The Skeptical "Buddhist"...Critical thinking & Buddhism..

[stefos]

You don't recall 16 pages of discussion mostly involving your stuff?

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/26805-buddha-kept-silent-about-god/page-16

Oh I recall all of it alright.

 

Answer my question now about Krishnamurti & the Buddha's supposed speech.

 

I'm done talking to you until I get an answer.

Stefos

[stefos]

This is from the Pali canon, your favorite source for Buddhism:

 

You know what?

 

You need to back off the patronizing....." MY favorite source for Buddhism"

 

I never said that.

 

I DID say that the Pali is the most complete ancient compilation of the Buddha's supposed teaching.

 

Of course there was that find that archaeologists made which is older than the Pali: On bark or something to this effect.

 

No, the Pali doesn't reflect the sum total of what the Buddha taught....no way.

 

Again, Take J.Krishnamurti's life: He taught for roughly the same amount of time as the Buddha did and VOLUMES were written, not 4 NIkayas worth with the questionable 5th.

 

Please, look at the question I posted and answer.

 

No more pedantics.

Stefos

[RongzomFan]

Stefos,

The answer is that I dont focus in hinayana. I focus on the teachings of the Mahasiddhas.

[stefos]

Stefos,

The answer is that I dont focus in hinayana. I focus on the teachings of the Mahasiddhas.

 

That was not the question! Krishnamurti never taught "Hinayana." He taught Choiceless Awarness which exactly corresponds to the "Self Liberation through Naked Awareness" of Dzogchen.

Krishnamurti's teachings, per se "his", approached each person where they were at and then brought them up to what Krishnamurti taught.

 

Furthermore, Theravada & it's Pali canon are not Hinayana, perhaps a branch maybe.

 

Hinayana, by & large, is a polemic appellation given to a school which is no longer in existence and with whom the Tibetans argued polemically (I.E. Chandrakirti)

 

Theravada is not the sole vehicle of Hinayana....wrong answer.

I've heard this stated before ONLY by Tibetan teachers exclusively.

 

Different beasts altogether.

 

Go to Wikipedia & type Hinayana & read the article......

Bad source but it quotes its sources.

 

Walpola Rahula mentions what I state above several times as do other Buddhist scholars.

 

There you go.

Edited June 13, 2013 by stefos

[RongzomFan]

Candrakirti was an Indian professor at the Indian university of Nalanda my friend.

 

Not Tibetan.

 

There you go.

[RongzomFan]

Stefos,

 

Its true that Theravada was not the main Hinayana school.

 

However Theravada is definitely Hinayana:

 

A. They do not accept the Mahayana sutras

B. They do not accept the bhumis

C. Their goal is to achieve nirvana and become an arhat, through the typical Hinayana path

D. etc.

Edited June 13, 2013 by alwayson

[stefos]

Candrakirti was an Indian professor at the Indian university of Nalanda my friend.

 

Not Tibetan.

 

There you go.

I didn't imply that Chandrakirti was a Tibetan, only that Tibetans use him to establish their doctrinal tenets.

 

 

There you have it.

[stefos]

Stefos,

 

Its true that Theravada was not the main Hinayana school.

 

However Theravada is definitely Hinayana:

 

A. They do not accept the Mahayana sutras

B. They do not accept the bhumis

C. Their goal is to achieve nirvana and become an arhat, through the typical Hinayana path

D. etc.

 

No, Hinayana, as used by polemic texts, pertains to a particular school which is now defunct.

 

Also, some scholars have stated the the pejorative term "Hinayana" was created due to a misunderstanding of a particular stance or position that a non Mahayana school had as well.

 

In any case, you have a "Tibetanized" bent any way it's sliced.

 

I suggest you question your views.

 

There are Tamil Siddhas also who have a "claim to fame" as well as other non Buddhist siddhas.

 

The arguments don't end with the mostly Tibetan Mahasiddhas you hold to.

 

P.S. You have not addressed the question about Krishnamurti........Don't skirt around it, answer it.

