Could someone explain the Buddhist belief system to me?

[GrandmasterP]

http://vimeo.com/25376402

 

I reckon old Tony Parsons has got this non duality schtick pretty well sussed.

Dress it up howsoever you choose in Buddhist robes or Xtian cassocks or Taoist silly hats or any other philosophical or religious garb(age) we might favour, it's all pretty much the same thing. We just choose to use different words to describe it depending on which flavour of cultivation suits our particular taste. But we are all talking about the same (No)thing.

[GrandmasterP]

I know Tony .

He's getting a living and is a throughly nice chap.

Posted this to show you don't need sutras and kt, lamas and such. It can all be done ina suburban front in Hampsted. Or anywhere else for that matter. No signing up to odd religions required.

[xabir2005]

http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes22.html

 

Philosophical questions on Creation

 

Select a link to find the Dalai Lama's answer.

• "You have said that according to Buddhist philosophy there is no Creator, no God of creation, and this may initially put off many people who believe in a divine principle. Can you explain the difference between the Vajrayana Primordial Buddha and a Creator God?"
  
• "...Like all spiritual traditions, Buddhism conveys a cosmogonic myth. And yet Buddhism rejects the idea of creation. Why?...Would you [also] ... speak to us about consciousness in its relation to matter and the universe?"
  

 

Q: You have said that according to Buddhist philosophy there is no Creator, no God of creation, and this may initially put off many people who believe in a divine principle. Can you explain the difference between the Vajrayana Primordial Buddha and a Creator God?

 

A: I understand the Primordial Buddha, also known as Buddha Samantabhadra, to be the ultimate reality, the realm of the Dharmakaya-- the space of emptiness--where all phenomena, pure and impure, are dissolved. This is the explanation taught by the Sutras and Tantras. However, in the context of your question, the tantric tradition is the only one which explains the Dharmakaya in terms of Inherent clear light, the essential nature of the mind; this would seem imply that all phenomena, samsara and nirvana, arise from this clear and luminous source. Even the New School of Translation came to the conclusion that the "state of rest" of a practitioner of the Great Yoga--Great Yoga implies here the state of the practitioner who has reached a stage in meditation where the most subtle experience of clear light has been realized--that for as long as the practitioner remains in this ultimate sphere he or she remains totally free of any sort of veil obscuring the mind, and is immersed in a state of great bliss.

We can say, therefore, that this ultimate source, clear light, is close to the notion of a Creator, since all phenomena, whether they belong to samsara or nirvana, originate therein. But we must be careful in speaking of this source, we must not be led into error. I do not mean chat there exists somewhere, there, a sort of collective clear light, analogous to the non-Buddhist concept of Brahma as a substratum. We must not be inclined to deify this luminous space. We must understand that when we speak of ultimate or inherent clear light, we are speaking on an individual level.

Likewise, when we speak of karma as the cause of the universe we eliminate the notion of a unique entity called karma existing totally independently. Rather, collective karmic impressions, accumulated individually, are at the origin of the creation of a world. When, in the tantric context, we say that all worlds appear out of clear light, we do not visualize this source as a unique entity, but as the ultimate clear light of each being. We can also, on the basis of its pure essence, understand this clear light to be the Primordial Buddha. All the stages which make up the life of each living being--death, the intermediate state, and rebirth--represent nothing more than the various manifestations of the potential of clear light. It is both the most subtle consciousness and energy. The more clear light loses its subtlety, the more your experiences take shape.

In this way, death and the intermediate state are moments where the gross manifestations emanating from clear light are reabsorbed. At death we return to that original source, and from there a slightly more gross state emerges to form the intermediate state preceding rebirth. At the stage of rebirth, clear light is apparent in a physical incarnation. At death we return to this source. And so on. The ability to recognize subtle clear light, also called the Primordial Buddha, is equivalent to realizing nirvana, whereas ignorance of the nature of clear light leaves us to wander in the different realms of samsaric existence.

