Hi Beth,
This is a nice thread. I have to stop by these religion forums more often, I guess. All I wanted to say was that for about five years I attended the Zen Center of Los Angeles (back in the 90's) and went through Jukai.
Now I still receive a monthly newsletter, but I don't get down there at all anymore. The zen center was as close to buddhism as I came. Zen seems to have a nice philosophy to it with less ritual than say, Tibetan buddhism. There are people who attended the zen center that seem caught up in ritual however. Also, there is no sacred text that I know of in buddhism, and I liked that. The zazen (meditation) was a nice experience for me. However I drifted away from it as my path does not seem to be one attached to any particular religious type belief system, although I can see how for others it may be helpful.
Very best,
What I like about the Buddhist philosophy is the idea that unhappiness and misery are a result of unfulfilled desires. So in order to attain peace and happiness it is important to stop desiring these things and they will not cause unhappiness. Unlike christianity, that fights temptation of things that lead away from spirituality, buddhism tries to make these temptations irrelevant by seeking spirituality first. Thus morality is a natural result of spirituality and not the other way around.
If you fight temptation, like christians do, these temptations become your unavoidable enemy. But if you make them irrelevant, they are not an obstacle to spiritual growth. In order to make them irrelevant you must sidestepped them and go straight for spiritual enedevours like meditation and service to others. The happiness these endevours bring balances and fullfils the soul. Very peacefull.[:D]
Nick,
I know what you mean about attachment to any formal religion, I too cannot bring myself to "attach." I have never been much into formal ritual either, but SO many people are. I know I have rituals that I go through every day, but I guess I prefer to do them in private...I prefer to remain an "independent practitioner"!![:)]
Travelin':
Wouldn't it be nice if WE COULD ALL understand this? Then we would all benenfit from the "service to others--by others" and at the same time we would all be "serving our spiritual path."
Good stuff...and good thoughts to leave this thread with! Thanks!
Peace,
Beth
The one thing I have always thought of is that, Siddartha never said he was a "supernatural being". His humanity is all the more real to those who follow Zen.
There is, I feel, a truth in the post that said zen where he practiced was becoming ritualized. I'm sure they'd give out belts like in Karate if they could. (In some places.)
My preferance, however, for theoretical concepts will always be the QBL. The old Rabbis gave deep vision to the inner work that has never been matched, in my opinion. For practice I will always prefer Zen, especially as delineated in the Surangama Sutra concepts.
When I re-Read "Siddartha" by Herman Hesse, and see how skillfully he weaves the concepts of the sound current into the "stream" he depicts Siddartha as sitting down beside at the end.
That same stream, whether called Shabd Brahm, or "Vav" in Hebraic, is the eternal within us all. It just IS.
Our zen group, by the way, isn't ritualized so you are always welcome to visit, ha ha. I'm building my own retreat hut these days, so you are welcome to do your sitting there and help build the "stream" into mine and Siddartha's home.
Watch the movie: "Little Buddha". It is pretty good about giving an overall quick view at budhism.
Great movie travelinbob, I have it on dvd and have watched it a number of times. Another good one, along these lines is Kundun. Here is a review:
"Kundun is a rare movie that offers a clear and non-sentimental look at one of the oppressed people in this world. It begins with the search for the 14th Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibet, culminating when a young boy is able to identify the objects that belonged to the 13th Dalai Lama. That boy, Kundun, the re-incarnated Buddha of Compassion, is taken to a monastery in Lhasa and is instructed in the ways of the Buddhist religion.
As he grows older, Communist China, probably in an attempt to handle its burgeoning population, invades Tibet and eventually forces the Dalai Lama to flee to India. The movie really picks up when the Chinese invade, but ends rather abruptly when the Dalai Lama reaches India. But this is where his real quest, to win the liberation of Tibet, really begins.
This isn't a movie for everyone, but it is one that basically sticks to the facts and doesn't really resort to emotional appeal. Even the scenes where we see glimpses of the Chinese putting a gun into the hands of children and making them kill their own parents is handled abruptly and briefly. However, it does have an intellectual appeal, and it is a great history lesson, particularly if you're familiar with what happened with the Dalai Lama after his exile. The music and the cinematography are the icing on the cake as far as this movie is concerned. I highly recommend it."
