Buddhism (Moderated Discussion)

[samsara]

Hi everyone,
           From reading things it looks like you have to first say "I am not my ego. I'm that which observes it" although I wonder whether the observer is another layer of ego[]

                                          Samsara

[Jonas K strand]

hello!

one insight ive heard of is when the understanding comes of -observation observes, simply. no I recieving the observation.

/jonas

[SomeBloke]

I have been reading a good introduction to Chan Buddhism called 'Hoofprint of the Ox'.  I highly recommend the book.

Anyway, last night I was reading this book and something funny happened.  (Not saying there's any great significance in this, it was just a real 'zen' moment!)

This tiny fly was was flitting around very persistently, and eventually he landed on the corner of the book.  Instead of flicking him away I gave him a little wave and he seemed to stand up to his full 2mm height and flew down on to the book jumping from word to word.  He spelled out 'In Chan...the...emphasis...meditation'
Very true, Mr Fly I thought, so I put down the book and meditated instead!  [|)]

[Anonymous]

Gandalf,

Often in religions ( Christian and Buddhist ) the originators were not recognised during thier lifetime as spiritual leaders on a large scale. Followers of thier paths realised at a later date that the information circulating about the dead leaders was being " misquoted" and would strive at a later date to collect and publish the official version of thier teachings. This led to some opposing views of not only what was said  but includes what it was supposed to mean. You have an example in the posts where you asked about creation and were told a very good example of why that information while existing was not being transmittd to you. You later concluded that thier was no information given by Buddha on creation. So if I wrote the " holy sacred scripture" of your transformation to supremeness I would write a very different story than you would write about your own transformation. I would say you were told of creation and you would say you were not. In the world of early Buddhist writings and teachings the Hindu perspective was the point of view for a lot of the explanations of the teachings of Buddha.  That does not mean they were the correct point of view for explanation it was just the predominate spiritual point of view at the time and location. SO do Buddhist revere Buddha? Well yes and for a thousand different reasons however Buddha said not to worship him and so I do not know that these people treat him as a God as much as a symbol for what can be done in thier own lives.

[Beth]

This thread has been set up specifically for the 'Friendly Exploration' of Buddhism and its holy books.  Please feel free to contribute any knowledge or questions that you may have.  

This thread WILL be MODERATED. Off topic posts will be deleted.

Please use the other thread 'Buddhism (open discussion) for all debates, criticism and other matters that do not fit the theme 'Friendly Exploration'.

Peace,
Beth

p.s. I am really looking forward to learning more about Buddhism![]

[Radha]

I guess I would have to say that I've never seen or met a person in Buddhism who worships a statue.  (I began Dharma in 1959).  There may be someone who is simply ignorant of the Dharma and does so, but a Buddhist is one who has taken refuge and is a member of a sangha.  By that point they would have been trained to know better.
I practice Vajrayana.  The emphasis is on PRACTICE.  As in doing.  The key to a students mind, from an old, old tantra, is through his or her questions.  The question is the key that opens the door.
However...the first guidance a teacher would probably offer you, if you asked the question, is to steer your mind to where you are now in terms of consciousness.  He would then, assuming you had questions about where you are now, give you replies, but more likely exercises to do that, if done, will reveal the answers you want.
If you ask speculative questions, such as many of these, he would not sit and blab away endlessly to your intellect.  He would give you exercises to do that are in accord with your Being.  ONLY those exercises will move you along the path, assuming you do them.
Buddhism is and can be an extraordinarily fulfilling study, if you find a teacher and go to work.  Lacking that it is just intellectual prattle that flows from the empty into the void, as Gurdjieff used to say.
Radha

[Nomad]

first of all, an interesting introduction to Buddhism:
"The Middle Way", by Jinananda (Duncan Steen).

A nice little snippet you can find in there goes as follows:
To those who asked 'Where do we come from?' the Buddha would give the example of a man with an arrow in his eye, 'Would that man say "Before you take that arrow from my eye, could you tell me who made it?"'