Edited June 14, 2013 by stefos

[RongzomFan]

The Mahasiddhas are Indian, not Tibetan.

 

Krishnamurti was a New Age writer. I don't care about Krishnamurti.

[RongzomFan]

I didn't imply that Chandrakirti was a Tibetan, only that Tibetans use him to establish their doctrinal tenets.

 

Yes because Tibetan Buddhism is the direct continuation of Indian Buddhism. That's why all the scholars use the term "Indo-Tibetan Buddhism".

[Mikeb85]

Yes because Tibetan Buddhism is the direct continuation of Indian Buddhism. That's why all the scholars use the term "Indo-Tibetan Buddhism".

 

Sri Lankan Theravada is the closest belief system to what was taught by the Buddha and his followers... Tibetan Buddhism is a supersessionist sect that is based on tantric beliefs that arose in the subcontinent circa 300 CE, around 800 years after the founding of Buddhism.

[RongzomFan]

Sri Lankan Theravada is the closest belief system to what was taught by the Buddha and his followers... Tibetan Buddhism is a supersessionist sect that is based on tantric beliefs that arose in the subcontinent circa 300 CE, around 800 years after the founding of Buddhism.

 

1. Theravada descends from a secessionist group who wanted to change the original vinaya. Please read a basic history book such as Andrew Skilton's A Concise History of Buddhism. Their secessionist origin is even preserved in the name.

 

2. Mahayana arose in reaction to crypto-realist Abhidharmas, of the sort Theravada follows. Thus Mahayana is the closest to what the Buddha taught. Mahayana was developed by the original sangha, the Mahasamghika.

 

3. As the Indian Mahasiddhas founded Vajrayana, of course Vajrayana came later.

 

4. I sense a slight hostility to the tantras. Lets take the Cakrasamvara Tantra specifically. There exists centuries of commentaries on the Cakrasamvara Tantra from the Indian university of Vikramshila. This is just one example. So are you more authoritative than the Indian professors?

Edited June 15, 2013 by alwayson

[stefos]

1. Theravada descends from a secessionist group who wanted to change the original vinaya. Please read a basic history book such as Andrew Skilton's A Concise History of Buddhism. Their secessionist origin is even preserved in the name.

 

2. Mahayana arose in reaction to crypto-realist Abhidharmas, of the sort Theravada follows. Thus Mahayana is the closest to what the Buddha taught. Mahayana was developed by the original sangha, the Mahasamghika.

 

3. As the Indian Mahasiddhas founded Vajrayana, of course Vajrayana came later.

 

4. I sense a slight hostility to the tantras. Lets take the Cakrasamvara Tantra specifically. There exists centuries of commentaries on the Cakrasamvara Tantra from the Indian university of Vikramshila. This is just one example. So are you more authoritative than the Indian professors?

1. The Theras or "Elders" weren't the break off group...the Mahasamghika were.

 

2. The Theravada Abhidharma is older than the Chinese & Tibetan ones.

 

3. Yep, the now labeled "Vajrayana" came later but one would be hard pressed to find Vajrayana being part of what the Buddha actually taught. Although the term Chakkhu or "Chakra" is found in the Pali Nikayas and "winds" are found also (Obviously winds being in English..i.e. pranic winds per se). Modern Vajrayana is not what the Buddha originally taught.

 

4. Again you Indo-Tibetanized bias is coming out. Vikramshila didn't exist until "late 8th/early 9th century" which is 1200 years after Shakyamuni's death......Hmmmm...why do not go back further in time?

 

I don't deny the subtle energy system at all. It's Vajrayana & Mahamudra/Dzogchen that I look at & say "Where did this come from really?" The answer is "Vajrayana, Mahamudra & Dzogchen are teachings that have syncretistic roots."

