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

[RongzomFan]

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...

 

Andrew Skilton is a Theravadin. LMAO at you. Keep putting your foot in your mouth.

[Mikeb85]

Andrew Skilton is a Theravadin. LMAO at you. Keep putting your foot in your mouth.

 

Except he isn't. He belongs to this group: http://bristol-buddhist-centre.org/, which is associated with the Triratna Buddhist Community: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triratna_Buddhist_Community, which, although taking certain elements of Theravada, also claims Tibetan Buddhist lineage and blends practices from Mahayana, Vajrayana and Theravada... The founder has also been accused of sexually exploiting young boys, and the group has come under other various criticisms (if you read anything about them you'll see why).

[RongzomFan]

Are you trying to use as many logical fallacies as possible?

[Mikeb85]

Are you trying to use as many logical fallacies as possible?

 

Are you incapable of proper criticism?

 

The topic of this discussion is "The Skeptical "Buddhist"...Critical thinking & Buddhism..", yet you are merely blindly accepting the works of a specific academic who happens to share your viewpoint. Even more, not reading his words closely enough to see that his position is far from being 'definitive'. He doesn't even claim such. Furthermore, you are completely ignoring potential sources of bias in the work...

[RongzomFan]

Are you incapable of proper criticism?

 

The topic of this discussion is "The Skeptical "Buddhist"...Critical thinking & Buddhism..", yet you are merely blindly accepting the works of a specific academic who happens to share your viewpoint. Even more, not reading his words closely enough to see that his position is far from being 'definitive'. He doesn't even claim such. Furthermore, you are completely ignoring potential sources of bias in the work...

 

No no no....

 

YOU are the one dismissing a noted academic, who is cited favorably even on Theravadin forums, such as Dhamma Wheel.

[Mikeb85]

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.

 

 

Could you elaborate on the reason for this?

 

First, there is a difference between the acknowledgement of the existence of deities, and devotion to said deities for the purpose of some sort of salvation.

 

Second, there is bias inherent in academia because donors (both private and governmental) have a say in which studies are pursued, and which aren't.

[RongzomFan]

First, there is a difference between the acknowledgement of the existence of deities, and devotion to said deities for the purpose of some sort of salvation.

 

Yeah it doesn't work like that.

 

Even in Pure Land Buddhism, which is not Tibetan Buddhism, devotion to Amitabha merely generates a bardo experience.

[Mikeb85]

No no no....

 

YOU are the one dismissing a noted academic, who is cited favorably even on Theravadin forums, such as Dhamma Wheel.

 

I am not dismissing him, merely attempting to put his words into context, and show potential sources of bias (which there are). You are wrong that he is a Theravada Buddhist (he isn't, which is a matter of fact), and his other most notable work was a translation of the "Bodhicaryavatara" (which is most definitely not a Theravada work).

[RongzomFan]

I am not dismissing him

 

 

I literally LOL'd at that one.

[RongzomFan]

I am not dismissing him, merely attempting to put his words into context, and show potential sources of bias (which there are). You are wrong that he is a Theravada Buddhist (he isn't, which is a matter of fact), and his other most notable work was a translation of the "Bodhicaryavatara" (which is most definitely not a Theravada work).

 

He is a Theravadin. He even has a Theravadin alternate name.

[Mikeb85]

He is a Theravadin. He even has a Theravadin alternate name.

 

Who ordained him?

 

The founder of the sect he belongs was ordained in a Theravada school, but left, and studied under Tibetan teachers. He was later formally expelled from a Theravada Vihara, and began his own sect (Triratna Buddhist Community).

 

The sect he belongs to simply isn't a Theravada school or community. This is pretty obvious, and they don't claim such to begin with.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Mikeb85

[Simple_Jack]

First, there is a difference between the acknowledgement of the existence of deities, and devotion to said deities for the purpose of some sort of salvation.

 

Depends on how you define "devotion". In Vajrayana, both the East Asian and Tibetan variety, there are sadhanas for deities which are associated with "Hinduism" (e.g. Mahakala). There are examples such as from the Lotus Sutra of deities rakshasas who pledged to uphold the teachings and protect Buddhist practitioners from wild animals, mischievous/negative spirits, etc. when meditating in the wilderness/charnal grounds; by providing a mantra/dharani for them to recite.