As far as deities go, and especially the monotheistic "one", a Christian friend of mine put the whole concept under an interesting light. Admittedly, I doubt his view is common or at least very wide-spread among Christians, but still. He said that his "God" is, in his view, very much the same as in Buddhism the energy, the oneness of everything. His precise terminology was the karma, but I think I can safely extrapolate the above out of it, due to the context, etc. within which it was said.

In as far as I've been able to see, the different "types" of Buddhism are just different views and (perhaps to some extent) interpretations of what one could call "the original", adapted to the beliefs and culture of the people that followed its teachings, without deviating from the central concepts. Now, there is really absolutely nothing wrong with this (after all, Siddhartha very much encouraged it). At the end of the day, they're all pretty much just different ways of reaching the same "goal".

I might've mixed up some terminology (or used words) here and there that to practiced and "schooled" Buddhists don't make sense. That is because I believe in finding my own way along the path, instead of following (to some extent) the path laid before me by others. So, if you disagree, wish to correct, wish something clarified, etc., please say/do so (I would very much like to hear it).

As an addition to what was mentioned in the previous paragraph, I suppose one could say that I am, for now, ignoring the Sangha (well, to some extent at least), and rather seeking my own Dharma. Once I reach a point where I can no longer progress (or perhaps another reason shall be the cause, who can tell?), I shall finally become a member of a Sangha. Or perhaps, in some strange way, I am already member of one, but just failed to realize it yet? Why, I hadn't even considered that... interesting...

[Gandalf]

I guess I would have to say that I've never seen or met a person in Buddhism who worships a statue. (I began Dharma in 1959). There may be someone who is simply ignorant of the Dharma and does so, but a Buddhist is one who has taken refuge and is a member of a sangha. By that point they would have been trained to know better.

yes, but I think you refer to the  'lessor wheel' of budhism (that practised in vietnam and Thailand) which does not include other bodhivisatas and other deities. But this is not actually the most common form of buddhism in the east. The most common form, the 'greater wheel', practised in China, Japan (and a varient in Tibet) DOES revere loads of deities, (who are perceived as belonging either to the class of boddivistas or are beings in the 'deity' realm, which are still useful in praying to as they can get things done for you.

I would agree that 'respect' and 'revere' are the keywords here however, rather than 'worship' which is a grovelling concept common to middle-eastern traditions which I have never had much time for.

I absolutly have no roblem with using statues as representations of deities/and or buddhas. I think most people are smart enough to realise that the statue isnt *actually* the deity but simply a representation and focus for reverence (again I wouldnt use 'worship').
This obsession with 'idols' is evidence of a middle-eastern inspired hangup, which some western 'buddists' do not appear to have been able to let go of entirly, and which jews, muslims and christians constantly bang on about with their 'idolatery' accusations... I would simply say.. so what?

I have never been able to understand this hangup.. even in classical greek times, people KNEW that the statua wasnt ACTUALLY a deity but was simply a useful representation, and was a focus for reverence. they wre well aware that the deity itself didnt have this exact form (although it could adopt it if it so chose)...

This hangup ultimatly all come's from that scare tactic line in Leviticus 'he who prays to idols shall be destroyed'.... yeah very nice, I'm worried.

Douglas

[kalratri]

ould simply say.. so what?

I have never been able to understand this hangup.. even in classical greek times, people KNEW that the statua wasnt ACTUALLY a deity but was simply a useful representation, and was a focus for reverence. they wre well aware that the deity itself didnt have this exact form (although it could adopt it if it so chose)...

This hangup ultimatly all come's from that scare tactic line in Leviticus 'he who prays to idols shall be destroyed'.... yeah very nice, I'm worried.

Douglas

Actually the statue is more than a point of meditation, most statues are blessed constantly with specific rituals for statues...if the energy of the priest becomes powerful enough, than that statue alone confers blessings and aligns the energy in accordance with the energy represented by that diety for a lay person...thus that diety becomes "living" within that statue and the statue itself is the diety--- and thus it becomes even more powerful for meditation.

