[Encephalon]

This thread, in TTB fashion, has been painful to witness. On the one hand, I honor Ralis' commitment to critical thinking, skepticism, and well-founded suspicions of religious orthodoxies.

 

On the other hand, I am indebted to Buddhism for more than I can adequately express here, but for radically different reasons that are often expressed in here, so I won't bother. It is a spiritual path for me that shares similar terrain with Taoism, but it is also a subject that can be understood and studied academically, and I believe there are tremendous advantages to approaching it in this way, not the least of which is the minimization of so many metaphysical traps.

 

The Buddha himself would have refused to even answer the questions posed by Seeker because he recognized such questions for the impediments they were to authentic spiritual pursuit. His teaching was a radical departure from Hindu orthodoxy and consisted of a rational and psychological method for alleviating suffering. All the heavy metaphysical stuff, particularly the Tibetan lineages, came hundreds of years later.

 

The Three Marks of Existence - Annata (Non-self), Annica (the impermanence of all things), and Dukkha (suffering or anguish) - are astonishing in that they are consistent with modern psychology and postmodernism, but the Buddha intuited this postmodern realization a full 2,500 years before the west's own realization. This alone is a testament to his intuitive genius.

 

I'm indebted to David Loy for teasing out this point, as he is a western-trained philosopher as well as a Zen priest, but Stephen Batchelor's "Buddhism Without Beliefs" is also a great place to start. I've plugged in a taste of Batchelor's work below.

 

"Lets start with the Buddhas first discourse, delivered to his five former ascetic companions in the Deer Park at Sarnath, near Benares. It was here, several weeks after the awakening and his ensuing ambivalence about saying anything at all, that compassion moved him to embrace the anguish of others. Plunging into the treacherous sea of words, he set in motion the wheel of the dharma.

 

This short discourse can be summed up as follows: The Buddha declares how he has found the central path through avoiding indulgence and mortification. He then describes four ennobling truths: those of anguish, its origins, its cessation, and the path leading to its cessation. Anguish, he says is to be understood, its origins to be let go of, its cessation to be realized, and the path to be cultivated. And this is precisely what he himself has done: he has understood anguish, let go of its origins, realized its cessation, and cultivated the path. Only through knowing these truths, knowing how to act upon them, and knowing that he has acted upon them can he claim to have found authentic awakening.

 

Despite the Buddhas own succinct account of his awakening, it has come to be represented (even by Buddhists) as something quite different. Awakening has become a mystical experience, a moment of transcendent revelation of the Truth. Religious interpretations invariably reduce complexity to uniformity while elevating matter-of-factness to holiness. Over time, increasing emphasis has been placed on a single Absolute Truth, such as the Deathless. the Unconditioned, the Void,

etc., rather than on an interwoven complex of truths.

 

And the crucial distinction that each truth requires being acted upon in its own particular way (understanding anguish, letting go of its origins, realizing its cessation, and cultivation the path) has been relegated to the margins of specialist doctrinal knowledge. Few Buddhists today are probably even aware of the distinction.

Yet in failing to make this distinction, four ennobling truths to be acted upon are neatly turned into four propositions of fact to be believed. The first truth becomes: Life is Suffering; the second: The Cause of Suffering Is Cravingand so on. At precisely this juncture, Buddhism becomes a religion. A Buddhist is someone who believes these four propositions. In leveling out these truths into propositions that claim to be true, Buddhists are distinguished from Christians, Muslims, and Hindus, who believe different sets of propositions. The four ennobling truths become principal dogmas of the belief system known as Buddhism.

 

The Buddha was not a mystic. His awakening was not a shattering insight into a transcendent Truth that revealed to him the mysteries of God. He did not claim to have had an experience that granted him privileged, esoteric knowledge of how the universe ticks. Only as Buddhism became more and more of a religion were such grandiose claims imputed to his awakening. In describing to the five ascetics what his awakening meant, he spoke of having discovered complete freedom of heart and mind from the compulsions of craving. He called such freedom the taste of the dharma."

 

Gassho.

 

Edited for typos.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Blasto

[Brian]

...

