Chundi mantra

[forestofclarity]

Why don't the bodhisattvas reveal themselves to humanity so that we know the true dharma?

Why doesn't Jesus simply appear in a tangible way to humanity to show us the true religion?

 

If one doesn't see the bodhisattvas in the world, it is because one is not looking. There are bodhisattvas everywhere, revealing themselves constantly.

[Cheshire Cat]

Also, Mantras, when spoken with sincerity (applied concentration and non wavering focus), and with holding to the cnoditions of its function (holding precepts, abiding by the manner inwhich it can function), a response will be met. Sometimes our own past conditions with such Buddhas and Bodhisattvas may be strong enough now that having not taken refuge, or holding precepts, we will still get a clear response. All in all, that doesn't mean going further isn't necessary. :-)

 

Yes, I agree

Once, I myself tried a mantra of a hindu deity that undoubtedly produced a response in dreams.

My point is just that we don't really know enough of them. Our "business" with them happens in a realm in which we have very little awareness and understanding of what is going on... it's like seeing a snake and thinking that it's a bamboo stick.

 

So we don't know exactly what are the goods shared and the consequences after this lifetime.

Scholars believe that the mahayana bodhisattvas are strictly related to hindu Gods from whom they came.

For example, chinese Zhunti is Cundi in Sanskrit ... from the Goddess Chandi.

 

To avoid any mistakes, I prefer to follow the instruction of the Buddha of the early canons that is "Respect the Deities, but rely on yourself for Nirvana".That is also the view of some daoist schools.

[Cheshire Cat]

If one doesn't see the bodhisattvas in the world, it is because one is not looking. There are bodhisattvas everywhere, revealing themselves constantly.

 

I've met very good people. If we call them bodhisattva, I agree.

I've seen groups of people and associations that work hard for the benefits of human beings. If we call them bodhisattva, I agree.

 

But, I've never seen a mighty bodhisattva with the special siddhis and majesty...

[Seeker of Wisdom]

I prefer to follow the instruction of the Buddha of the early canons that is "Respect the Deities, but rely on yourself for Nirvana".That is also the view of some daoist schools.

 

 

I agree with you. I never said I expected Zhunti to somehow make me become enlightened.

 

I'm using this mantra because, quite simply, I'm getting benefits. And if it does turn out to really get me contact with Zhunti, well, that could hardly hurt.

[林愛偉]

HAHAHA Oh yes, the Hindu Realms and Buddhist Realms interplay simply because they are of each other in different vibrational levels manifesting for specific functions in different realms.

 

Different names, different forms, different functions, and definitely transformation bodies of each other. hahahaha It gets so deep...and then, it is so obvious.

 

 

Yes, I agree

Once, I myself tried a mantra of a hindu deity that undoubtedly produced a response in dreams.

My point is just that we don't really know enough of them. Our "business" with them happens in a realm in which we have very little awareness and understanding of what is going on... it's like seeing a snake and thinking that it's a bamboo stick.

 

So we don't know exactly what are the goods shared and the consequences after this lifetime.

Scholars believe that the mahayana bodhisattvas are strictly related to hindu Gods from whom they came.

For example, chinese Zhunti is Cundi in Sanskrit ... from the Goddess Chandi.

 

To avoid any mistakes, I prefer to follow the instruction of the Buddha of the early canons that is "Respect the Deities, but rely on yourself for Nirvana".That is also the view of some daoist schools.

[Cheshire Cat]

I agree with you. I never said I expected Zhunti to somehow make me become enlightened. I'm using this mantra because, quite simply, I'm getting benefits. And if it does turn out to really get me contact with Zhunti, well, that could hardly hurt.

 

For me, the fact that could hardly hurt, it's something that shouldn't be taken for granted.

This is the main reason for which I'm in to this thread: to read of experiences with this practice.

 

But it's difficult because people are usually not aware of the most subtle transformations that happen in their spiritual practice.

Edited January 19, 2013 by DAO rain TAO

[Cheshire Cat]

HAHAHA Oh yes, the Hindu Realms and Buddhist Realms interplay simply because they are of each other in different vibrational levels manifesting for specific functions in different realms.

 

Different names, different forms, different functions, and definitely transformation bodies of each other. hahahaha It gets so deep...and then, it is so obvious.

