|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
alwayson
Canada
288 Posts |
 Posted - Jan 06 2009 : 1:46:53 PM
|
| I am also well versed in many other philosphical systems of India, including Advaita Vedanta (real Advaita Vedanta dating from Adi Shankara). |
 |
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Jan 06 2009 : 1:58:39 PM
|
But we aren't in a competition for who is the most well-versed in anything.
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Jan 06 2009 : 2:52:04 PM
|
Is anyone able to tell me about where (or whether) Buddha actually said pranayama, mantras etc were irrelevant? I don't know if no-one can refer me to such a thing, or if my question just got overlooked in the flurry of posts....
|
|
|
|
alwayson
Canada
288 Posts |
Posted - Jan 06 2009 : 3:46:57 PM
|
He never said it
Pranayama etc. is extremely important to the highest practices of Vajrayana Buddism. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Jan 06 2009 : 4:32:27 PM
|
Thankyou alwayson.
Somehow I kinda thought and hoped he hadn't said such a thing....
|
|
|
|
Neptune
99 Posts |
Posted - Jan 06 2009 : 6:17:46 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
Is anyone able to tell me about where (or whether) Buddha actually said pranayama, mantras etc were irrelevant? I don't know if no-one can refer me to such a thing, or if my question just got overlooked in the flurry of posts....
Hi David,
I'm gonna really stick my neck out. So here is my take on this:
What the Buddha said during his life time was memorized as an oral tradition, passed down by monks, from one monk to another, for hundreds of years, (kind of like whatever Jesus said was as well) and ultimately all the anecdotal information was codified and written out,so that we have the Pali canon, etc. So the absence of any advice on mantras and so on is because that was being ignored and totally superceded by the Buddhist teachings.
I understand that Buddha repudiated the tradition of yoga as it existed at the time he lived, because there was corruption by the priest class in that people had to pay for mantras and pujas to be performed for them and these practices were kept secret.
My point in bringing this up initially, is that the yogic practices are so extremely helpful to us, that it doesn't make sense to not utilize everything at our disposal. Furthermore, the fact that Buddha practiced and got purified within the yogic tradition, says to me that if you were to follow the Buddha's example you would duplicate as closely as possible what he did to get where he got to. I have found there is a lag time or delay between practices and results, especially coming off modified fasts, so it is not surprising that the Buddha achieved enlightenment after years of yoga. I just take issue with his conclusion sbout that process.
As far as Tibetan Buddhism is concerned, that is a cultural adaptation of the Buddha's message, as it was introduced from India, and got well mixed with the Bon tradition in the process of enculturation. So what the Tibetan Buddhist practices are, with all the visualizations and tantric rigamarole, probably has little or nothing to do with what Buddha in actuality, recommended.
I admit to being no scholar nor authority. so humbly stand down to you others more knowledgable on these matters. |
|
|
|
alwayson
Canada
288 Posts |
Posted - Jan 06 2009 : 10:59:21 PM
|
Tibetan Buddism is sort of a misnomer.
A better way to look at it, is the last remaining vestige of the once flourishing and dominant Buddism of India.
It is wrong to suggest that Tibetan Buddism is not really authentic Buddism.
I see it as the ONLY surviving tradition of true Indian Buddism.
You suggest that the energy body, or "tantric" practices of Tibetan Buddism are inventions of the Tibetans.
All pranayama and kundalini type practices are part of the ORIGINAL INDIAN Buddism, and then subsequently imported into Tibet. |
|
|
|
neli
USA
283 Posts |
Posted - Jan 06 2009 : 11:54:40 PM
|
Alwayson
Very well put, you're right, the last thing is the "awakening", I would like to understand more about the "rainbow body", I'm practicing the absorption states, and I think everything is connected.
Thanks
Neli
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson
This is so wrong!
Buddhist enlightenment means freedom from extremes, because there is NO REALITY.
You are suggesting there is a reality beyond where there is freedom from extremes, such as the Hindu concept of Brahman. This is a common error.
There is NO reality. There is NO ultimate.
The "ultimate" is awakening (through rainbow body).....that is all.
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Jan 07 2009 : 1:30:57 PM
|
Neptune said:
I understand that Buddha repudiated the tradition of yoga as it existed at the time he lived, because there was corruption by the priest class in that people had to pay for mantras and pujas to be performed for them and these practices were kept secret.
According to the Pali Canon, the Buddha came down on secrecy very severely. He was extremely hostile to it. There is a clear impression from his wording that he saw secrecy as largely a defense of corruption and priestcraft as opposed to a necessary and healthy element of the spiritual traditions. But it's less clear to me that he disapproved of any yogic practices in and of themselves.