 

Stefos

Edited June 15, 2013 by stefos

[RongzomFan]

1. The Theras or "Elders" weren't the break off group...the Mahasamghika were.

 

We already went over this before. And you admitted your mistake before:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/26805-buddha-kept-silent-about-god/page-13#entry406702

 

3. Yep, the now labeled "Vajrayana" came later but one would be hard pressed to find Vajrayana being part of what the Buddha actually taught.

 

The Indian Mahasiddhas taught Vajrayana. Not Buddha.

[stefos]

We already went over this before. And you admitted your mistake before:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/26805-buddha-kept-silent-about-god/page-13#entry406702

 

 

The Indian Mahasiddhas taught Vajrayana. Not Buddha.

 

That wasn't a mistake, now in hindsight. That was me believing you without researching the matter that much deeper.

 

The Mahayana came into being around 50 B.C.......What 400 yrs after the Buddha's Parinirvana???

 

The Indian Mahasiddhas are teaching another doctirne. Period.

 

The point of this entire post is "What did the Buddha actually teach?" & "How did these lineages come about?"

 

Unfortunately, you refuse to admit what actual original Buddhadharma is IN REALITY.

 

This "conversation" is done.

[RongzomFan]

That wasn't a mistake, now in hindsight. That was me believing you without researching the matter that much deeper.

 

Mahasamghika means "greater community". So it is not the breakaway group. Its the original group.

 

A bunch of old dudes (Sthaviravāda) broke away from the Mahasamghika, because they wanted to change the vinaya.

 

A Concise History of Buddhism by Andrew Skilton 2004. p. 49, 64

 

The Mahayana came into being around 50 B.C.......What 400 yrs after the Buddha's Parinirvana???

 

Maybe even later. So what?

 

The Indian Mahasiddhas are teaching another doctirne. Period.

 

I know that. That's what I've been repeatedly been saying.

[Mikeb85]

1. Theravada descends from a secessionist group who wanted to change the original vinaya. Please read a basic history book such as Andrew Skilton's A Concise History of Buddhism. Their secessionist origin is even preserved in the name.

 

2. Mahayana arose in reaction to crypto-realist Abhidharmas, of the sort Theravada follows. Thus Mahayana is the closest to what the Buddha taught. Mahayana was developed by the original sangha, the Mahasamghika.

 

3. As the Indian Mahasiddhas founded Vajrayana, of course Vajrayana came later.

 

4. I sense a slight hostility to the tantras. Lets take the Cakrasamvara Tantra specifically. There exists centuries of commentaries on the Cakrasamvara Tantra from the Indian university of Vikramshila. This is just one example. So are you more authoritative than the Indian professors?

 

 

Mahasamghika means "greater community". So it is not the breakaway group. Its the original group.

 

A bunch of old dudes (Sthaviravāda) broke away from the Mahasamghika, because they wanted to change the vinaya.

 

A Concise History of Buddhism by Andrew Skilton 2004. p. 49, 64

 

You need to re-read those pages you referenced, they're actually available in a preview on Google books, I just read them, they don't support your case...

 

http://books.google.ca/books?id=GEKd4iqH3C0C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

The author merely raised a few points that are contrarian to the orthodox Theravada view, in order to give a more complete picture. But in describing the contrarian evidence, the author also makes it clear that we know very little about the Mahasanghika, and the only remaining text from their sect is a Chinese translation.

 

Another thing you need to keep in mind, is that 'academics' tend to favour Mahayana/Tibetan sects in their writings in part due to 21st century politics. The Dalai Lama is an 'image' of resistance vs. Chinese oppression, and the syncretic leanings of these sects are more politically correct within the structure of modern India.

 

Edit - I see now that your information comes from Wikipedia, which cites Skilton's work in a less than thorough way...

Edited June 17, 2013 by Mikeb85

[Simple_Jack]

Another thing you need to keep in mind, is that 'academics' tend to favour Mahayana/Tibetan sects in their writings in part due to 21st century politics. The Dalai Lama is an 'image' of resistance vs. Chinese oppression, and the syncretic leanings of these sects are more politically correct within the structure of modern India.