[Lucky7Strikes]

The Buddha was not a mystic. His awakening was not a shattering insight into a transcendent Truth that revealed to him the mysteries of God. He did not claim to have had an experience that granted him privileged, esoteric knowledge of how the universe ticks. Only as Buddhism became more and more of a religion were such grandiose claims imputed to his awakening. In describing to the five ascetics what his awakening meant, he spoke of having discovered complete freedom of heart and mind from the compulsions of craving. He called such freedom the taste of the dharma."

 

Gassho.

 

Edited for typos.

"So too, monks, when the Tathagata arises in the world, an arahant, perfectly enlightened, accomplished in true knowledge and conduct, fortunate, knower of the world, unsurpassed leader of persons to be tamed, teacher of devas and humans, the Enlightened One, the Blessed One, he teaches the Dhamma thus: "Such is form, such its origin, such its passing away; such is feeling...such is perception...such are voliotional formations...such is consciousness, such its origin, such its passing away...So powerful, monks, is the Tathagata over this world together with its devas, so majestic and mighty" (Samyutta Nikaya)

 

"In the world, monks, with its Devas, with mara, with Brahma, in this populations with its ascetics and brahmins, with its devas and humans, whatever there is that is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, reached, sought after, examined by the mind, all that has been awakened by the Tathagata; therefore he is called the Tathagata

 

Having directly known all the world,

all the world exactly as it is,

he is detached from all the world,

unengaged with all the world...

 

He is the Blessed One, the Buddha,

He is the lion, unsurpassed,

In this world together with its devas.

He set in motion the wheel of Brahma

 

(Anguttara Nikaya)

 

[Vajrahridaya]

Blasto, on 25 August 2010 - 11:10 AM, said:

The Buddha was not a mystic. His awakening was not a shattering insight into a transcendent Truth that revealed to him the mysteries of God. He did not claim to have had an experience that granted him privileged, esoteric knowledge of how the universe ticks. Only as Buddhism became more and more of a religion were such grandiose claims imputed to his awakening. In describing to the five ascetics what his awakening meant, he spoke of having discovered complete freedom of heart and mind from the compulsions of craving. He called such freedom the taste of the dharma."

 

Gassho.

 

 

I think it's fine to have a mundane view of Buddhas teachings. I feel one can progress nicely within humanity through the more Earth bound view of the Buddha. This type of Buddhism has a positive voice for society and I'm glad it exists. But, it's quite clear that he was a being of vast and deep experience even from the Suttas. So this idea about Buddhism not being a path of delving into the mysteries of expanded human experience from the very beginning is unfounded and seems to me to be more of a projection of wishful thinking.

 

Those of us with some level of expanded human experience find support for these experiences in the Suttas and Sutras. It's an entirely different dimension of thinking and being that generally is not supported by the vast majority of humanity who are stuck in 5 sense bound reasoning.

 

The Tantras of Vajrayana if practiced through transmission from qualified masters do lead to direct experiences of this transcendent nature of human capacity which many materialist realists and materialist rationalists may be skeptical about, but I suggest being skeptical about your skepticism. What is far fetched for you is direct experience for others.

 

Blasto,

 

You are welcome to your version of Buddhism, but for me, it's highly irrational and bound by a lack of intuition. It's basically too down to Earth. I don't think you can fully understand yourself without unraveling the inner mysteries of causes and conditions transcending identity with this physical incarnation. Without directly experiencing past lives and being skeptical about your own seeming limitations in experience, I don't feel that you will even get beyond the habit of limited identity which is subtler than mere logic and reason based on limited 5 sense experience. There is much to unravel within your own sub-conscious and un-conscious. I think you are going the slow way with this over rationalized and neatly boxed up version of Buddhas teachings.

 

For me, the mystical aspects make sense and offer a deeper view of "rational comprehension", an expanded more spherical view. But, transcendent of 5 sense experience has to be incorporated in order for true sense to be made of the more other worldly positions postulated by Buddhism, even those aspects which appear in the Suttas, of which there is plenty of other-worldliness. It didn't just start appearing hundreds of years later, but was there from the very first turning of the wheel, in the basics. With the talking to gods, past life models of explanation, and the various elaborations on meditative experiences.