This is how I understand the concept of the Primordial Buddha. It would be a grave error to conceive of it as an independent and autonomous existence from beginningless time. If we had to accept the idea of an independent creator, the explanations given in the Pramanavartika, the "Compendium of Valid Knowledge" written by Dharmakirti, and in the ninth chapter of the text by Shantideva, which completely refutes the existence per se of all phenomena, would be negated. This, in turn, would refute the notion of the Primordial Buddha. The Buddhist point of view does not accept the validity of affirmations which do not stand up to logical examination. If a sutra describes the Primordial Buddha as an autonomous entity, we must be able to interpret this assertion without taking it literally. We call this type of sutra an "interpretable" sutra.

• 
  GO BACK TO TOP OF PAGE
  

<a name="bigbang">

Q: Interest im the discoveries of modern astrophysics and the "Big bang" theory reveal both a great fascination in the cosmos and a probing interrogation by members of our generation into their origins, their destiny and the meaning of their existence. The "Big bang" theory has had a significant impact on our way of looking at matter and nature; it has introduced considerable conceptual innovations. The formation of the structures of the universe, which function in interdependence, and which new research continues to reveal, is a seemingly endless source of wonder. Like all spiritual traditions, Buddhism conveys a cosmogonic myth. And yet Buddhism rejects the idea of creation. Why?

 

Most Western scientists think that life and consciousness are a magnificent result of the universe's material evolution, and yet they know neither how nor why matter emerged in such a way as to fulfill the conditions necessary to engender life and consciousness. What they do know is that these conditions are very strict, yet have nevertheless been fulfilled in our universe in an astonishing way. You have a very different point of view on this subject. Would you therefore speak to us about consciousness in its relation to matter and the universe?

 

A: Why is there no creation possible in Buddhism? It has been said that one cannot find living beings at the becoming of the universe for the essential reason that causes have no beginning. If there were a beginning to the universe, there would also have to be a beginning to consciousness. If we accepted a beginning to consciousness, we would also have to accept that its cause has a beginning, a sudden cause which would have instantly produced consciousness; this would lead to a great many other questions. If consciousness had arisen without cause, or from a permanent cause, that cause would have to exist on. a permanent basis, always, or not exist at all, ever. The fact that a phenomenon exists intermittently proves that it depends on causes and conditions. When all the conditions are met, the phenomenon is produced. When those conditions are absent or incomplete, the phenomenon does not appear. As causes have no beginning and stretch back to infinity, the same thing must apply for living beings. Creation is therefore not possible.

Let us now consider a particular phenomenon, a glacier for example: it does indeed have a beginning. How was it created? The outside world appears as a result of the acts of sentient beings who use this world, These acts, or karmas, in turn originate in the intentions and motivations of those beings who have not yet taken control of their minds.

The "creator of the world," basically, is the mind. In the Sutras, the mind is described as an agent. It is said that consciousness has no beginning, but we must distinguish here between gross consciousness and subtle consciousness. Many gross consciousnesses appear as dependents of the physical aggregates, of the body. This is evident when you consider the different neurons and the functioning of the brain, but just because physical conditions are met does not mean that this is enough to produce a perception. In order for a perception which will have the faculty to reflect and know an object to arise, it must have a consubstantial cause. The fundamental consubstantial cause, of the same substance as its result, will in this case be the subtle consciousness. It is this same consciousness or subtle mind which penetrates the parental cells at the moment of conception. The subtle mind can have no beginning. If it had one, the mind would have to be born of something that is not the mind. According to the Kalacakra Tantra, one would have to return to the particles of space to find the fundamental consubstantial causes of the external physical world as well as of the bodies of sentient beings.