This is religion. How can you prove it?

[林愛偉]

 

This is religion. How can you prove it?

 

I wasn't talking about religion, I was talking about different realms and very briefly stating their inhabitants. Never said anything about the usual idea of what most people think these things are.

 

The problem with conventional thinking is that it truly believes that anything involving things requiring a cultivation of the mind makes it a religion.

 

As I have experienced, none of these things are religious at all. Only people have made them into a method of dependency and stagnation. That doesn't make Buddhism and or Hinduism, nor Daoism, and anything else limited by how the majority utilize them.

 

truthfully, there is no such thing as religion. Only methods to awaken. How those methods are utilized are up to those cultivating them. If they feel a "religious" approach; kind of like what most people are familiar with, is necessary, then so be it.

 

Any manner of its application doesn't lessen the wisdom and truth of what it actually is.

 

 

 

 

[林愛偉]

Though science shows the process/progress of thing in this world, and seems to "prove" that what we speak in Daoism is "true" it actually can't "disprove" it, and even because it can't "disprove" it it still doesn't "prove" that anything we speak in Daoism is "true"

 

Don't forget, Daoism is just a name of a manner of practice. It isn't the end all be all method at all. Buddhism is just a name of practice. Whether there are immortals, different gods, Buddhas, etc, doesn't make anything we cultivate limited by human's ideas of their own understanding.

 

Modern science leaves out its other counter part the actual essence of how modern science became that way. its called mind, and in the old days those two things weren't separated, never thought to have to be separated, and thus never mixed together. They were just a whole science.

 

Also, lastly, when the waya to "prove" something is denied actual use, why even bother?

 

I can prove everything I say. The only problem is the method needed to do it will not be used sincerely, and thus the inquirer will be disappointed.

 

My method, cultivation. :-) no faith in anything or anyone, just oneself and acceptance of leaving aside the discriminating mind, while sincerely practice the cultivation needed to function in order for the mind to 'open" (so to say) If there are any doubts along the way, its useless and shows insincerity.

Edited January 20, 2013 by 林愛偉

[Cheshire Cat]

I wasn't talking about religion, I was talking about different realms and very briefly stating their inhabitants. Never said anything about the usual idea of what most people think these things are.

 

 

This is exactly what religion is all about.

In the West we have a "branch" of religious thought that is called theology: in this matter, people studied things like -how many angels can sit on a pinhead?- and various explanations on how the world is shaped, class of heavenly beings, etc...

This is what I call religion...

Everyone can easily prove to himself that bodhisattvas come from hindu tradition. People wanted to worship Gods: this was necessary to transform an ascetic movement (the original buddhism) into a religion.

Mahayana buddhism isn't just practice: it develops all sort of ideas about the cosmos, the mind and it's relation with other religion... I've heard buddhists that measure the realization of Lao-tzu as limited to alaya-consciousness.

Edited January 20, 2013 by DAO rain TAO

[林愛偉]

It may be what you call religion, but it isn't religion at all...especially to the sense most people are aware of. If stating how many things are out there in the universe, and the many of them, as well as their workings are called religion, then modern day science is the biggest religious cult on this planet and the biggest hypocritical assuming ruling body of so called theories and facts to date.

 

Buddhist cultivation may map out what is out there in other world systems, yet that doesn't mean people must believe it. Whatever is out there doesn't need anyone's belief/disbelief to be true, it will just be as it is.

 

Also, regardless of what "Buddhist" call Lao Zi ('s) work, it doesn't change the manner inwhich Buddhist education is to be cultivated. That means, it is to be cultivated to the capacity of the cultivator. Just because things are said to be a specific way, doesn't mean it will appear that way for all. It don't have to.

 

In regardds to the DDJ, yes it is a very basic concept of relativity for all living beings on this planet. A pretty damn good road map to get the mind and character straight so as to see the bigger picture, which many just fail to do. This "bigger picture" is spoken of in the DDJ, but it is unfortunately overlooked because it is the most difficult to accept.

 

As for "proving", I'm not in need of doing that for anyone, let anyone do it for themselves. Each and every individual will experience what they do according to their mind, and the method. Just because it isn't the same for everyone doesn't mean those "things" seen or experienced are not there...and the other way around as well.