 

Reality is more flexible than Western Realism postulates in my opinion and experience.

 

P.S. When you read the autobiographies of various Tibetan and Indian Masters, you can see that they lived in an entirely different dimension of reality, which allowed for a more flexible view of many notions that most Westerners think of as fixed and definite. I don't think they were all lying when they talk about beings that can levitate, or project consciousness into a dead body and animate it as a zombie for a while, or manipulate matter through powers of mind. I've had my own fair share of "other worldly" experiences to give credence and value to these autobiographies.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

But, it's quite clear that he was a being of vast and deep experience even from the Suttas.

 

 

This is where your arguments falter. You proceed from the incorrect conclusion that what was written after the Buddha passed on, are the true and complete sayings of the Buddha. True believers in all mass movements, including religious movements, always believe their particular sacred writings are absolutely authentic to a fault. You are no different in your enthusiasm for what you believe than anyone else. Your emotion and wanting to believe coupled with personal experiences are historically, not unique. Further, many experiences in sacred writings can be duplicated by trance.

 

I believe it is imperative to break the trance and go beyond any writings, and experiences of avatars and teachers.

 

Sky gazing destroyed just about every illusion I was entertaining. Any attempt to postulate any belief system, ideology or description of the cosmos is foolish.

 

 

 

ralis

Edited August 25, 2010 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Sky gazing destroyed just about every illusion I was entertaining.

 

 

 

ralis

 

Good for you.

 

Your Western Materialist ideas about life are also not unique.

 

Plenty of people without direct experience transcending the 5 senses say, "Oh... it was just a trance." Because you lack experience, you rationalize your way out of it's possibility, thus limiting yourself over and over again to the trance of the 5 senses and ideas that "I was born and will die and that's it." If you may have fallen across a glimpse of self transcendence, you may dumb down your revelation through even more layering of materialist rationalism. Thereby stopping the possibility of having any more incredible eurika experiences transcending your perceived and safe ideas of limitation.

 

You don't realize how limiting your view of reality is. You think you're down to Earth and rational, logical and wise. But really... you just haven't delved that deeply into yourself and your rational and logical mind bound by the senses keeps you from going any deeper.

[Lucky7Strikes]

This is where your arguments falter. You proceed from the incorrect conclusion that what was written after the Buddha passed on, are the true and complete sayings of the Buddha. True believers in all mass movements, including religious movements, always believe their particular sacred writings are absolutely authentic to a fault. You are no different in your enthusiasm for what you believe than anyone else. Your emotion and wanting to believe coupled with personal experiences are historically, not unique. Further, many experiences in sacred writings can be duplicated by trance.

 

I believe it is imperative to break the trance and go beyond any writings, and experiences of avatars and teachers.

 

Sky gazing destroyed just about every illusion I was entertaining. Any attempt to postulate any belief system, ideology or description of the cosmos is foolish.

 

 

 

ralis

Just keep doing your Kunlun .

[nac]

:lol:

 

I`ll thown in my own. Can Buddhas have sex? If so would they sometimes want to?

 

Since the Theravada tradition holds that arahats and Buddhas CAN not do many things such as kill ANYONE or have sex and claim to base this on experience in addition to theory, and the Mahayana tradition claims that whatever their equivalent of arahats is (Boddhisatvas?) absolutely can kill someone if it is to save someones live for example, and they also claim to base this on experience and not only theory, why should I believe ANYTHING either of the traditions say about what happens at higher levels. To me these and other inconsistencies of the utmost importance are so great that I find it very hard to take any such claims seriously.

There are no inconsistencies, really. I have tested each and every link once again over the last year. The structure may seem complex, wobbly and counter-intuitive, but logically, at least, it's airtight. All it takes to get a straightforward intellectual understanding is honest motivation and some effort in proportion to the distance from your cherished worldview.

 

My advice would be: don't bother. As long as your intentions are pure, open and not derogatory by default, you will receive direct, personal experiences clarifying matters. IMHO, seriously believing this stuff for any other reason is indefensible.

[Vajrahridaya]

There are no inconsistencies, really. I have tested each and every link once again over the last year. The structure may seem complex, wobbly and counter-intuitive, but logically, at least, it's airtight. All it takes to get a straightforward intellectual understanding is honest motivation and some effort in proportion to the distance from your cherished worldview.