Very best,
Another great movie relating to buhddism is called "Circle of Iron". It was written by Bruce Lee before he died. Its with David CArradine playing multiple characters, and some guy named Cooper as the Seeker. A bit martial artsy but not overly violent. Many great lines and very thought provoking.
I've seen it many times. Hard to find because it is from the mid 70s.
I Highly recomended.
What is the Buddhist theory of creation? I understand their idea of reincarnation, but haven't run across anything discussing how it all began. Does anyone have anything on that?
As I have mentioned on other posts, the main problem with Westerners assessing Buddha hood is probably their lack of experience in it.
For example, they (and some easterners) refer to Siddartha as though his name was Buddha. I wasn't and isn't. Buddha relates more to a specific state of Being. Siddartha achieved it and then all he said was I did it, and so can you. He didn't found a religion. People after him did. He didn't say he was an exception...he said he was an example.
Reincarnation is not a theory. However, until you can experience it for your own self, it does remain, for you, just an idea. One of the great lessons one values after becoming conscious of having lived before is that the DhammaPada is correct. Also that what you do sets in place a cause...and sooner or later you will be effect of your cause. All energy in this universe returns to it's source.
Siddartha did address creation, but it is only "legible" to those who have a certain degree of Buddha consciousness realized. Then they see in his writing where he refers to the principles by which it occurred. If you practice Zen awhile, then read the western Christian writings of Evagrius Ponticus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen...and the writings of the Eastern Church called the Phylokalia, you'll see they were speaking the same language. It shows that at one point the west had a chance to study...and didn't. It's a shame really.
"Siddhartha Guatama had become Buddha or "he who is enlightened"
I think this is an example of what Radha was talking about. This statement is not a quote, as one would assume it to be. Thats the first mistake. Secondly, HAD BECOME, can apply to a state of being or mind, not a transformation of the physical self,soul,thought patterns,ect.
I personally find everything in Buddhism to make perfect sense, except for the mythical(YES I SAID "MYTH")story about Siddharthas birth. For example, his mother was said to have had a nearby tree lower its branch to support her birth. Also, Siddhartha" he who has acheived his goals", was said to be able to walk and talk, which we all know is extremely farfetched. Notice I say Myth, meaning poossibly true, and farfetched, meaning POSSIBLE. I try to have respect for most religions because sometimes calling particular parts of a religion BS is offensive.
As I said in my post about Islam, I mean no offense to anyone, and all statements are what I understand to be true.
I am trying to sort out some MAJOR beleif issues at this point in my life, so cut me some slack if I get under your skin by mistake. Im trying to have respect for all religions, because i am trying currently to TRULY determine which one I beleive the most, if any.
Yeah, I agree with you. I'm trying now to get a guy who teaches sanskrit to start teaching me Pali. Then I can read the earliest writings and maybe escape some more of the myths. When I read some of the early writing as translated by people with several years training in Vipassana I can see so much more clearly what Siddartha was saying. I guess that's what I was referring to in the earlier post when I said I disliked the "religion" aspect built around Siddartha's ideas.
Radha
It seems to me that most religions lose a lot of their spirit when they become "institutions". Especially when government and politics become so involved. There is always that beauty and spiritual depth for those that care to dig.
Siddhartha is one of my favorite books by the way. All is Atman...
I'm still curious as to whether Buddhism has a theory of creation. Does anyone on this forum know? If no reply (I first asked about this in September!) I'll try and find out somewhere and post it here. I occasionally attend a Tibetan Buddhist service in Texas, but I keep forgetting to ask when I'm there. I guess I just hate to admit my ignorance![:)]
A question about Buddhism (which I know next to nothing about!):
Is it the case that there is no 'god' figure in buddhism, like that of the judeo-christian and islamic tradition?
I read that 'buddha' is a state of enlightenment which Siddhartha Guatama discovered and tought for everyone.
So what has happened to him? Its just that I noticed that in Buddhist temples I have seen people praying to statues of Buddha, is he meant to be aware of them in some way and can answer their prayers? I have read that he is in 'Nirvana' a state of 'bliss and nothingness' in which case he isnt going to be in a fit state to hear anyone!
If someone can 'enlighten' me (pardon the pun) on this one i would appreciate it, oh yeah, the creation theory as well please (if there is one).