Buddhist cosmology establishes the cycle of a universe in the following way: first there is a period of formation, then a period where the universe endures, then another during which it is destroyed, followed by a period of void before the formation of a new universe. During this void, the particles of space subsist, and from these particles the new universe will be formed. It is in these particles of space that we find the fundamental consubstantial cause of the entire physical world. If we wish to describe the formation of the universe and the physical bodies of beings, all we need do is analyse and comprehend the way in which the natural potential of different chemical and other elements constituting that universe was able to take shape from these space particles. It is on the basis of the specific potential of those particles that the structure of this universe and of the bodies of the beings present therein have come about. But from the moment the elements making up the world begin to set off different experiences of suffering and happiness among sentient beings, we must introduce the notion of karma -- that is, positive and negative acts committed and accumulated in the past. It is difficult to determine where the natural expression of the potential of physical elements ends and the effect of karma -- in other words, the result of our past acts -- begins. If you wonder what the relation might be between karma and this external environment formed by natural laws, it is time to explain what karma is.

Karma means, first of all, action. We distinguish one type of karma which is of a mental nature, a mental factor of volition or intention. There also exist physical and oral karmas. To understand the connection between these physical, oral, or mental karmas and the material world, we must refer to the tantric texts. The Kalacakra Tantra in particular explains that in our bodies there are to be found, at gross, subtle, and extremely subtle levels, the five elements which make up the substance of the external world. It is therefore in this context, I believe, that we must envision the connection between our physical, oral, and mental karmas, and the external elements.

[Apech]

I know Tony .

He's getting a living and is a throughly nice chap.

Posted this to show you don't need sutras and kt, lamas and such. It can all be done ina suburban front in Hampsted. Or anywhere else for that matter. No signing up to odd religions required.

 

I thought he was a nice and interesting chap ... but I wasn't completely convinced ... and I thought that the interviewers didn't get it at all ... a feeling of vagueness??? uh?

[deci belle]

No belief. Activate the mind without dwelling on its contents.

[xabir2005]

He means it in the sense of eternalism: Some "thing" that is unchanging, everlasting, or eternal. Non-duality in Buddhist terms is the freedom from extremes (of reification and depreciation.)

 

I hope someone doesn't bring up the teachings of the third turning or from shentong, lol. They are provisional for the most part. Not only were they later developments: I've seen people try to use this as evidence that the Buddha taught something in line with theistic schools of thought.

Indeed. The Clear Light* as emphasized in teachings like Shentong is actually important, but should not be reified as the HHDL carefully pointed out.

 

*This luminosity of mind is taught right in the earliest teachings of Buddha in the Pali Canon:

 

 

AN 1.49-52

PTS: A i 10

(I,v,9-10; I,vi,1-2)

Pabhassara Sutta: Luminous

translated from the Pali by

Thanissaro Bhikkhu

© 1995–2012

"Luminous, monks, is the mind.[1] And it is defiled by incoming defilements." {I,v,9}

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements." {I,v,10}

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the mind." {I,vi,1}

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind." {I,vi,2}

[xabir2005]

http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes22.html

 

Philosophical questions on Creation

 

Select a link to find the Dalai Lama's answer.

• "You have said that according to Buddhist philosophy there is no Creator, no God of creation, and this may initially put off many people who believe in a divine principle. Can you explain the difference between the Vajrayana Primordial Buddha and a Creator God?"
  
• "...Like all spiritual traditions, Buddhism conveys a cosmogonic myth. And yet Buddhism rejects the idea of creation. Why?...Would you [also] ... speak to us about consciousness in its relation to matter and the universe?"
  

Q: You have said that according to Buddhist philosophy there is no Creator, no God of creation, and this may initially put off many people who believe in a divine principle. Can you explain the difference between the Vajrayana Primordial Buddha and a Creator God?

 

A: I understand the Primordial Buddha, also known as Buddha Samantabhadra, to be the ultimate reality, the realm of the Dharmakaya-- the space of emptiness--where all phenomena, pure and impure, are dissolved. This is the explanation taught by the Sutras and Tantras. However, in the context of your question, the tantric tradition is the only one which explains the Dharmakaya in terms of Inherent clear light, the essential nature of the mind; this would seem imply that all phenomena, samsara and nirvana, arise from this clear and luminous source. Even the New School of Translation came to the conclusion that the "state of rest" of a practitioner of the Great Yoga--Great Yoga implies here the state of the practitioner who has reached a stage in meditation where the most subtle experience of clear light has been realized--that for as long as the practitioner remains in this ultimate sphere he or she remains totally free of any sort of veil obscuring the mind, and is immersed in a state of great bliss.