The same concept lies in the story of Adam, as energy is put into a mud/clay statue, and the energy becomes high enough that it comes to life.  That's also idolatry. Except in the statue the more powerful energy never becomes God (actually there are stories in Hinduism where the statue itself comes to actual life and even walks temporarily by a powerful sidha) but it becomes highly energized and confers blessings.

[Gandalf]

kalratri_

Interesting.. thanks for the input...
I love that term 'idolatry' though as it still carries negative connotations due to middle-eastern hangups.. although I shed that one a while back.

The idea actually comes about from a complete failure to understand how statues and other representations of deities actually function, both in classical religion and in eastern traditions.

I was at a classical art class recently and the lecturer was tring to explain this concept to people some of whom couldnt grasp it... No the greeks didnt actually think the statue was a physical likeness of the deity or WAS the deity.. the attributes of the statue were a kind of code. a symbolism for the properties/functions that the deity possessed. Furthermore, the perfection and beauty of a particlular statue, while reflecting the gift of the artist, more importantly served as an echo, a reminder of the divine beauty of the deity, even although the sculptural beauty was not related to the divine beauty.. it brings us closer to it however..

The monotheists didnt get this however... although funnily enough in some christian denomenations (Catholic and Orthodox for example) icons are ok, even when they fulfil the same function! but there you go..

Doug

PS kalratri, have you heard of 'theurgy'? this was a form of mysticism/magick performed in Roman times and one of the practices was the creating of specialised statues that could be the recepticles of the gods.. this might be accomplished by placing special herbs or other materials associated the the god inside the statue or special prayers etc.. the god in question is then able to inhabit that statue or focus on it in some way, allowing a more direct connection with worshippers... It sounds a bit like the eastern practice you describe..
I have to add however that this practice was only conducted by specialists and was in no way a common practice amongst most pagans in the ancient world.

[kalratri]

kalratri_


The monotheists didnt get this however... although funnily enough in some christian denomenations (Catholic and Orthodox for example) icons are ok, even when they fulfil the same function! but there you go..

Doug

I do generally dislike the hippocracy associated with monotheitic religions, that is why I actually like calling them the "Adamic" religions ... these religions come from people who are descended from Adam --- the guy who lied to God, blamed the woman for all his problems, and both were disgracefully kicked out of heaven.   So I say, what do you expect?

Even the Muslims actually have a stone, "THE BLACK STONE" which they are supposed to circumambulate 7 times and kiss, which Mohammad called the "Right hand of God"...anyone familiar with the stone and world religions would see it as a Phallic symbol akin to a Shiva Linga.  Shiva is ofcourse the "right side of God".  But you will not find many muslim who will admit to this...the Adam's family values continues...

Also, the Adamic religions did not ever get a "universal one God" akin to "Brahman"...monotheism is simply the picking and worshipping of  one diety.  That's why you have further fights between Jews, Christians and Muslims who claim that their God is different from the others.  The statement "my Christian God is not the same God as Allah..." is found quite often. ..but I digress.

PS kalratri, have you heard of 'theurgy'? this was a form of mysticism/magick performed in Roman times and one of the practices was the creating of specialised statues that could be the recepticles of the gods.. this might be accomplished by placing special herbs or other materials associated the the god inside the statue or special prayers etc.. the god in question is then able to inhabit that statue or focus on it in some way, allowing a more direct connection with worshippers... It sounds a bit like the eastern practice you describe..
I have to add however that this practice was only conducted by specialists and was in no way a common practice amongst most pagans in the ancient world.

No I haven't heard of it.  Do they still have any books that have the precise rituals or have they been lost (probably burned in the library at Alexandria)...?

Also it is interesting that you mentioned some Greek concepts of "idolatry"... it is similar to the buddhist mandala, where the perfection of the mandala itself is considered "holy" or divine.  The sanskrit term "siddha" means perfection...perfection is divine.

[Gandalf]

No I haven't heard of it. Do they still have any books that have the precise rituals or have they been lost (probably burned in the library at Alexandria)...?



