Buddhist Historical Narrative

[Astral Monk]

2 hours ago, dmattwads said:

 

Actually the Buddha did take a bodhisattva vow eons ago, this is how he eventually became the Buddha. This also illustrates the bodhisattva concept in Theravada, that a bodhisattva's end goal is to become a fully enlightened Buddha. 

 

Where is this first suggested?

 

8)

[Astral Monk]

5 hours ago, Apech said:

 So I don't think it is intended as a cosmic get out jail free card but more a devotional form of Buddhism which developed to suit the temperament of the Chinese and Japanese - or some of them.

 

 

Developed by whom? The Chinese?

 

8)

[Apech]

50 minutes ago, Astral Monk said:

 

Developed by whom? The Chinese?

 

8)

 

 

Started in India and developed by Chinese and Japanese.

[Bud Jetsun]

On 1/28/2018 at 1:45 AM, Apech said:

 

I think it is important to understand that idea of a text is not like a western one.  It comes from an oral teaching of course where transmission would be by memorising and repeating and not just reading (of course).  The Mahayanists regarded the dharmabhanakas who gave the text as being 'like Buddhas' - so there was something supra-mundane going on in the sense that receiving, learning, memorising and chanting the text was more like a meditational practice than a passive reading one.  

 

 

 

 

Respectfully the oral aspects served a function to openly engage deeper discussion to clarify understanding until they became memorization.  

 

The Buddha instructed not to write down or memorize his words so his students would have a chance at acquiring their own genuine wisdom VS becoming living breathing tape recorders.   When they had no Buddha's actively comprehending the nature of reality to ask questions, clinging to whomever could remember the Buddha's previous answers became symbolic proxy Buddha.  Eventually the living tape recorders get backed-up on paper and ink, and the patterns of symbols and sounds is worshiped. 

 

CT earlier shared this section from the diamond sutra:

"Subhuti, do not maintain that the Buddha has this thought: ‘I have spoken spiritual truths.’ Do not think that way. Why? If someone says the Buddha has spoken spiritual truths, he slanders the Buddha due to his inability to understand what the Buddha teaches. Subhuti, as to speaking truth, no truth can be spoken. Therefore it is called ‘speaking truth’.”

 

When words are repeated, it would require being the same consciousness with the same series of experiences for them to have the same meaning let alone a shot at describing the truth of Now. 

 

If a sage has completed re-linking to Now, all memory and all concept of what another being may have experienced or expressed is recognized as categorizing aspects of human confusion, and clings to nothing borrowed or repeated, but draws from all wisdom in phenomena, resting unshakably in the same foundation which supports the galaxy of galaxies. 

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

[Maddie]

14 hours ago, Astral Monk said:

 

Where is this first suggested?

 

8)

All the information and much more to answer your question. In regards to the Buddhas bodhisattva vows, as well as the bodhisattva in Theravada.

 

http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/b/bodhisatta.htm

Edited January 31, 2018 by dmattwads

[Apech]

Well guys,

 

I think the time has come to move on to the thorny subject of the growth of Tantric Buddhism or the Vajrayana.  Again rather like the birth of the Mahayana the study of this subject has been marred by the attitude of the Western scholars who first discovered the tantras.  They were categorised as impure, decadent and the product of contamination and decay.  This was probably at least partly due to the sexual imagery (which Victorian scholars reacted badly to) and the accounts of the behaviour of the Mahasiddhas who deliberately broke taboos and so on.  So for a long time it was very unfashionable for an academic to study these texts - although this view seems now to be changing.

 

The rough dates are that around 500 AD the first Kriya Tantras appear and by 700 AD the term Vajrayana is in use.  From 600 - 1200 AD Tantric Buddhism slowly grows in strength and prominence spreading to Tibet (where it is the main form of Buddhism) and also China and Japan.

 

There are four main models for the development of Tantric Buddhism:

 

1 ) Tantric Buddhism as a direct lift from Hindu (mainly Shaivite) Tantra - by changing the names and adapting the practices.

 

2 )  Tantra itself as an ancient India wide movement (possibly going back to the IVC) which affected not only Hinduism, Buddhism but also Jainism - and Buddha-tantra as but one off shoot.