We can say, therefore, that this ultimate source, clear light, is close to the notion of a Creator, since all phenomena, whether they belong to samsara or nirvana, originate therein. But we must be careful in speaking of this source, we must not be led into error. I do not mean chat there exists somewhere, there, a sort of collective clear light, analogous to the non-Buddhist concept of Brahma as a substratum. We must not be inclined to deify this luminous space. We must understand that when we speak of ultimate or inherent clear light, we are speaking on an individual level.

Likewise, when we speak of karma as the cause of the universe we eliminate the notion of a unique entity called karma existing totally independently. Rather, collective karmic impressions, accumulated individually, are at the origin of the creation of a world. When, in the tantric context, we say that all worlds appear out of clear light, we do not visualize this source as a unique entity, but as the ultimate clear light of each being. We can also, on the basis of its pure essence, understand this clear light to be the Primordial Buddha. All the stages which make up the life of each living being--death, the intermediate state, and rebirth--represent nothing more than the various manifestations of the potential of clear light. It is both the most subtle consciousness and energy. The more clear light loses its subtlety, the more your experiences take shape.

In this way, death and the intermediate state are moments where the gross manifestations emanating from clear light are reabsorbed. At death we return to that original source, and from there a slightly more gross state emerges to form the intermediate state preceding rebirth. At the stage of rebirth, clear light is apparent in a physical incarnation. At death we return to this source. And so on. The ability to recognize subtle clear light, also called the Primordial Buddha, is equivalent to realizing nirvana, whereas ignorance of the nature of clear light leaves us to wander in the different realms of samsaric existence.

This is how I understand the concept of the Primordial Buddha. It would be a grave error to conceive of it as an independent and autonomous existence from beginningless time. If we had to accept the idea of an independent creator, the explanations given in the Pramanavartika, the "Compendium of Valid Knowledge" written by Dharmakirti, and in the ninth chapter of the text by Shantideva, which completely refutes the existence per se of all phenomena, would be negated. This, in turn, would refute the notion of the Primordial Buddha. The Buddhist point of view does not accept the validity of affirmations which do not stand up to logical examination. If a sutra describes the Primordial Buddha as an autonomous entity, we must be able to interpret this assertion without taking it literally. We call this type of sutra an "interpretable" sutra.

• 
  GO BACK TO TOP OF PAGE
  

<a name="bigbang">

Q: Interest im the discoveries of modern astrophysics and the "Big bang" theory reveal both a great fascination in the cosmos and a probing interrogation by members of our generation into their origins, their destiny and the meaning of their existence. The "Big bang" theory has had a significant impact on our way of looking at matter and nature; it has introduced considerable conceptual innovations. The formation of the structures of the universe, which function in interdependence, and which new research continues to reveal, is a seemingly endless source of wonder. Like all spiritual traditions, Buddhism conveys a cosmogonic myth. And yet Buddhism rejects the idea of creation. Why?

 

Most Western scientists think that life and consciousness are a magnificent result of the universe's material evolution, and yet they know neither how nor why matter emerged in such a way as to fulfill the conditions necessary to engender life and consciousness. What they do know is that these conditions are very strict, yet have nevertheless been fulfilled in our universe in an astonishing way. You have a very different point of view on this subject. Would you therefore speak to us about consciousness in its relation to matter and the universe?

 

A: Why is there no creation possible in Buddhism? It has been said that one cannot find living beings at the becoming of the universe for the essential reason that causes have no beginning. If there were a beginning to the universe, there would also have to be a beginning to consciousness. If we accepted a beginning to consciousness, we would also have to accept that its cause has a beginning, a sudden cause which would have instantly produced consciousness; this would lead to a great many other questions. If consciousness had arisen without cause, or from a permanent cause, that cause would have to exist on. a permanent basis, always, or not exist at all, ever. The fact that a phenomenon exists intermittently proves that it depends on causes and conditions. When all the conditions are met, the phenomenon is produced. When those conditions are absent or incomplete, the phenomenon does not appear. As causes have no beginning and stretch back to infinity, the same thing must apply for living beings. Creation is therefore not possible.