 

 

Second, there is bias inherent in academia because donors (both private and governmental) have a say in which studies are pursued, and which aren't.

 

Yeah, that makes sense.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[RongzomFan]

The way I understand deities in Indo-Tibetan Vajrayana is that an accomplished siddha/terton's own wisdom manifests as deities in a lucid dream etc. The deities are primordial manifestations of a siddha's own wisdom.

 

Then when a regular person practices that same deity, its like a shortcut.

[stefos]

The Mahasiddhas are Indian, not Tibetan.

 

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

 

You SHOULD care about Krishnamurti. He mentioned emptiness, Choiceless Awareness, morals & ethics, being without a self, what "reincarnation" REALLY is, what Kundalini really is, etc. etc.

 

I think & am convinced 100% that that man knew a LOT of stuff he didn't speak of and had amazing clarity.

 

This man lived during our lives. Why not examine what he said? Are you afraid? I have many of his books & he makes complete sense.

 

To dismiss someone by saying "He's a New Ager" makes no sense. This man was known to many people.

You obviously have never read any teachings & thus make an ignorant statement.

 

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

 

 

Maybe even later. So what?

 

 

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

Regarding the Buddhist circles post Buddha's death:

The Sthaviravada & Mahasamghika still lived together in each others monastery's man! Wake up!

They didn't make 2 separate schools.

 

The 24 schools period thoroughly confused what "Buddhadharma" really was.

 

Regarding Mahayana & Vajrayana & Dzogchen:

Mahayana aka Nagarjuna (who made up the Samsara/Nirvana notion) is wrong and is a late invention.

Shakyamuni Buddha never stated this "At least" in the Pali texts nor is this Samsara/Nirvana 2 sides of the same coin part of Shakyamuni's teachings.

 

Insofar as Vajrayana is concerned, each school (Sakya/Gelug/Kagyu/Nyingma) dismisses the others as being off!

Sakya Pandita, Je Tsongkhapa, etc. etc.

 

Dzogchen dismisses all of them except Atiyoga (in the Nyingma school) as being partial in base, path, and fruit.

 

Ohhhh Kayyy....We really understand what Buddhadharma is now. How obfuscated the modern Buddhist "scene" is!

 

Finally Regarding this statement:

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

 

Proves that Vajrayana is not Buddhadharma but a later invention.

 

One cannot reconcile the Jhanas, Kasinas, etc. with concentration on various seed syllables at particular chakrams, Tummo, moving prana through the body via yogic practices, etc.

 

Consider the above point deeply......

Jhanas, Kasinas, Noble 8 fold path vs. 3 main subtle energy channels, chakrams, Tummo, etc.

 

Do you see the vast gap? Nagarjuna taught something which is not part of Shakyamuni's train of thought (in the Pali texts at least) nor was it ever part of any ancient (Pre-Mahayana) school.

 

Let's think about this.

[RongzomFan]

You SHOULD care about Krishnamurti.

 

No.

 

Insofar as Vajrayana is concerned, each school (Sakya/Gelug/Kagyu/Nyingma) dismisses the others as being off!

Sakya Pandita, Je Tsongkhapa, etc. etc.

 

No that's not correct. The criticisms are minor in nature. Maybe the biggest criticism is Gampopa's sutra Mahamudra.

 

Finally Regarding this statement:

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

 

Proves that Vajrayana is not Buddhadharma but a later invention.

 

Vajrayana is Buddhadharma, but it is the teachings of the Indian Mahasiddhas, not Buddha.

 

One cannot reconcile the Jhanas, Kasinas, etc. with concentration on various seed syllables at particular chakrams, Tummo, moving prana through the body via yogic practices, etc.

 

Consider the above point deeply......

Jhanas, Kasinas, Noble 8 fold path vs. 3 main subtle energy channels, chakrams, Tummo, etc.

 

Yes everyone knows that Vajrayana is a separate vehicle and path.