 

This is exactly what religion is all about.

In the West we have a "branch" of religious thought that is called theology: in this matter, people studied things like -how many angels can sit on a pinhead?- and various explanations on how the world is shaped, class of heavenly beings, etc...

This is what I call religion...

Everyone can easily prove to himself that bodhisattvas come from hindu tradition. People wanted to worship Gods: this was necessary to transform an ascetic movement (the original buddhism) into a religion.

Mahayana buddhism isn't just practice: it develops all sort of ideas about the cosmos, the mind and it's relation with other religion... I've heard buddhists that measure the realization of Lao-tzu as limited to alaya-consciousness.

[Cheshire Cat]

It may be what you call religion, but it isn't religion at all...especially to the sense most people are aware of. If stating how many things are out there in the universe, and the many of them, as well as their workings are called religion, then modern day science is the biggest religious cult on this planet and the biggest hypocritical assuming ruling body of so called theories and facts to date.

 

There are statements based on dogmatic belief (the sutra say thus, so...) and there are statements based on shared experiences of this reality. The latter is called science. And yes, it's an hypocritical cult.

[林愛偉]

 

There are statements based on dogmatic belief (the sutra say thus, so...) and there are statements based on shared experiences of this reality.

:-) People are the ones that make something to be dogmatic, for themselves, then push it on everyone. The Buddha's teachings kind of dispelled theneed to make people believe, and more so let people get it on their own , with a little commentary here and there...something to this effect ( and I wont quote exact words)... something equivalent to , i don't need you to defend the Dharma, and propagate against others. Just share it and hopefully something catches on.

 

sometimes people mess things up... hahahahahaha

 

Even I don't say, "Just because the Sutras say so..." It has to make sense to the cultivator, in both their logic and reason. What the Sutras say may all be true, but it wont be that way for every cultivator because each mind is of different capacities.

 

This is why I can never say Buddhism is a religion at all, simply because there is a teaching within it that says to be very critical of the teachings. That means, even though one is to have faith in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, it is only possible if the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha of one's mind makes sense. Therefore, each teaching is an expedient means, a method made from the cultivator's mind which allows them to understand utilizing their own conditions.

 

 

The latter is called science. And yes, it's an hypocritical cult.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

This is why I can never say Buddhism is a religion at all, simply because there is a teaching within it that says to be very critical of the teachings. That means, even though one is to have faith in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, it is only possible if the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha of one's mind makes sense. Therefore, each teaching is an expedient means, a method made from the cultivator's mind which allows them to understand utilizing their own conditions.

 

:-)

 

 

If it is so, can you explain how one can use the following statement to understand utilizing his own conditions?

 

 

"Oh yes, the Hindu Realms and Buddhist Realms interplay simply because they are of each other in different vibrational levels manifesting for specific functions in different realms.

 

Different names, different forms, different functions, and definitely transformation bodies of each other. hahahaha It gets so deep...and then, it is so obvious."

 

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't call it religion. I would call it life

 

 

 

Yes, I agree.

Religion is human life.

... but enlightenment isn't an evolutionary stage of human conditions.

Religion takes human understanding and experience as definitive and complete.

Thus, building philosophical structures... one on another. And then claiming that they are not philosophy, but reality itself. Lao-tzu flees on the mountains on seeing this

Attributes that are exclusively humans -as compassion- becomes the attributes of the deities... or buddhas and bodhisattvas in the case of buddhism.

In the case of compassion, if it were the main attribute of a bodhisattva and the bodhisattvas act in the animal realm (animals are sentient beings in buddhism)... then we should find compassion among beasts.

Edited January 21, 2013 by DAO rain TAO

[林愛偉]

It is simple: Interdependence.

 

Firstly: Hindu / Buddhist realms...just saying those names to keep a focus on the convo. Truthfully, none of those names exist in the "higher" levels of vibration because there is no discrimination of cultivation methods in terms of preference, only function, for example: A method that results in the transformation towards high level negatively functioning energy would be called, in our world, Demonic practices. That which results in the transformation towards high level positively functioning energy would be called Wholesome practices.

 

When I said : Different names, different forms, different functions, and definitely transformation bodies of each other. hahahaha It gets so deep...and then, it is so obvious.- This refers to the function of these beings and how they create various differences just to appeal to living beings, in order to teach them.