Let us now consider a particular phenomenon, a glacier for example: it does indeed have a beginning. How was it created? The outside world appears as a result of the acts of sentient beings who use this world, These acts, or karmas, in turn originate in the intentions and motivations of those beings who have not yet taken control of their minds.

The "creator of the world," basically, is the mind. In the Sutras, the mind is described as an agent. It is said that consciousness has no beginning, but we must distinguish here between gross consciousness and subtle consciousness. Many gross consciousnesses appear as dependents of the physical aggregates, of the body. This is evident when you consider the different neurons and the functioning of the brain, but just because physical conditions are met does not mean that this is enough to produce a perception. In order for a perception which will have the faculty to reflect and know an object to arise, it must have a consubstantial cause. The fundamental consubstantial cause, of the same substance as its result, will in this case be the subtle consciousness. It is this same consciousness or subtle mind which penetrates the parental cells at the moment of conception. The subtle mind can have no beginning. If it had one, the mind would have to be born of something that is not the mind. According to the Kalacakra Tantra, one would have to return to the particles of space to find the fundamental consubstantial causes of the external physical world as well as of the bodies of sentient beings.

Buddhist cosmology establishes the cycle of a universe in the following way: first there is a period of formation, then a period where the universe endures, then another during which it is destroyed, followed by a period of void before the formation of a new universe. During this void, the particles of space subsist, and from these particles the new universe will be formed. It is in these particles of space that we find the fundamental consubstantial cause of the entire physical world. If we wish to describe the formation of the universe and the physical bodies of beings, all we need do is analyse and comprehend the way in which the natural potential of different chemical and other elements constituting that universe was able to take shape from these space particles. It is on the basis of the specific potential of those particles that the structure of this universe and of the bodies of the beings present therein have come about. But from the moment the elements making up the world begin to set off different experiences of suffering and happiness among sentient beings, we must introduce the notion of karma -- that is, positive and negative acts committed and accumulated in the past. It is difficult to determine where the natural expression of the potential of physical elements ends and the effect of karma -- in other words, the result of our past acts -- begins. If you wonder what the relation might be between karma and this external environment formed by natural laws, it is time to explain what karma is.

Karma means, first of all, action. We distinguish one type of karma which is of a mental nature, a mental factor of volition or intention. There also exist physical and oral karmas. To understand the connection between these physical, oral, or mental karmas and the material world, we must refer to the tantric texts. The Kalacakra Tantra in particular explains that in our bodies there are to be found, at gross, subtle, and extremely subtle levels, the five elements which make up the substance of the external world. It is therefore in this context, I believe, that we must envision the connection between our physical, oral, and mental karmas, and the external elements.

bump

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Not that I am any master of Buddhist philosophy, however, to anyone asking if they can be Buddhist and believe in God, I would say "yes" however your view of "God" might also be integrated into Buddhist notions of reality, in that God may not be permanent, even if God exists as long as this universe, or as long as consciousness exists, his ultimate nature is still "Buddha nature/Emptiness." If your notion of God, or your religion's notion of God, does not work with this then I guess you have more searching to do.

 

Anyway, just as the Buddha said, "figure it out for yourself. Don't believe or disbelieve anything just because someone tells you to."

[RongzomFan]

like Shentong

 

Don't get me started on Shentong

Edited November 6, 2012 by alwayson

[GrandmasterP]

I heard a saying...

If you meet Buddha kill him.

Never really understood what that meant but always had a picture with it of Buddhist monks going round wearing little signs reading.

'I'm NOT Buddha, leave me alone please'

Just in case.

[RongzomFan]

I heard a saying...

If you meet Buddha kill him.

 

I think its some zen bullshit.

 

I follow the Indo-Tibetan tradition, rather than the china / jap crap.