 

3 ) Buddha tantra as a distinct development of Buddhist thought and practice and having only a superficial similarity to Hindu Tantra - but actually a unique new movement in Buddhism.

 

4 ) That the historical Buddha taught a tantric style approach which was handed down esoterically until the conditions were right for its popular promotion.  (this is more or less what the Vajrayana Buddhists themselves believe).

 

If anyone can think of another model - please let me know.

 

So what do you think? and why?

 

 

[Bindi]

I would say Number 3 ) Buddha tantra as a distinct development of Buddhist thought and practice and having only a superficial similarity to Hindu Tantra - but actually a unique new movement in Buddhism.

 

There doesn't seem to be any evidence in early Buddhist texts that the historical Buddha ever taught tantric techniques,  therefore it is more likely that when Hindu tantra was exposed to Buddhist thought probably via Padmasambhava or Guru Rinpoche, original Hindu tantra evolved over time into a distinct Buddhist tantra, ultimately with diametrically opposed aims - realisation of Self vs the realisation of the reality of not-self - and underlying beliefs (for example the belief in Hindu tantra in the independent existence of deities vs the Buddhist belief that the essence of all deities is ones own mind), and methods (for example the initial energetic focus in Hindu tantra on the two side channels vs the Buddhist  focus on the central channel).  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Apech]

10 hours ago, Bindi said:

I would say Number 3 ) Buddha tantra as a distinct development of Buddhist thought and practice and having only a superficial similarity to Hindu Tantra - but actually a unique new movement in Buddhism.

 

There doesn't seem to be any evidence in early Buddhist texts that the historical Buddha ever taught tantric techniques,  therefore it is more likely that when Hindu tantra was exposed to Buddhist thought probably via Padmasambhava or Guru Rinpoche, original Hindu tantra evolved over time into a distinct Buddhist tantra, ultimately with diametrically opposed aims - realisation of Self vs the realisation of the reality of not-self - and underlying beliefs (for example the belief in Hindu tantra in the independent existence of deities vs the Buddhist belief that the essence of all deities is ones own mind), and methods (for example the initial energetic focus in Hindu tantra on the two side channels vs the Buddhist  focus on the central channel).  

 

 

This would be the view supported by Herbert Guenther and others.  In a way I agree with it because Buddhatantra uses terms in specific ways and as you say sees the meditation 'deities' as aspects of Buddha-nature (although what exactly this means needs careful thought as Buddha-nature is more 'real' than you or I

 

I don't know enough about Hindu tantra to say whether you are right about the channels or not.

 

Some of the tantric deities seem to be much older than I thought.  For instance Vajrapani (lit: vajra-in-hand) appears in the Pali Canon:

 

The Pali Canon's Ambattha Suttanta tells of one instance of him protecting the Buddha's honor. A young Brahman named Ambatha visited the Buddha and insulted him by saying the Shaykya clan (the enlightened one's family) were abjects who should revere the Brahmins. In return, the Buddha asked the Brahmin if his family was descended from a “Shakya slave girl”. However, Ambatha further insulted the Buddha by not answering his question. When he failed to answer the question for a second time, the Buddha warned him that his head would be smashed to bits if he failed to do so a third time. Ambatha was frightened when he saw Vajrapani manifest above the Buddha's head ready to strike the Brahmin down with his thunderbolt. 

 

http://www.tamqui.com/buddhaworld/Vajrapani

 

http://buddhasutra.com/files/ambattha_sutta.htm

 

Vajrapani is described as a Yaksha which means 'spirit':

 

Yaksha (Sanskrit: यक्ष yakṣa, Tamil: யகன் yakan, இயக்கன் iyakan,[1] Odia: ଯକ୍ଷ jôkhyô, Pali: yakkha)[2] are a broad class of nature-spirits, usually benevolent, but sometimes mischievous and sexually aggressive or capricious caretakers of the natural treasures hidden in the earth and tree roots.[3] They appear in Hindu, Jain and Buddhist texts, as well as ancient and medieval era temples of South Asia and Southeast Asia as guardian deities.[3][4] The feminine form of the word is yakṣī[5] or Yakshini (yakṣiṇī).[6]

 

Here is a picture of a Yakshi statue from the stupa at Sanchi (2nd century BC) which is from the early Buddhist Period - 

 

 

just to give a flavour.