I think many of the rituals have been preserved within in the 'Corpus Hermeticum' of body of hermetic lore that survived christian prohibition, and the tragic lose of the Library of alexandria,  preserved in many cases secretly by Christian monks funnily enough! and was transmitted to the middle-ages and from there to the various modern western mystery schools, like the Golden Dawn etc.

However I am not sure if it is just the basic outline that survived or the presise details.

Concerning Hermetism:
Hermetisism/gnostism differs from eastern traditions however as it isnt pantheistic as such more kind of a mix of monotheism AND polytheism, wherin there is a trancendent One above all knowledge but this manifests itself down a 'chain of being' in a pyramid right down to our level, manifesting as all the various gods, spirits etc... a favourite line is that 'the One manifests itself in diversity'.

It probably wouldnt take much to shift the trancendent 'One' to a pantheistic 'Brahman' interpretation mind you, and in my view would reconcile the two philosophies.. perhaps this has been done already. This is pretty much the view of modern neo-paganism.

[kalratri]

No I haven't heard of it. Do they still have any books that have the precise rituals or have they been lost (probably burned in the library at Alexandria)...?



I think many of the rituals have been preserved within in the 'Corpus Hermeticum' of body of hermetic lore that survived christian prohibition, and the tragic lose of the Library of alexandria,  preserved in many cases secretly by Christian monks funnily enough! and was transmitted to the middle-ages and from there to the various modern western mystery schools, like the Golden Dawn etc.

However I am not sure if it is just the basic outline that survived or the presise details.

Concerning Hermetism:
Hermetisism/gnostism differs from eastern traditions however as it isnt pantheistic as such more kind of a mix of monotheism AND polytheism, wherin there is a trancendent One above all knowledge but this manifests itself down a 'chain of being' in a pyramid right down to our level, manifesting as all the various gods, spirits etc... a favourite line is that 'the One manifests itself in diversity'.



It probably wouldnt take much to shift the trancendent 'One' to a pantheistic 'Brahman' interpretation mind you, and in my view would reconcile the two philosophies.. perhaps this has been done already. This is pretty much the view of modern neo-paganism.

Brahman is a monistic idea, where all is derived from one transcendant substance.  Pantheism is when all things are worshipped as God, sort of like multiple energies.  So you are actually saying the same thing.

Monotheism is "ONE GOD SEPARATE FROM CREATION"...in other words, God and the substance used to create are two separate objects and therefore one cannot become the other.  Polytheism is similar, except there are multiple Gods you can never become that just play around with you like you are their puppet and all humans are capable of are becoming heroes or attaining heaven.

Actually, if I were pagan and really wanted to revive my religious tradition, the first thing I would do is try to get all original NONTRANSLATED incantations for all the Gods in europe, even if it is very little, then I would transliterate and translate it for others who are interested in pre-christian religions.

I have seen translations of incantations of Odin on the internet, but not the original one.

[fuji257]

There seems to be some differing opinions on Buddhists gods.

If you take any branch of Buddhism and strip away the Asian culture around it, you will find what the Buddha taught.

If you are interested in Buddhism and not Asian cultures I VERY HIGHLY recommend:  BUDDHISM PLAIN AND SIMPLE by STEVEN HAGEN

I have read a LOT of Buddhism books and I cannot recommend this one enough for a clean introduction.

In case you are wondering, it REALLY is "Plain and Simple", not a lot of "two dollar words".

If you are into alternative or punk music, are not easlily offended and enjoy a little humor when you read:  HARCORE ZEN by BRAD WARNER is  pretty good as well.  I can recommend it as just as good, but does not appeal to as wide an audience.

[You]

Buddhism, for me, is a slightly confusing issue. On one hand: I greatly appreciate their striving to perfect their minds, their meditation techniques are great, they propagate the spreading of many awesome forms like Yoga (I think... maybe Hindus did that too), and have a very interesting culture overall.

Many techniques of self-mastery, and distancing yourself from shallow fixations, are ones that should be learned by everyone who are TOO grounded in material things.