[Anderson]

Some tantras of the Vajrayana were revealed to Mahasidhas in pure vissions, dreams directly from Dharmakaya .

The deity practices revealed are called Sambogakaya emanations.

They form the basis of the various sadhanas practiced today in Vajrayana.

 

The dharmic methods for achieving supreme liberation are not limited to the form of canonical buddhism.

Canonical buddhism is only one of the limitless dharmic methods that existed over the eons.

[C T]

This question about Krishnamurti -- has any of his students carried on his teachings? None, as far as im aware.

 

A reliable measurement of any teachers' worth is the pool of awakening students he nurtures. Its called lineage. No lineage means a non-progressive philosophy. While such teachings may have a few sparkles here and there, if there isn't a trickling down effect, then it means somewhere along the way, some stagnation is bound to have happened.

 

Following such a philosophy may yield some result, but it requires extra effort to sieve thru what is redundant and what is not. Better to look to more progressive lineages to save some precious practice time.

 

Im not putting this man down. I have benefitted from his work in the past. But there have been moments of muddiness too.

[stefos]

This question about Krishnamurti -- has any of his students carried on his teachings? None, as far as im aware.

 

A reliable measurement of any teachers' worth is the pool of awakening students he nurtures. Its called lineage. No lineage means a non-progressive philosophy. While such teachings may have a few sparkles here and there, if there isn't a trickling down effect, then it means somewhere along the way, some stagnation is bound to have happened.

 

Following such a philosophy may yield some result, but it requires extra effort to sieve thru what is redundant and what is not. Better to look to more progressive lineages to save some precious practice time.

 

Im not putting this man down. I have benefitted from his work in the past. But there have been moments of muddiness too.

 

Well, consider what Krishnamurti said when he stopped the Order of the Star of the East & gave all proceeds, lands, $$, etc. back to the original owners......He didn't care if only 5 people were willing to put into practice "the teachings."

Period.

 

Krishnamurti never called what he taught "my" teachings but "the teaching."

 

Krishnamurti brought people up into what he was saying per se. He said "if people live the teaching" not "Gee, I want to create a lineage with TONS of people!"

 

Finally, Krishnamurti walked his talk, right? Of course he did. The teachings encompassed a LOT of ground.

The problem is people, like you & I, don't want to live the teachings.....we want to debate them, discuss them, intellectualize them, conceptualize them, etc.

 

No.....Do what the man said, Forget what you've been taught about lineages because Krishnamurti did.

 

Have you read Mary Lutyen's 3 part work on his life? That's some far out stuff he went through.

Krishnamurti always said "Truth is impersonal"........Lineages too often stress the person & not the teaching(s).

[stefos]

Some tantras of the Vajrayana were revealed to Mahasidhas in pure vissions, dreams directly from Dharmakaya .

The deity practices revealed are called Sambogakaya emanations.

They form the basis of the various sadhanas practiced today in Vajrayana.

 

The dharmic methods for achieving supreme liberation are not limited to the form of canonical buddhism.

Canonical buddhism is only one of the limitless dharmic methods that existed over the eons.

Hi Anderson,

 

This is my perspective:

 

First, Transcendent realities exist

Second, The Buddha (Shakyamuni) is part of that

Third, Shakyamuni wasn't the only Enlightened person

Fourth, I believe that Buddha DID in fact understand Chakras, Nadis, Prana, Bindu, etc. fully

 

When it comes to Vajrayana, I see a gap between it and the Pali "layout" so to speak.

 

Now, in another Buddhist thread someone posted about a French gentleman's work insofar as "Tantric Theravada" or something to this effect was concerned.

 

The Pali suttas talk about Chakras & Prana. To take that line of thought directly, one comes to Nadis & Bindu & Granthis as well. It's no wonder then when meditating as a Yogi, Shakyamuni Buddha understood this stuff. This "stuff" however has the Vedas & Upanishads as its source and not somewhere else as far as I know!

 

So, How do you see the organic blending of the two "ways" of meditating per se?