 

Do you have any evidence to support this statement?

 

Have you been involved in or know anyone who has been involved with translation projects at universities? Or with a board of directors/committee who oversee translation projects with certain publications?

[RongzomFan]

You need to re-read those pages you referenced, they're actually available in a preview on Google books, I just read them, they don't support your case...

 

What don't you understand about:

 

"......it really involved the attempted addition of rules to the Vinaya by a minority group numbered at only a hundred or so, who were preoccupied....." pg. 49

 

Another thing you need to keep in mind, is that 'academics' tend to favour Mahayana/Tibetan sects in their writings in part due to 21st century politics. The Dalai Lama is an 'image' of resistance vs. Chinese oppression, and the syncretic leanings of these sects are more politically correct within the structure of modern India.

 

Tibetan Buddhism is the direct continuation of Indian Buddhism. You should favor it.

 

What are these "syncretic leanings"? That's a new one for me. Tibetan Buddhism is strictly based on the teachings of countless Indian professors and Indian Mahasiddhas. Maybe you are thinking of Zen.

Edited June 17, 2013 by alwayson

[Simple_Jack]

 

Tibetan Buddhism the direct continuation of Indian Buddhism. You should favor it.

 

Well, the continuation of a specific period in the development of Indian Buddhism.

[Mikeb85]

So the entire history of the Theravada-Mahasanghika schism is summarized by a sentence fragment, produced by a British academic who belongs to a questionable Western Buddhist 'sect' (which is more akin to a new-age cult)?

 

If you read the evidence he particularly cites you can see through the bias, furthermore there are better sources for a study of early Buddhism than a 'concise' (ie. short) history...

 

What don't you understand about:

 

"......it really involved the attempted addition of rules to the Vinaya by a minority group numbered at only a hundred or so, who were preoccupied....." pg. 49

[Mikeb85]

 

Tibetan Buddhism is the direct continuation of Indian Buddhism. You should favor it.

 

What are these "syncretic leanings"? That's a new one for me. Tibetan Buddhism is strictly based on the teachings of countless Indian professors and Indian Mahasiddhas. Maybe you are thinking of Zen.

 

Syncretic leanings? How about the blending of Buddhist doctrine with Hindu doctrines and devotions, and the teachings of the Mahasiddhas? This is pretty much the definition of syncretic, the fact it happened in India doesn't make it less so...

[Mikeb85]

Do you have any evidence to support this statement?

 

Have you been involved in or know anyone who has been involved with translation projects at universities? Or with a board of directors/committee who oversee translation projects with certain publications?

 

Anyone who's been involved in academia (I am right now btw) knows that there's politics at play in Universities...

[RongzomFan]

Syncretic leanings? How about the blending of Buddhist doctrine with Hindu doctrines and devotions, and the teachings of the Mahasiddhas? This is pretty much the definition of syncretic, the fact it happened in India doesn't make it less so...

 

I've read countless academic books on Buddhism and Hinduism, and this is the first I'm hearing about it.

 

By the way I am Indian, raised Hindu.

 

 

Edit: Maybe you are talking about Alexis Sanderson's claim that a small and very specific class of tantras were influenced by Saiva tantras? A claim that has been refuted by Ronald Davidson and David Gray.

Edited June 17, 2013 by alwayson

[Simple_Jack]

Syncretic leanings? How about the blending of Buddhist doctrine with Hindu doctrines and devotions, and the teachings of the Mahasiddhas? This is pretty much the definition of syncretic, the fact it happened in India doesn't make it less so...

 

Even in the Pali canon/Agamas you'll find devotional aspects to "Hindu" deities, many of whom serve as protectors of the Buddhist doctrine (e.g. Brahma and Indra). An article from a person with an M.A. in Buddhist studies delves into this: http://huayanzang.blogspot.com/2012/10/buddhism-is-pagan.html.

 

Anyone who's been involved in academia (I am right now btw) knows that there's politics at play in Universities...

 

Could you elaborate on the reason for this?