 

If you wanted to use this as a way to understanding one's own conditions, you would first need to realize that discriminating thinking will be the obstacles. These states that I speak of above, show the interdependence of all things.

 

:-)

 

 

If it is so, can you explain how one can use the following statement to understand utilizing his own conditions?

 

 

"Oh yes, the Hindu Realms and Buddhist Realms interplay simply because they are of each other in different vibrational levels manifesting for specific functions in different realms.

 

Different names, different forms, different functions, and definitely transformation bodies of each other. hahahaha It gets so deep...and then, it is so obvious."

 

 

 

[林愛偉]

Human conditions are based on ignorant thinking. Enlightenment is simply because there is ignorance.

Remove ignorance, and all that is left is wisdom. Nothing to do with evolution, and nothing to do with religion.

 

We don't know why Lao Zi fled to the mountains. But in light that he awakened and decided solitary life is right for him, possibly he personally had felt done with relating to people. That may not be right for every one and for anyone cultivating the Way. Its just his preference..

 

... but enlightenment isn't an evolutionary stage of human conditions.

Religion takes human understanding and experience as definitive and complete.

Thus, building philosophical structures... one on another. And then claiming that they are not philosophy, but reality itself. Lao-tzu flees on the mountains on seeing this

 

 

Attributes that are exclusively humans -as compassion- becomes the attributes of the deities... or buddhas and bodhisattvas in the case of buddhism.

In the case of compassion, if it were the main attribute of a bodhisattva and the bodhisattvas act in the animal realm (animals are sentient beings in buddhism)... then we should find compassion among beasts.

 

Nope. Compassion isn't exclusive to humans. It is shown throughout all forms of living beings, and in any other "religion" out there. It is not exclusive to the Buddhist school of cultivation. And it isn't exclusive, or makes one become, a deity, etc. It only makes on become a really good person. :-)

 

As for Compassion among beasts, hahaha we have that already. But you are looking at it from the expectation of fluffly cloud rabbits and happy sunflowers. Compassion is shown throughout the animal world, yet compassion doesn't mean everything is all happy and fluffy. It means that there is wisdom present, there is what is needed for that living being without the obstacles of greed, anger and ignorance.

 

Compassion can be nice and sweet, and or hard and rough to deal with. Depends on the conditions in the mind of the living being at the time. Maybe they don't get it when you are nice and sweet to them, so you yell, and give them a scare they never expected. Then they turn straight on the path and properly cultivate.

[林愛偉]

Makes perfect sense Lin. I think that's the problem with using English terms some times because of the english connotation and denotation that we have of the word. I think "way of life" is a better word than religion because religion is looked with such disgrace. The word religion was not even used till like c. 1200 AD. All of our english words come from another language. So it's sometimes foolish to talk about buddhism and daoism in English but that's what we have to do though.

 

 

Its totally cool to talk about Daoism and Buddhism in English because its the principles that cross culture and integrate with cultural lifestyles. The only trouble that one may get into is lack of understanding of the culture it manifested in prior to the one it mixed into . Meaning, if we get Daoism from China, and it integrates culturally into the western cultures, let's say America, then what we will need to do, in order to actually get the profundity of Daoism, is to understand China's cultural history, sociology and lifestyle first. Especially language and contextual uses of it. This way we can really get deep about understanding Daoism.

 

With Buddhism, its understanding that before it manifested in India, it was simply just a cultivation method. If we see, there is only cultural influences of Buddhist education with India's indigenous culture so that the teachings may be accepted. It had nothing to do with a set manner of practice unchangeable to the masses. So if we want to understand Buddhism, on one hand we best learn the culture in which we are studying it from; be it India's cultural expression or China's, Japan's, Korea, or even South East Asia. And after that, maybe someone will get America's cultural expression of Buddhism and have to do the same thing.

 

Religion, this word is funny...not in definition, but in context. For one, it is not religious, by means of both context and definition, to have a respect for other beings of other realms, or other manners of practice from other realms. The problem comes when with our methods we wish to "prove" the existence of these places and beings. Why must our methods of science be the only ones we can use to find out if these places exist?