 

Actually the Ambattha Sutta is quite interesting overall and I may write about it a little.

 

Most of all I would question the 'Buddha was a rationalist, humanist, philosopher' type view entirely.  I think it may only be possible to sustain this type of view by very selective reading.  Which makes the Buddha/tantra link less shocking.

[C T]

12 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Most of all I would question the 'Buddha was a rationalist, humanist, philosopher' type view entirely.  I think it may only be possible to sustain this type of view by very selective reading.  Which makes the *Buddha/tantra link less shocking.

 

May I request a presentation of a contrasting view according to the position you have taken? 

I think it'd make for an informed comparison so that readers can (perhaps) relate to your writings a little more intimately. 

 

Also, when you have time, it'd be interesting to get more context regarding the inferred shock associated with the *link mentioned. When you wrote that, what exactly were you reflecting upon? Just reading the quoted text above i was unable to grasp the flow and connect the dots in a satisfactory way, but im sure its there in plain sight. My own lack of depth, not yours. 

 

Thanks, Apech. Excellent thread 

[Apech]

12 hours ago, C T said:

 

May I request a presentation of a contrasting view according to the position you have taken? 

I think it'd make for an informed comparison so that readers can (perhaps) relate to your writings a little more intimately. 

 

Also, when you have time, it'd be interesting to get more context regarding the inferred shock associated with the *link mentioned. When you wrote that, what exactly were you reflecting upon? Just reading the quoted text above i was unable to grasp the flow and connect the dots in a satisfactory way, but im sure its there in plain sight. My own lack of depth, not yours. 

 

Thanks, Apech. Excellent thread 

 

Donald Lopez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_S._Lopez_Jr. has talked about a 'European construction of original Buddhism' - which upholds Buddha as a perhaps Socrates-like philosopher/sage - atheist and rationalist.  It is my position that this is a false narrative - but one by which we are all affected.  Rather like the Mahayana as schism meme.  The most extreme proponents of this modern rationalist Buddha are Stephen Batchelor and his chums.  From this perspective tantric Buddhism is dismissed as degenerate, contaminated and more or less non-Buddhist.  When I mention 'shock' I meant the link (not an internet link an actual one) between Buddha and tantra.  Some tantric texts are shocking as they deal in sex and other transgressive behaviour.

 

To me, and this is only my intuition I have yet to prove it, the Buddha was a complete teacher on all levels and in all ways, and thus original Buddhism was broad or even vast in its range and not a kind a back projected ascetic Theravada.  This is what I am setting out to investigate.  So for instance - although the Vajrayana in terms of iconography and so on is drawn from Medieval India it was actually a popularisation of Buddhas esoteric teachings which had been handed down to them - exactly as the Vajrayana Buddhists claim.

 

 

[Apech]

Just as a matter of interest - in that same Sutra, a Brahmin comes to check if the Buddha has the 32 marks which are the indication of being a Great Man.  He can see all but is unsure of two:

 

Quote

 

Then Pokkharasati looked out for the thirty-two marks of a Great Man on the Lord’s body and he could see all of them except for two:  the sheathed genitals and the large tongue; but the Lord set his mind at rest about these. Then, descending from his lodging, the Lord started to walk up and down, and Pokkharasati did likewise.  And as he walked along with the Lord, Pokkharasati looked out for the thirty-two marks of a Great Man on the Lord’s body.  And he could see all of them except for two.  He was in doubt and perplexity about two of these marks:  he could not make up his mind or be certain about the sheathed genitals or the large tongue.

 

And the Lord, being aware of his doubts, effected by his psychic power that Pokkharasati could see his sheathed genitals, and then, sticking out his tongue, he reached out to lick both ears and both nostrils, and then covered the whole circle of his forehead with his tongue.  Then Ambattha thought:  "The ascetic Gotama is equipped with all the thirty-two marks of a Great Man, complete and with none missing."   Then he said to the Lord:  "Reverend Gotama, may I go now?  I have much business, much to do." 