Also are there other spirits or 'gods' that one can pray to? Its just that some of my chinese friends seem to refer to 'the gods' or the spirits etc which confuses me as they are buddhists!
Thanks,
Douglas
...
When you try to look at what Buddha had said, he never say anything about the existence of God or the theory of creation.
Objectivity was what Buddha seek. Buddha even mentioned to his followers not to worship him.He insisted not to accept his teaching because you respect him. You have to verified by yourself by your self-observation of your own mind and manifestation around you.
It is important to differentiate what Buddha himself had said and what other people had said after Buddha had passed away.
Thanks Shinobi & bomohwkl.
I like the idea that he left things like creation and nature/existence of god unsaid, as it leaves the whole area up for debate and personal exploration rather than putting some theory/story down in written dogmatic form as some kind of 'truth'.
Thanks for describing all the realms, so this is why my chinese friends refer to 'the gods', this confused me in the past. I actually dont have a problem with the notion of 'gods' as such, it is just a word, but the monotheistic traditions get really hung up on this word, stating adamantly that there is only one 'true' god all others are false. Angels are not 'gods' etc
Personally I would apply the term 'god' to any being vastly greater in power than myself. I woudnt worship them as such...respect them yes.
I think the issue is that the monotheistic traditions are convinced that the creator of the universe wants us to recognise and worship him and no other, which is a view that I dont actually accept. I think this view is based on the traditional all-too-human power heirarchy system which was common-place at the time these religions were formulated, where you have the king who demands all his subjects are loyal to himself and no others and he is responsible for their wellfare. This power structure has been a common set-up of human societies and I think this concept has been applied to the divine realm as well.
I already subscribe to the idea that many gods or powerful spirits exist in the world and beyond it so I dont have a problem with the buddhic system you describe.
Maybe im wrong but Im sure I have seen Buddha statues in temples being prayed to directly by people.
Does this mean that at least some buddhists revere Buddha directly?
Regards,
Douglas
...
My thanks as well to Shinobi & bomohwkl. Also, Shinobi, thanks for reminding me that "Dharma Center" was the name I was trying to remember -- there is a Dharma Center for the Vajrayana tradition reasonably close to me. Over time I hope to become better informed as to their beliefs.
hi, i am also0 interestet in buddhism and enjoyed reading the questions and answers. i have read almost nothing about buddhism as a religion but i know things about vipassanameditation from courses and some books. so buddhism is not buddhism to me. the one thing i know is this meditationtechnique of vipassana. (www.dhamma.org)
i once talked with someone who had experience in zen and we just laughed as kids understanding each other perfectly well. so my question is, how can two so very different meditationtechniques come from the same scripts? vipassana is observation of the minds influence on the body and vice versa, and zen is, i guess, so much more mental, at least more not physical. why is this? does anyone know of a good site about zenmeditation?
/jonas
...
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
In regards to ego does using the letter "I" in speech or wordsa automatically mean that it is the ego talking?
Samsara
...
Yes ,Shinobi ,I agree!!![:)]
When you practise being mindful in your every day life you become aware that the *I* is not a solid reality just an illusion, but when communicating with another person we say *I* as that is the duality of samsara!! That is why we are here!! The ego is made up of the the 5 skhandas or aggregates which is the sensory organs consciousness, always grasping at the world and conceptualising , which is to wrap a thought and label onto something therefore now making it *exist* . It is working with this that we can start to become aware of how the mind works and tricks us into thinking we are a seperate identity. Through meditation and Buddhist practices we can slowly peel back the layers to reveal our inherent Buddha nature, I think once you start there can be no going back . You start off chasing mindfulness and then it ends up on your tail not letting up. So be mindful in every thing you do[;)]
Metta Blue pearl
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
hello!
one insight ive heard of is when the understanding comes of -observation observes, simply. no I recieving the observation.
/jonas
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! [|)]
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.
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![:)]
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
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...
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
Quote from: Gandalf
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.
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.
Quote from: Gandalfkalratri_
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. :lol: 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... :lol:
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.
Quote
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.
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.
Quote from: GandalfNo 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.
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.
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?
>>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]
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.
>>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.
Revering the Buddha.
Quote from: PotentialI 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.
Quote from: blue pearlgreat 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.
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.
QuoteA 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.
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