 

Why not just simply cultivate the mind and see for one's self? I mean, if I want to go to Mars, and find out what's going on there, why not just cultivate and develop strength in the method that allows me to go there? Its quite simple, but seems like no one wants to actually do the things that get them results on their own. Maybe some are afraid of having faith in themselves to actually get the answers from their own inner wisdom. :-)

[Cheshire Cat]

You sound like a magician yourself so I understand what you mean. In Hermetics, it is taught that you can fall into self-delusion easily doing magick. Whereas the genuine practice is when we all can meet the same god, being, realms ect. Of course, we'll notice something different about it but it's generally the same thing. It's like how we both meet the same person. Of course, our mind may change some stuff about them but they look the same to both of us and we can comment on that person and say exactly what that person said. The last bit a little downhill but you know what i mean.

 

Yes

I add just a little shade.

 

 

Imagine a wandering seeker, a traveler who accidentally falls asleep under a tree, one night.

A thief suddenly appears and steals the traveler's boots.

This would be the greatest misfortune for the seeker because he use to walk all day long.

Now imagine a noble Raja who sits on his sofà all day long, listening to instrumental music and watching dances.

One night, a thief steals his boots.

The Raja would hardly notice the missing. Probably, the thief makes him a favor because now he sits more comfortably.

The same thing has a different meaning for different persons.

Even if they experience the same accident, it has different connotations because of their different way of living.

It's the same with spiritual beings (like bodhisattvas): in the real world, there's no such a thing as absolute goodness and benefit. What's good for you, may be harmful for other things (even if you don't consider them as sentient beings: shamans all over the world teach that everything is "aware").

Everything has different sides which we -as humans- depict them as good and evil, based on our view.

So, I may deduce that what's good for people similar to me, it's good for me... but if something is depicted as the absolute "panacea", excellent for everyone, perfect and complete by itself (like the zhunti mantra), then doubts pop in my mind.

Edited January 22, 2013 by DAO rain TAO

[Cheshire Cat]

 

It is simple: Interdependence.

 

 

Firstly: Hindu / Buddhist realms...just saying those names to keep a focus on the convo. Truthfully, none of those names exist in the "higher" levels of vibration because there is no discrimination of cultivation methods in terms of preference, only function, for example: A method that results in the transformation towards high level negatively functioning energy would be called, in our world, Demonic practices. That which results in the transformation towards high level positively functioning energy would be called Wholesome practices.

 

This is the theory, and it is very profound.

But, let's look at the practices: hindu deities require devotion and prayers. To practice with a deity means basically... to pray and carrying some specific kind of vows.

This is what people do in buddhism and vedic religion.

You yourself say that the only discrimination is in term of function and I agree. Thus, in this case there's no difference in worshiping a hindu deity or his equivalent buddhist deity because the Buddha said "Work out your salvation" and not "Find a God who may save you".. not even "Adjust your external conditions so that you may cultivate in peace".

 

But then I ask: Why did Shakyamuni introduced those additional deities?

At his time, deities practices were observed. What was the use of this?

If Shakyamuni never introduced any gods worship practices, then we may assume that the deities themselves changed their outer names (or appeared in new manifestations). But, if this is the case, then Shakyamuni did something wrong that required a "fixing action" from the gods. He settled an incomplete dharma.

Edited January 22, 2013 by DAO rain TAO

[Cheshire Cat]

 

As for Compassion among beasts, hahaha we have that already. But you are looking at it from the expectation of fluffly cloud rabbits and happy sunflowers. Compassion is shown throughout the animal world, yet compassion doesn't mean everything is all happy and fluffy. It means that there is wisdom present, there is what is needed for that living being without the obstacles of greed, anger and ignorance.

 

Compassion can be nice and sweet, and or hard and rough to deal with. Depends on the conditions in the mind of the living being at the time. Maybe they don't get it when you are nice and sweet to them, so you yell, and give them a scare they never expected. Then they turn straight on the path and properly cultivate.

 

Now I suspect that the chinese term used for compassion is slightly different from our western "compassion".

The etymology of "compassion" is Latin, meaning "co-suffering." More virtuous than simple empathy, compassion commonly gives rise to an active desire to alleviate another's suffering. It is often, though not inevitably, the key component in what manifests in the social context as altruism.(wikipedia).