[Stosh]

I thought it meant, that if the buddha you met was an external entity

that it was not the authentic experience

But I was never sure on that one if it was meant that way.

[GrandmasterP]

You just wouldn't would you?

I mean just say you did meet a genuine Buddha or even the main man himself, last thing anyone would want to do was kill him surely.

You'd maybe have him signed up on here first and fielding questions from his followers.

Not that some of 'em would take a blind bit of notice.

You can almost read the posts now.....

"NO Mr Buddha, that can't be right what you just posted cos Lama Dongdroop Ploppy says in the Cheddar Cheese sutra Chapter 1,299 verse 47 that......."

Edited November 6, 2012 by GrandmasterP

[idiot_stimpy]

Would a real buddha tell anyone he/she was a buddha?

[GrandmasterP]

Good point. Maybe there are undercover Buddhas on here and we don't know.

I have always rather supected Mr Marblehead of being one.

[GrandmasterP]

 

 

I think its some zen bullshit.

 

I follow the Indo-Tibetan tradition, rather than the china / jap crap.

................................

Obviously a path of tolerance.

:-)

Edited November 6, 2012 by GrandmasterP

[Stosh]

You just wouldn't would you?

I mean just say you did meet a genuine Buddha or even the main man himself, last thing anyone would want to do was kill him surely.

 

"NO Mr Buddha, that can't be right what you just posted cos Lama Dongdroop Ploppy says in the Cheddar Cheese sutra Chapter 1,299 verse 47 that......."

 

To avoid the quotes competiton I might consider offing the dude

He'd be reborn or not die or something anyway

 

But assuming it was the right guy and not a faker or hallucination

Id be just as tempted to ask some questions too , guilty as charged.

Like how he felt about the various fat and skinny statues ,or the ones that

make him look like a chick.

[GrandmasterP]

I rather like the chick version. We have Guan Shi Yin here, lovely she is.

Those porky Chinese Lauging Buddhas are a bit unflattering though.

I would like to ask Mr Buddha what he did for laughs when he wasn't ripping it out of his disciples.

[Apech]

 

"NO Mr Buddha, that can't be right what you just posted cos Lama Dongdroop Ploppy says in the Cheddar Cheese sutra Chapter 1,299 verse 47 that......."

 

Do you have the contact details for Lama Ploppy?

[GrandmasterP]

He prefers Dongdroop.

Contact....

47 Acacia Terrace

(Entrance via the gift shop)

Shambala

Tibet

 

Email

 

[email protected]

 

Don't hold your breath for a reply though, he is terrified of women.

Might be as well if you use an alias... How about...

 

HotSven

Leatherman

Mr hardbuns

 

Something along those lines that'll catch his attention.

 

[GrandmasterP]

Oops, sorry Apech, mistook you for Cat.

 

Mr. Apech will do the trick if you email the Lama.

[Apech]

Oops, sorry Apech, mistook you for Cat.

 

Mr. Apech will do the trick if you email the Lama.

 

I believe it may have been Lama Dongdroop who advocated visualising the dharma as a removal vehicle but to avoid Gelugpa teachings, he was taught this by his aged master, so he used to quote: "My old man said follow the van but don't Dalai Lama on the way ..."

 

(joke for Brits only)

[C T]

Meditation instructor?

 

Shame that you would call yourself that, Grandmaster Po.

 

Your posts (above) demonstrate shallowness, irreverence and a total lack of cultural sensitivity. Some of the jokes you try so hard to make is actually downright insulting -- among some Chinese folks that which you termed porky Chinese laughing buddhas are revered and held in esteem. But perhaps you dont give a flying duck about any other culture except yours. This shows disdain, bordering on racism.

 

Not to mention the silly jibes about tibetan teachers and lamas.

 

You might actually consider retracting your remarks.

Edited November 7, 2012 by C T

[RongzomFan]

Would a real buddha tell anyone he/she was a buddha?

 

Yes.

 

A recent example was KDL.

[RongzomFan]

Also, keep in mind there is no fundamental difference between a human and a Buddha.