Buddhism propagates balance, but it is in this very thing where I believe the lack of materialism fails. I realize when one's goal is Nirvana, that one becomes less concerned with earthly possessions, but by becoming purely fixated upon immaterial things, energies and concepts, I believe the meditator may lose touch with his reality. IF this is actually his final goal, it scares me. Would you really want to lose yourself to nothingness?

Perhaps nothingness brings comfort... but to me... if it is really nothingness, if it is void, then would there be no comfort? Would it be not unlike death? While the emotions leading up to the process are definitely different, more controlled and relaxed, I fear this process may simply be a form of suicide of the mind (if not the body). Could someone more knowledgeable about Buddhism perhaps explain to me if I am wrong in thinking this?

Also, while an ego must be managed so that it is sensible, I feel here too that Buddhism must practise it's striving for balance, and not wish to totally disseminate the ego permanently. Egos make us what we are... how we think... how we live. To slowly change to experience new environments is good, but to just throw it away with nothing in return... what will be left for us? How can we enjoy anything? Isn't is just like getting a lobotomy?

[fuji257]

>>Buddhism propagates balance . . .<<

Some *Buddhist* may, but I think you may be getting mixed up with Taoism.  A lot of Buddhist do.  I mean balance is not a bad thing, but you shouldn't feel that it is fundemental to Buddhism.

>>I realize when one's goal is Nirvana, that . . .<<

Your approach is wrong.  If a Buddhist or anybody tells you that your goal is Nirvanna/Enlightenment - RUN AWAY FROM THEM.  A Buddhists only goal should be to discover their true nature (whatever that may be) and if that should *happen* to bring "nirvana" or "enlightenment" then so be it.

>>Would you really want to lose yourself to nothingness? <<

Thoughts of "nothingness" scares the hell out of a LOT of new Buddhists or Dharma Practitioners.  When most speak of nothingness in reference to Zen Buddhism they are speaking of Non-Attachment, NOT of "the absence of everything".  And if we all DO return to nothingness at some point and time .  .  . how exactly would your refusal to think about it change anything?  I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just trying to help you question yourself.  

>> . . . and not wish to totally disseminate the ego permanently. Egos make us what we are . . .<<

Your "ego" is only the little you or your little mind.  The big mind is our true nature - or Buddha nature [paraphrase from Shunryu Suzuki].  If when you are medatating you are told to "observe your thoughts, but do not pay them any attention - just let them float by!";  let me ask you then, WHO would be the ovserver of said thoughts?  The big mind or the little mind?

Practice zazen!  Question EVERYTHING!  All will unfold.

--------------------------------------
"The fact is, it's hard to find a group of people who misunderstand Buddhism more thoroughly than Buddhist scholars. And often, the more     renowned the scholar the more likely he's got his head firmly wedged in his butt."   - BRAD WARNER, HARCORE ZEN [/b][/i]

[You]

The concept of big mind and little mind are not entirely proved to me. For all I know, it's just one aspect of my mind, the contemplative one, examining other aspects of thought. Those same aspects of thought can observe the way I contemplate them. I think big and little is just defined by who's in charge at the moment.

[fuji257]

>>The concept of big mind and little mind are not entirely proved to me. <<


>>For all I know, it's just one aspect of my mind, the contemplative one, examining other aspects of thought. Those same aspects of thought can observe the way I contemplate them. I think big and little is just defined by who's in charge at the moment.<<

Your second paragraph refutes the first.  You said you don't believe in "big mind/little mind", but then you defined it.

Are YOU your mind?  Are YOU the BIG mind or the LITTLE one?  BOTH?  Which is your true nature?  

There is no right answer, but it is important that these things are contemplated.

[Potential]

Revering the Buddha.

I think the original reason for statues of various Buddhas was because,....

Mind is the source for all things,(b/c it has been conditioned from birth as to what it will accept or reject).