 

My advice would be: don't bother. As long as your intentions are pure, open and not derogatory by default, you will receive direct, personal experiences clarifying matters. IMHO, seriously believing this stuff for any other reason is indefensible.

 

Hmn, wonderful and sound synopsis.

[Procurator]

 

 

[*]Is multi-verse theory a common element across the variations of Buddhism?

[*]Are buddhas all still able to interact with "us" after attaining true enlightenment?

[*]Are buddhas able to access all past-life memories?

[*]Do buddhas understand the workings of the cosmos?

 

 

yes to all.

[Procurator]

 

 

[*]Is multi-verse theory a common element across the variations of Buddhism?

[*]Are buddhas all still able to interact with "us" after attaining true enlightenment?

[*]Are buddhas able to access all past-life memories?

[*]Do buddhas understand the workings of the cosmos?

 

 

yes to all.

[ralis]

Good for you.

 

Your Western Materialist ideas about life are also not unique.

 

Plenty of people without direct experience transcending the 5 senses say, "Oh... it was just a trance." Because you lack experience, you rationalize your way out of it's possibility, thus limiting yourself over and over again to the trance of the 5 senses and ideas that "I was born and will die and that's it." If you may have fallen across a glimpse of self transcendence, you may dumb down your revelation through even more layering of materialist rationalism. Thereby stopping the possibility of having any more incredible eurika experiences transcending your perceived and safe ideas of limitation.

 

You don't realize how limiting your view of reality is. You think you're down to Earth and rational, logical and wise. But really... you just haven't delved that deeply into yourself and your rational and logical mind bound by the senses keeps you from going any deeper.

 

 

You always make a bad move in any attempt to criticize me. Of course I am grounded and that is why I can run a successful business and have a real life. I am a professional with a degree from a major university. I use that knowledge to create a life for others and myself.

 

In terms of any so called spiritual quest, the path includes all and everything. That includes the rational and irrational. Nothing is left out.

 

All states of being, whether it be the highest high or the lowest low are only judged so by specific groups i.e, mass movements, which are tribal in nature. Humans have a basic need to form social groups, religious or otherwise.

 

Please refrain from making unfounded judgments i.e, incorrect conclusions, to anyone on this forum. Limit your critique to what is written and not the messenger. Debate is healthy and welcome here. However, the judgments made in regards to Blasto and myself are unfounded and without merit.

 

If you pay careful attention to what I write as opposed to filling in what you perceive as blanks, that would be greatly appreciated.

 

I am not what you think I am!

 

 

ralis

Edited August 26, 2010 by ralis

[Brian]

...

[C T]

Hello A Seeker..

 

Have posted two videos in the 'Dropping Reflections' thread which you may find quite insightful and could perhaps address some of the interesting questions you may have regarding Buddhism. The presenter is Patrick Sweeney - some background info on him here: http://www.satdharma.org/Patrick_Sweeney.php

 

 

Thanks!

Edited August 26, 2010 by CowTao

[Vajrahridaya]

 

I am not what you think I am!

 

 

ralis

 

All of my critical analysis of you is entirely based on your postings and nothing more, nothing less.

 

It's more like, you are not what you think you are.

 

I have no problem with Blasto and wasn't insulting him. I just feel that his type of Buddhism is limited and that is all.

[Vajrahridaya]

Hello A Seeker..

 

Have posted two videos in the 'Dropping Reflections' thread which you may find quite insightful and could perhaps address some of the interesting questions you may have regarding Buddhism. The presenter is Patrick Sweeney - some background info on him here: http://www.satdharma.org/Patrick_Sweeney.php

 

 

Thanks!

 

Patrick seems like a good guy! Very nice credentials.

[ralis]

All of my critical analysis of you is entirely based on your postings and nothing more, nothing less.

 

It's more like, you are not what you think you are.

 

I have no problem with Blasto and wasn't insulting him. I just feel that his type of Buddhism is limited and that is all.