Do you believe that the Pali texts do not preserve the original sayings of the Buddha, insofar as "esoteric" stuff being kept out of them is concerned?

 

Please share your perspective sir

Stefos

Edited June 19, 2013 by stefos

[C T]

Well, consider what Krishnamurti said when he stopped the Order of the Star of the East & gave all proceeds, lands, $$, etc. back to the original owners......He didn't care if only 5 people were willing to put into practice "the teachings."

Period.

 

Krishnamurti never called what he taught "my" teachings but "the teaching."

 

Krishnamurti brought people up into what he was saying per se. He said "if people live the teaching" not "Gee, I want to create a lineage with TONS of people!"

 

Finally, Krishnamurti walked his talk, right? Of course he did. The teachings encompassed a LOT of ground.

The problem is people, like you & I, don't want to live the teachings.....we want to debate them, discuss them, intellectualize them, conceptualize them, etc.

 

No.....Do what the man said, Forget what you've been taught about lineages because Krishnamurti did.

 

Have you read Mary Lutyen's 3 part work on his life? That's some far out stuff he went through.

Krishnamurti always said "Truth is impersonal"........Lineages too often stress the person & not the teaching(s).

My main point is none of his vast pool of listeners ever became eminent (as a spiritual guide) after him.

 

If 'the teaching' of this man was that efficacious, one would assume that someone associated with 'the teaching' or have experienced lasting transformation would take it upon themselves to at least carry some remnant of Krishnamurti's philosophical legacy forward.

 

And, i agree, Truth is impersonal.

[Anderson]

Hi Anderson,

 

This is my perspective:

 

First, Transcendent realities exist

Second, The Buddha (Shakyamuni) is part of that

Third, Shakyamuni wasn't the only Enlightened person

Fourth, I believe that Buddha DID in fact understand Chakras, Nadis, Prana, Bindu, etc. fully

 

When it comes to Vajrayana, I see a gap between it and the Pali "layout" so to speak.

 

Now, in another Buddhist thread someone posted about a French gentleman's work insofar as "Tantric Theravada" or something to this effect was concerned.

 

The Pali suttas talk about Chakras & Prana. To take that line of thought directly, one comes to Nadis & Bindu & Granthis as well. It's no wonder then when meditating as a Yogi, Shakyamuni Buddha understood this stuff. This "stuff" however has the Vedas & Upanishads as its source and not somewhere else as far as I know!

 

So, How do you see the organic blending of the two "ways" of meditating per se?

Do you believe that the Pali texts do not preserve the original sayings of the Buddha, insofar as "esoteric" stuff being kept out of them is concerned?

 

Please share your perspective sir

Stefos

 

 

The limitless dharmic methods can be categorized under three main approaches in accord with how is the condition of a human being.

These three are also called the three existences of a human being:body, energy and mind.

 

The canonical buddhism focuses on the body aspect where Vajrayana focuses on the energy aspect.

 

Trying to marry these two aspects is not a good idea because it will lead to various contradictions since working with the body implies abandoning the objects of the senses in order to achieve liberation whereas in working with the energy, the objects are not seen as an impediment any more.

Because the passion arisen from the interaction with objects is used as a fuel and as a means of transforming that experience into the nature of deity

 

I think the problem comes from seeing canonical buddhism as the absolute point of reference.

And i believe that the Pali canon preserves the teaching related to our bodily existence.In that regard the message of the Buddha is complete and nothing was left out.

 

If you want to understand the energy side of our existence Vajrayana vehicle is the one to practice.This vehicle is separate from pali canon and its roots are totally different and separate.

 

By opening our hearts to the limitless time span we gradually begin to understand that Pali Buddhism and Vajrayana are only a drop in the infinite ocean of dharmic methods.

 

So my advice is that if you are interested in approaches who deal with energy you should seek to receive vajrayana teachings where the complete understanding about chackras, nadis, prana is preserved.If your goal is to debate whether the pali canon is complete or incomplete my advice is to try not to see anything beyond it and take it as it is.

Edited June 19, 2013 by Anderson

[RongzomFan]

Some tantras of the Vajrayana were revealed to Mahasidhas in pure vissions, dreams directly from Dharmakaya .