 

But, I'm quite sure that there's no compassion amongst animals. They don't need compassion. They aren't lacking.

 

This is what Lao-Tzu said in chapter 5 of DaoTeChing.

 

 

天 地 不 仁 ，

以 万 物 为 刍 狗 ﹔

圣 人 不 仁 ，

以 百 姓 为 刍 狗 。

　 　

天 -->Heaven

地---> earth

不--->are not

仁---> humanity, goodness, compassion, perfect virtue

[...]

圣--->the sage

人--->man

不--->is not

仁--->humanity, goodness, compassion, perfect virtue

以---> to treat

百---> one hundred, moltitude

姓--->clan, families

为--->as

刍--->straw

狗--->dog

May I translate as "The sage is not human" or "The sage is not compassionate" ... because "he treats all human beings as straw dogs"?

Edit:

I just found a few authoritative translations of those verses:

Heaven and earth are not humane; they regard all beings as straw dogs

Sages are not humane; they see all people as straw dogs.. (Cleary)

Nature is not humane. It treats all things like sacrificial objects.

The wise are not humane. They regard people like sacrificial objects. (Beck)

Heaven and Earth are not humane. They regard all things a straw dogs.

The sage is not humane. He regards all people as straw dogs. (Chan)

Heaven and Earth are not Good they treat the thousands of things like straw dogs

The Wise Person is not Good he treats the hundred clans like straw dogs. (La Fargue)

Heaven and earth do not act from (the impulse of) any wish to be benevolent; they deal with all things as the dogs of grass are dealt with.

The sages do not act from (any wish to be) benevolent; they deal with the people as the dogs of grass are dealt with. (Legge)

Nature is unkind: It treats the creation like sacrificial straw-dogs.

The Sage is unkind: He treats the people like sacrificial straw-dogs. (LinYutan)

Edited January 22, 2013 by DAO rain TAO

[林愛偉]

Compassion is a state of non-separation. everything else is extra.

 

As for ancient texts, we must understand much is written in cultivation context, it requires one to delve into the contemplative meditation side and drop the intellectual one.

 

There will be need for a commentary on his work, and nothing can be taken from just a translation.

 

This isn't a translation but a commentary:

天 地 不 仁 ，

以 万 物 为 刍 狗 ﹔

圣 人 不 仁 ，

以 百 姓 为 刍 狗 。

　 　

Heaven and Earth aren't humane when cutting off the aggressive mind.

The sage has no compassion when detaching from the living beings as though cutting down the aggressive mind..

 

Heaven and Earth, are not humane, compassionate because the myriad things are illusory. Cutting off the aggressive mind is saying the mind of aggression is like a dogs. so heaven and earth aren't humane when cutting off the aggression of the mind. Translating as straw dogs means something that has no bark, no bite, non-movement and no influence. So we can say either cutting off the illusory manifestation of the mind, and or that the myriad things are illusory and thus useless.

 

So they are saying here that the myriad things that come into being are simply illusory. Thus, there is no compassion needed when cutting off something that isn't real.

 

Next, the sage isn't humane, compassionate because the detaches from the idea of there being other, other beings, or cutting off the attachment of being attached to others. So, a cultivator cuts off all attachments, all obstructions of their mind and is the least bit concerned with how he feels about it.

 

It doesn't mean that the Sage is without compassion, it means that because one attaches to illusory things, how can you be compassionate when teaching them it is illusory? Sometimes a smack of the real wakes people up, sometimes it doesn't.

 

usually one who is an Arhat would tend to be less involved with people and more concerned with their own cultivation. There is a story of an Arhat being so annoyed of the townspeople and mayor coming to visit him for advice, that in his annoyance made them all die on the spot. There is more to the story, but it runs briefly like that.

 

 

 

Now I suspect that the chinese term used for compassion is slightly different from our western "compassion".

The etymology of "compassion" is Latin, meaning "co-suffering." More virtuous than simple empathy, compassion commonly gives rise to an active desire to alleviate another's suffering. It is often, though not inevitably, the key component in what manifests in the social context as altruism.(wikipedia).

 

But, I'm quite sure that there's no compassion amongst animals. They don't need compassion. They aren't lacking.

 

This is what Lao-Tzu said in chapter 5 of DaoTeChing.