 

 

Sheathed genitals is interesting!  Some English euphemistic translations talk about 'wrapped in cloth' or similar - but of course this cannot be a mark of birth - other translations talk about a 'retracted penis' - which may be the result of internal cultivation and the DBs favourite subject of not ejaculating - or the sheathed penis may be an extra large foreskin.  Some people have even suggested that Buddha was hermaphroditic.  Note - he uses psychic powers to show himself - is this euphemistic to avoid the idea of the Buddha flashing in public ha ha.

 

Now licking his ear , nose and forehead - well apart from meaning his tongue was enormous! it makes one think of a cow licking its own head.  What this means I have no idea.

 

You see there are lots of strange things in the Sutras which are normally glossed over or dismissed.

 

[C T]

58 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Donald Lopez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_S._Lopez_Jr. has talked about a 'European construction of original Buddhism' - which upholds Buddha as a perhaps Socrates-like philosopher/sage - atheist and rationalist.  It is my position that this is a false narrative - but one by which we are all effected.  Rather like the Mahayana as schism meme.  The most extreme proponents of this modern rationalist Buddha are Stephen Batchelor and his chums.  From this perspective tantric Buddhism is dismissed as degenerate, contaminated and more or less non-Buddhist.  When I mention 'shock' I meant the link (not an internet link an actual one) between Buddha and tantra.  Some tantric texts are shocking as they deal in sex and other transgressive behaviour.

 

To me, and this is only my intuition I have yet to prove it, the Buddha was a complete teacher on all levels and in all ways, and thus original Buddhism was broad or even vast in its range and not a kind a back projected ascetic Theravada.  This is what I am setting out to investigate.  So for instance - although the Vajrayana in terms of iconography and so on is drawn from Medieval India it was actually a popularisation of Buddhas esoteric teachings which had been handed down to them - exactly as the Vajrayana Buddhists claim.

 

 

 

yes, got that. 

 

now i have to go check the sheath.

I think its meant to share a similar appearance to a lotus bud. 

[Jeff]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

Just as a matter of interest - in that same Sutra, a Brahmin comes to check if the Buddha has the 32 marks which are the indication of being a Great Man.  He can see all but is unsure of two:

 

 

Sheathed genitals is interesting!  Some English euphemistic translations talk about 'wrapped in cloth' or similar - but of course this cannot be a mark of birth - other translations talk about a 'retracted penis' - which may be the result of internal cultivation and the DBs favourite subject of not ejaculating - or the sheathed penis may be an extra large foreskin.  Some people have even suggested that Buddha was hermaphroditic.  Note - he uses psychic powers to show himself - is this euphemistic to avoid the idea of the Buddha flashing in public ha ha.

 

Now licking his ear , nose and forehead - well apart from meaning his tongue was enormous! it makes one think of a cow licking its own head.  What this means I have no idea.

 

You see there are lots of strange things in the Sutras which are normally glossed over or dismissed.

 

 

Thank you Apech. Very interesting discussion.  For me, the interesting point is the “effected by his psychic power” as it implies he made him see something in some form of mind to mind transmission.

[Apech]

11 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

Thank you Apech. Very interesting discussion.  For me, the interesting point is the “effected by his psychic power” as it implies he made him see something in some form of mind to mind transmission.

 

well yes.  And also making Vajrapani appear above his head suggests a kind Mahasiddha activity.

[Apech]

1 hour ago, C T said:

 

yes, got that. 

 

now i have to go check the sheath.

I think its meant to share a similar appearance to a lotus bud. 

 

 

Instantly a 100 DBs rush to the bathroom mirror to check their sheaths

[Jeff]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

well yes.  And also making Vajrapani appear above his head suggests a kind Mahasiddha activity.

 

Maybe, but that could also have been a mind to mind transmission making him simply see it.  Same as seeing the tongue and sheath.

[Apech]

Currently under research and any ideas appreciated:  why is a vajra both the thunderbolt and a diamond ... and also why it is shaped like it is?

 

Any suggestions/facts appreciated.

[s1va]

13 minutes ago, Apech said:

Currently under research and any ideas appreciated:  why is a vajra both the thunderbolt and a diamond ... and also why it is shaped like it is?

 

Any suggestions/facts appreciated.