The deity practices revealed are called Sambogakaya emanations.

They form the basis of the various sadhanas practiced today in Vajrayana.

 

The dharmic methods for achieving supreme liberation are not limited to the form of canonical buddhism.

Canonical buddhism is only one of the limitless dharmic methods that existed over the eons.

 

I agree with the spirit of this post, but it can not be dharmakaya.

 

That would mean you would have to be a Buddha before you could be a terton.

[stefos]

The limitless dharmic methods can be categorized under three main approaches in accord with how is the condition of a human being.

These three are also called the three existences of a human being:body, energy and mind.

 

The canonical buddhism focuses on the body aspect where Vajrayana focuses on the energy aspect.

 

Trying to marry these two aspects is not a good idea because it will lead to various contradictions since working with the body implies abandoning the objects of the senses in order to achieve liberation whereas in working with the energy, the objects are not seen as an impediment any more.

Because the passion arisen from the interaction with objects is used as a fuel and as a means of transforming that experience into the nature of deity

 

I think the problem comes from seeing canonical buddhism as the absolute point of reference.

And i believe that the Pali canon preserves the teaching related to our bodily existence.In that regard the message of the Buddha is complete and nothing was left out.

 

If you want to understand the energy side of our existence Vajrayana vehicle is the one to practice.This vehicle is separate from pali canon and its roots are totally different and separate.

 

By opening our hearts to the limitless time span we gradually begin to understand that Pali Buddhism and Vajrayana are only a drop in the infinite ocean of dharmic methods.

 

So my advice is that if you are interested in approaches who deal with energy you should seek to receive vajrayana teachings where the complete understanding about chackras, nadis, prana is preserved.If your goal is to debate whether the pali canon is complete or incomplete my advice is to try not to see anything beyond it and take it as it is.

Thank you for sharing!

 

The Buddha DID mention "boundless energy" and the bodily phenomena as well.

 

It makes no sense to say or have a "Body/Energy" duality..........There is no such thing sir!

 

Comments?

[stefos]

This question about Krishnamurti -- has any of his students carried on his teachings? None, as far as im aware.

 

A reliable measurement of any teachers' worth is the pool of awakening students he nurtures. Its called lineage. No lineage means a non-progressive philosophy. While such teachings may have a few sparkles here and there, if there isn't a trickling down effect, then it means somewhere along the way, some stagnation is bound to have happened.

 

Following such a philosophy may yield some result, but it requires extra effort to sieve thru what is redundant and what is not. Better to look to more progressive lineages to save some precious practice time.

 

Im not putting this man down. I have benefitted from his work in the past. But there have been moments of muddiness too.

Regarding your questions of "awakening":

 

Krishnamurti when asked about transformation he said "A mind that listens with complete attention will never look for a result because it is constantly unfolding like a river, it is always in movement."

 

Also he continued "Such a mind is totally unconscious of its own activity in the sense that there is no perpetuation of a self, of a "me" that is seeking an end."

 

So those quotes, my friend, can be found in the book "Can Humanity change? Krishnamurti in dialogue with Buddhists"

Pick it up there's much more.

 

Krishnamurti also stated that we waste energy by chatter, smoking, drinking, being in a daydream mode, meat eating, etc. This energy is what is used when we inquire into "What is" and should not be used towards "What should be" although Krishnamurti acknowledged the "What should be" insofar as morals & ethics were concerned and things like taking care of this planet, etc.

 

There are the various schools, the Krishnamurti archives in the U.S./U.K./India and of course people who gather together that study & discuss the teachings.

 

No lineage is needed really.......Why say "I belong to the Gelugpas or the Sakyas?" Is that THE point?

Teachings are needed not "schools" & "lineages"........I do understand that you probably mean where the integrity of the teachings are kept but that my friend is people not books even though books are useful.

 

Stefos

Edited June 20, 2013 by stefos

[3bob]

Stefos, I suggest study of the Chandogya Upanishad if you haven't already done so...? or not, and I will not get in arguments about such.

 

Good fortune to you.