 

 

天 地 不 仁 ，

以 万 物 为 刍 狗 ﹔

圣 人 不 仁 ，

以 百 姓 为 刍 狗 。

　 　

天 -->Heaven

地---> earth

不--->are not

仁---> humanity, goodness, compassion, perfect virtue

[...]

圣--->the sage

人--->man

不--->is not

仁--->humanity, goodness, compassion, perfect virtue

以---> to treat

百---> one hundred, moltitude

姓--->clan, families

为--->as

刍--->straw

狗--->dog

May I translate as "The sage is not human" or "The sage is not compassionate" ... because "he treats all human beings as straw dogs"?

Edited January 22, 2013 by 林愛偉

[林愛偉]

This is the theory, and it is very profound.

But, let's look at the practices: hindu deities require devotion and prayers. To practice with a deity means basically... to pray and carrying some specific kind of vows.

This is what people do in buddhism and vedic religion.

You yourself say that the only discrimination is in term of function and I agree. Thus, in this case there's no difference in worshiping a hindu deity or his equivalent buddhist deity because the Buddha said "Work out your salvation" and not "Find a God who may save you".. not even "Adjust your external conditions so that you may cultivate in peace".

 

But then I ask: Why did Shakyamuni introduced those additional deities?

At his time, deities practices were observed. What was the use of this?

If Shakyamuni never introduced any gods worship practices, then we may assume that the deities themselves changed their outer names (or appeared in new manifestations). But, if this is the case, then Shakyamuni did something wrong that required a "fixing action" from the gods. He settled an incomplete dharma.

 

Not at all. Deities do not require worship and prayer to them, living beings assume that by doing so, they may get the good graces of these various gods etc.

 

The Buddha offered a method of worship and contemplation to those who needed it. It was then the only way some people would practice. So the method was set up as an expedient means.

Shakyamuni Buddha never would state that a god can save you. He taught and knew that only a cultivator can do it themselves, but a little help from a Buddha or Bodhisattva, God, etc, wouldn't hurt. That doesn't mean those beings GIVE you the salvation, it means they offer more teachings in which the cultivator has to work on themselves.

 

Shakyamuni Buddha introduced various Buddhas and other gods because there is more to the universe than just this planet. Our world has been visited by beings from all over this universe, so why not understand who they are? Why not make a mental connection with them, intuitive connection, and try to contact them to learn more?

 

It goes to say, some expedient means work for others, while some don't , thus other methods are presented. The Buddhism we see on this planet isn't all there is to it, the cultivation of the many traditions on this planet are not all there is. There is more, but that's only if the cultivator is open to it, meaning they have the capacity to comprehend the method.

 

In the "end", Shakyamuni Buddha didn't settle in an incomplete dharma. He expanded the already settled tradition present within the culture which he manifested in, nd also went further to let people know that there is more indeed, and this is how you get there. Along your path, you will find more, different methods and here are the methods to guard your mind with so as not to be taken away from that wisdom path.

[Cheshire Cat]

I have nothing more to add to what I've just said.

 

Thank you for your kindness and your patience in listening to me

[林愛偉]

..when it comes to the sacred texts, you can tell they're from a cultivation standpoint. But if you haven't cultivated to such level, how could you know? You might as well shut your mouth or cite outside sources.

That's why we have commentaries. If we were to read the Sutras straight up and awaken, there would be no need for commentaries. Even if we "Got it", assuming that we did without checking to make sure is just arrogant and shows insecurity.

 

Commentaries offer the cultivator a deeper understanding of the teaching. It shouldn't be a commentary based on the views of such and such venerable one. If it is, than it isn't a wholesome commentary, and would most likely lead one off the right path of practice. A commentary isn't in one's view, preference. Rather it is an explanation of the teachings from a mind of non-discrimination, which should be in accord with the Dharma (teachings, essence of how the teachings are expounded).

Edited January 23, 2013 by 林愛偉

[林愛偉]

It has been such a delightful discussion. I really appreciate the insight you brought and the points you made. Your patience and kindness is very much appreciated as well.

 

Thank you so very much!

 

I have nothing more to add to what I've just said.

 

Thank you for your kindness and your patience in listening to me

Edited January 23, 2013 by 林愛偉