In one's dreams, especially if they are lucid dreams a person can do anything. In Vajrayana Buddhism there is a practice known as Generation Stage, which means "creative visualization/imagination fantasizing", so they developed a method of turning mind, which has no form into something with form. Visualizing a buddha statue (or it could be a Jesus statue, it does not matter, as long as it feels OK with the person doing the practice). After the practice meditate until you get the OBE effect then one tries to visualize the image in their mind, a statue has a 3-dimensional attribute so the image can be seen from various angles and when memorized/visualized is imparted to be the mind itself. Giving the mind a form, that of a person that we can relate to, so when we ask a question the created teacher/guide will respond like a person. And since it comes from our subconscious mind it relates to us the information that under normal daily situations we would have missed. We are all potential Buddhas.

For example, you're out walking around, and little do you know there is a sniper in the trees in front of you with his gun aimed right at you. Of course you don't see him with your conscious peripheral vision, but the subconscious mind saw it. Later that night you have a dream that a large beast is trying to harm you. You look into the dream dictionary to find what your dream means, and it says, "an unknown enemy wishes you harm". Indicating that you need to be more aware of your surroundings.

No being a Buddhist doesn't mean worshiping Buddha or statues of him. You can be a Christian and still study Buddhism because it is a mind-science only. No different than math or chemistry, there were teachers in those fields, that doesn't mean to worship the teacher.However in many Asian countries bowing is a sort of respect, so from a western view point it may be interpreted that their bowing is a type of worship. However I wouldn't doubt it that they were actually worshiping the statutes. Ignorance runs high in various religions. And Buddhism is no exception. Buddhism originally was a Science of Mind, but people got lazy and decided to turn him into a type of personal Saviour.

You ask any Asian not from this country, that is a Buddhist, and that speaks a little English, and they'll tell you they worship and pray to the Buddha (actually the Buddha statue). I can't say whether they don't know enough English to convey the proper meaning or they really are that ignorant.

Asian children brought up by these Asian immigrated parents, just follow their parents tradition without really knowing what's going on. But the Asians that were born here in America, that speak the English language fluently and may or may not be Buddhist have more understanding than their parents ever will. But most of the time they convert to Christianity because all their friends are Christians and they really did not understand Buddhism in the first place.

From my own personal experience American Buddhists have a greater appreciation and understanding of it. Buddha gave 84,000 teachings for the different capacities of people's minds to understand, according to that it may take some people several lifetimes in order to catch a higher meaning or understanding. Americans have got the capacity to go to higher teachings because we have a greater understanding of the world around us and have gotten rid of most superstitious beliefs.

In Buddhism there are 3 Wheels(types), Hinayana (small vehicle),
Mahayana (great vehicle), and Vajrayana (Supreme Vehicle). Most Buddhist Asians are either Hinayana or Mahayana. Most American Buddhists are Vajrayana or Zen.

[Potential]

great outdoors Hi,
There is a sutra that although doesnt refer to the creaton of the big bang theory as such but it describes the creation of galxies and universes and also of other beings that were androgenous, but something went wrong for them........I think they ate something !! there is also a very good sanskrit suttra that goes into alot f detail too!!! I shall get back with some links for you!!!
Metta Blue pearl<font color="blue"></font id="blue">

I'd like to hear this as soon as possible.

[scarecrow]

Hey guys,

Just to add my own bit to this thread I came across the following quote from a book I am reading  called "A Guide to the Buddhist Path" by a man called Sangharakshita.

A certain amount of confusion has arisen in the West about the Buddha being a god, or God, because they see that he is worshipped - that Buddhists offer flowers to the altar, light candles, and bow down - and if you worship someone, we think, it means that for you that person is God. But that is quite wrong. Not only Buddhists, but people generally in the East, have got quite a different concept of worship. In India the same word 'puja' is used for paying respect to the Buddha, to one's parents, to one's elder brothers and sisters, to one's teachers, spiritual or secular, and to any senior or respectable person. So what the Buddhists are doing when they offer flowers to the Buddha-image is respecting or honouring the Buddha as an Enlightened being, not worshipping him as God.

[pinkbuddha]

Eliminate negative karma with your hard drive:

http://www.dharma-haven.org/tibetan/digital-wheels.htm


When you think of the Buddha, the Buddha is mindful of you.


pb