My point in bringing this up initially, is that the yogic practices are so extremely helpful to us, that it doesn't make sense to not utilize everything at our disposal. Furthermore, the fact that Buddha practiced and got purified within the yogic tradition, says to me that if you were to follow the Buddha's example you would duplicate as closely as possible what he did to get where he got to. I have found there is a lag time or delay between practices and results, especially coming off modified fasts, so it is not surprising that the Buddha achieved enlightenment after years of yoga. I just take issue with his conclusion sbout that process.
There are many questions in my mind about all of this.
Did Buddha use sophisticated yogic practices, then, because of a time-lag, conclude that they had not helped him, while they did actually help him? That certainly seems possible -- this does seem to happen -- that might have happened to U.G. Krishnamurti.
Did he actually only have access to crude yogic practices, and, with some help from the crude practices, have a largely spontaneous awakening? This also seems possible too. It was never easy in the past to find good yoga out there. So maybe he didn't teach advanced yoga because he really didn't learn it.
Did he use sophisticated yogic practices, find them valuable, then conclude that they weren't that valuable for most people, at least at that time, and that the path he offered was better for the masses? That's possible too. Some of us find yogic practices very helpful indeed but it isn't that clear to me that they are as powerful in the general population. I haven't seen any convincing statistics.
Or some combination of some of the above?
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Jan 07 2009 1:48:49 PM |
|
|
|
alwayson
Canada
288 Posts |
Posted - Jan 07 2009 : 3:08:44 PM
|
Look
Are we talking Theravada or Mahayana?
If we are talking Mahayana, yoga is essential for enlightenment. Buddism has the same postures, breathing, kundalini etc.
The reasons why Hindus do not obtain Buddhahood is because they have not heard of dependent origination. THE DIFFERENCE IS IN THE VIEW.
The view to obtain Buddhahood in Buddism is wholly reliant on the view of dependent origination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C...mutp%C4%81da
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamaka |
|
|
|
alwayson
Canada
288 Posts |
Posted - Jan 07 2009 : 3:20:17 PM
|
yoga is ESSENTIAL
yoga is authentic Indian Buddism
All of Tibetan Buddism is based on original sanskrit or palli works from India.
I have on my desk a 826 page academic english translation of the sanskrit Indian work "Aryadeva's Lamp" which forms a huge basis of the authentic INDIAN kundalini practices of Tibetan Buddism
I have other high quality academic works, so I know what I am talking about |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Jan 07 2009 : 5:47:53 PM
|
Hi Guys, Wow this thread really took on a life of its own. Tibetan Buddhism has Indian origins. So a Rinpoche in the Drikung Kagyu order has taken me under his wing. I've been studying their tradition in depth.
The Kagyu system is called "Mahamudra." It originates with Saraha, an Indian Tantric Buddhist and householder. The lineage follows with Tilopa, Naropa, Marpa, Milrepa and Gampopa. Marpa studied with the disciples of Naropa who is credited with the "Six Yogas of Naropa." This is a Yogic tradition with a tantric system of kundalini manipulation and specific breathing exercises similar to Kumbhaka. The meditation manuals are very refined.
Basically kundalini work supports varying levels of shyamatha and vipashyana, until all the obscurations to "the Clear Light" of pure intuitive wisdom are removed.
It can be understood as sort of the opposite of Zen. In Zen, one closes off the doors to perception in a "no mind" orientation. In Mahamudra, one concedes that all appearances are exterior and interior in a nonduality, originating within the "Dharmakaya" or Buddha-mind. Basically, the orientation in meditation is one is at ease in a non-doing non-action floating in space feeling. There's no blocking, directing or forcing the mind. The emphasis is on "rest," a "nap for your karma." Terms like that.
Saraha was among the original Tantric teachers. The Kagyu order is known as the "practice lineage." They are very serious about meditation want students to commit to week long retreats. I'll try.
Best,
TMS |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Jan 07 2009 : 6:20:46 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
The Buddha encouraged direct perception of reality. He said that if you watch everything very carefully, either with the external senses, or with the mind alone, you would see that nothing has the inherent nature of a lasting self. In other words, he said that there is nothing in the phenomenal universe that can be called a permanent self. This is the teaching of anatta, as taught by the Buddha. When the Buddha was talking about the nature of all phenomena as being inherently devoid of self, he was talking about the universe of the senses and the mind. The Buddha said that beyond the mind lies the unconditioned, the unborn, the undying, the uncreated... that which is eternal.... our true nature. Our true nature is the Self of all.