 

First of all your analysis is neither analytical or critical and proceeds from incorrect conclusions about me. Further what you write as analysis is not based on facts about me. If you care to know what critical analysis is, then Google it. Real critical analysis examines facts and dispenses with emotion, accusations and hearsay.

Further, analytical writing is very precise with correct syntax. Strunk and White's 'Elements of Style are the guidebooks for precise written communication.

 

Also calling me a western materialist is incorrect. You incorrectly assume I have never had experiences beyond the five senses. I just never brag about my transcendental experiences as you do. Why? I am not insecure and have no need to put my experiences above others.

 

The problem I have with true believers such as yourself and the mass movements of true believers, is that your preaching so called truth from your perspective does more harm than good. It is if divide and conquer are of prime consideration.

 

I know what I just stated is off the topic of Buddhism. However, anyone preaching so called superior truth needs to be questioned. Anyone participating in this forum has a right to defend themselves from dogma and accusations.

 

 

ralis

Edited August 27, 2010 by ralis

[ralis]

I won't be posting much over the next several months, due to extensive traveling. However I may pop in from time to time.

 

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

 

ralis

 

You are amazingly dogmatic and accusatory. You state your mental dogmas in all your posts. You bash everything I say, every chance you get.

 

I'm glad you'll be gone for quite some time.

[Encephalon]

I have no problem with Blasto and wasn't insulting him. I just feel that his type of Buddhism is limited and that is all.

 

 

I have to give you credit for consistency. Your argumentative style has not changed over the course of the 18 months Ive been coming in here. Your strength of conviction and faith in the viability of your path is noble, and I have no reason to doubt your sincerity or the authenticity of your experience.

 

But, you still seem trapped by the practice of circular reasoning. It is no different from the fundamentalist Christian who insists that the Bible is the infallible word of God and that Jesus is the savior of humankind because, after all, the Bible says as much, although this revealed truth may not be immediately obvious to unbelievers.

 

Ive tried to deliver this point before, as gently as I know how; you owe it to yourself and your fellow Tibetans to improve your communication skills. You also have your academic career to think of, if in fact that is your intention; youve been talking about the Cognitive Sciences program at Berkeley for ages now, but its a brutal program, and youd be laughed out of a lower division philosophy class if you laid these games on your classmates.

 

We might have amiably agreed to some simple principles regarding the spectrum of Buddhist thought, from the agnostic Buddhist camp on one end and the Vajrayana lineage at the other. And let us be clear, I am not holding down this camp on my own; I stand on the shoulders of the priests and monks whove come before me. So if youre feeling truly competent enough I would encourage you to call up the author/scholars of my lineage and patronize them about their failure to adequately address their spiritual concerns.

 

Your lineage is clearly plotted on the metaphysical end of the Buddhist spectrum, and Im sure you must know that it was the latecomer of Buddhist schools, with plenty of Bon occultism thrown into the mix. (Buddhism has always melded with the cultural and religious traditions of the countries it moved into.) Whether or not this lineage most closely reflects the original teaching has not been a major point of contention amongst scholars.

 

I was introduced to Buddhism around the age of 17 and Ive been following the east/west dialogue on and off for over three decades now. The Dalai Lama has figured prominently in these discussions and has participated most earnestly in the subjects of neuroscience and meditation. I just finished Destructive Emotions: Destructive Emotions: A Scientific Dialogue with the Dalai Lama, and Ive never once found an unequivocal declaration that your lineage, as you define it, and the judgments you so willingly render in this forum are superior to other schools of enlightenment and mental health. This could very well be explained by the Dalai Lamas characteristic modesty, but it seems that the unparalleled supremacy of one meditation technique and/or teaching over others would have shown up with some consistency in the literature of the last fifty years. In fact, the only source where I find the measure of religious absolutism matching the sentiments youve leveled at me and others in this forum is within the right wing of the American protestant community.

Again, Im willing to concede that your subjective states are consistent with the goals of your lineage, but something tells me that the fierce defensiveness and judgmentalism that you express, combined with the remarkable absence of clarity in your writing, are not indicative of the states of mind you are laying claim to.

 

This is the last time Im going to respond to your posts. Deconstructing them has proven to be a fruitless exercise.

 

Nevertheless, all the best.

Edited August 27, 2010 by Blasto