 

I guess this goes back to the Sanskrit word vajra and how it's meaning evolved from the Vedic times.  The vajra intially meant diamond or strong like diamond, among other things.  There is the story of Dadichi Rishi, from the Vedas and Puranas.  How Shiva grants him a boon, so that all his bones become vajra, or have the strength of diamond (become indestructible).  Later, ironically this boon costs Dadhichi his life.  He gives away his life, so that Indra can use his bones to make his weapon, the Vajrayuda.   The Vajra-yuda (diamond weapon) was called thunder weapon since it belonged to Indra, the diety of thunder.  Anyway, I think it may be through these stories from Puranas, and association with Indra, the vajra got the thunder meaning generally in ancient India.  The shape I believe also in ways goes back to  the shape of Indra's weapon.

 

 

 

 

[Bud Jetsun]

7 hours ago, Apech said:

 

 Some tantric texts are shocking as they deal in sex and other transgressive behaviour.

 

 

 

 

Sex created you, created Buddhas, and sex will create future buddhas. 

 

Transgressive behavior would be that which causes extinction in a single generation through denying one's own nature and cycles of life as a human.  Transgressive behavior is including or excluding beings  based on genital shape being convex or concave.  Transgressive behavior is repeating borrowed wisdom to live in-genuinely in idolatry worship.  Transgressive behavior is all clinging, including to passed words and a rigid framework of rules and policy while the Dao remains transitory and dynamic. 

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

Edited February 2, 2018 by Bud Jetsun

[C T]

The Dorje

 

https://somathread.ning.com/groups/buddhism/forum/dorje

[Bindi]

9 hours ago, Apech said:

 

Donald Lopez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_S._Lopez_Jr. has talked about a 'European construction of original Buddhism' - which upholds Buddha as a perhaps Socrates-like philosopher/sage - atheist and rationalist.  It is my position that this is a false narrative - but one by which we are all effected.  Rather like the Mahayana as schism meme.  The most extreme proponents of this modern rationalist Buddha are Stephen Batchelor and his chums.  From this perspective tantric Buddhism is dismissed as degenerate, contaminated and more or less non-Buddhist.  When I mention 'shock' I meant the link (not an internet link an actual one) between Buddha and tantra.  Some tantric texts are shocking as they deal in sex and other transgressive behaviour.

 

To me, and this is only my intuition I have yet to prove it, the Buddha was a complete teacher on all levels and in all ways, and thus original Buddhism was broad or even vast in its range and not a kind a back projected ascetic Theravada.  This is what I am setting out to investigate.  So for instance - although the Vajrayana in terms of iconography and so on is drawn from Medieval India it was actually a popularisation of Buddhas esoteric teachings which had been handed down to them - exactly as the Vajrayana Buddhists claim.

 

 

 

He is referred to as "the ascetic Gotama" four times in the Ambattha Sutra itself, it seems strange to me that an ascetic would be promoting a tantric method. 

[Apech]

2 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

He is referred to as "the ascetic Gotama" four times in the Ambattha Sutra itself, it seems strange to me that an ascetic would be promoting a tantric method. 

 

Written by monks of course.

 

Mind you the Dalai Lama is a monk and he does Tantra.

[Bindi]

It is quite possible that some aspects of tantra (though not necessarily all aspects) are both helpful and maybe even necessary, and the Dalai Lama seems to negotiate this path to good effect, but it might be a limitation of the Buddha's understanding to not have recognised and taught this path. 

 

That works for me, but then I'm not a Buddhist and I'm happy to consider the Buddha as limited. 

 

 

 

[Bindi]

17 hours ago, Apech said:

 

...

 

I don't know enough about Hindu tantra to say whether you are right about the channels or not.

 

...

 

I believe Swamij describes a broadly Hindu tantric approach, which as I have claimed before is focused on the raising of kundalini, and requires the balancing of ida and Pingala as its starting point (here). 

 

 

 

 

[Apech]

8 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

I believe Swamij describes a broadly Hindu tantric approach, which as I have claimed before is focused on the raising of kundalini, and requires the balancing of ida and Pingala as its starting point (here). 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm more interested in the historical narrative than the details of the practice but you may well have a point.