Hi Christi, No. According the Tibetan Buddhism, at least, our true nature is not a Self; it is not God. An ultimate self is one extreme, and nothingness or nihilism is the other. The middle view is emptiness, a storehouse of all possibilities, the unborn uncreated deathless. At least, this is Nagarjuna's discourse on the Middle Way. Like or hate it.
Even according to the Pali Cannon, the Buddha stated any self even a Self is contained in emptiness, and is a dependent arising. Thus, no Self is ultimately real.
The Buddha taught that the gods, believing in the doctrine of the ultimate reality of a Self, are deluded, and will ultimately miss out on enlightenment even after an extremely long life.
To claim that the Buddha's notion of "emptiness" is the same as the yogic notion of "Self" is category error.
However, there is an "experience" in meditation where one gains insight into one's true nature; one gains insight into "emptiness" as observer, realizing a non-dual state of all things, the observer tag drops off, and one "experiences" an "empty awareness."
It is taught that this "empty awareness" is not a Self, because a "Self" is a mind with objects of awareness, namely, Self and other, a not-empty awareness.
In Yogic circles, "empty awareness" is called Self. It is also associated with God-nature and a sex-like bliss experience. The Buddhists describe this experience as a distraction, where one can be reborn in the God or formless realms. Clinging to Self and bliss experiences is regarded as samsara.
These musings, have brought me to the following realization. We are like a special lotus. There is a lotus flower in India that is able to maintain its temperature. It is a warm-blooded flower. It developed this skill to protect the insects that rely on it. By first having an seemingly altruistic development, the insects give back to the lotus by pollinating it and keeping it clean. A symbiotic relationship is formed.
We need to become that lotus. We must become purely altruistic in a symbiotic relationship with Earth. That will not happen until we drop "selfhood" and act like one organism, which is what we are, but we don't realize it due to obscurations that cause us to falsely believe in a separation between self and other.
Enlightenment is simply pure altruism from direct experience of non-duality.
I love you,
TMS |
Edited by - themysticseeker on Jan 07 2009 7:46:30 PM |
|
|
|
alwayson
Canada
288 Posts |
Posted - Jan 07 2009 : 7:20:07 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by themysticseeker
Tibetan Buddhism has Indian origins.
Its more than just Tibetan Buddism has Indian origins. Tibetan Buddism *IS* Indian Buddism practiced in Tibet. The four different schools are just different periods of transmission from India to Tibet.
P.S. Don't bring up Zen. Zen is BADLY understood even by the "highest" Zen practitioners. |
Edited by - alwayson on Jan 07 2009 7:58:04 PM |
|
|
|
alwayson
Canada
288 Posts |
Posted - Jan 07 2009 : 10:19:02 PM
|
By the way,
Buddism is not a non-dual system. Yes Buddist lamas and authors will use that term, but it means something else in Buddism.
Dependent origination is between dual and non-dual, free from both extremes.
It is a very unique understanding, which I find to be the most intellectually satisfying of any Indian philosophical system I have encountered.
Eventually I hope that intellectual understanding will yield way to personal experience. |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Jan 07 2009 : 10:29:01 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson
quote:
Originally posted by themysticseeker
Tibetan Buddhism has Indian origins.
Its more than just Tibetan Buddism has Indian origins. Tibetan Buddism *IS* Indian Buddism practiced in Tibet. The four different schools are just different periods of transmission from India to Tibet.
P.S. Don't bring up Zen. Zen is BADLY understood even by the "highest" Zen practitioners.
Bringing up Zen: Zen has a very nice organization 1) Koans, 2) Meditation, 3) Bodhi. I like the simplicity of it.
Funny how Zen is misunderstood by Zen masters, but not by you, Alwayson.
From the Tibetan/Indian Buddhist standpoint, Zen is missing a big part of the picture, because they hold that you have to reach awakening without compassion, because compassion is thinking. The Zen view is that one must stop thinking. This is not the western view, where compassion is required.
They also talk a lot about "One Mind" which isn't really a mind, and the Self, which isn't a Self. These contradictions are what make Zen perplexing. Zen understands that these terms refer to the Dharmakaya.
The Tantric Buddhist view is that ultimately everything is the Dharmakaya, which is emptiness.
There's a beautiful Mahamudra short text called "Clarifying the Natural State."
Love,
TMS |
Edited by - themysticseeker on Jan 07 2009 10:56:55 PM |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Jan 07 2009 : 10:32:28 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
Is anyone able to tell me about where (or whether) Buddha actually said pranayama, mantras etc were irrelevant? I don't know if no-one can refer me to such a thing, or if my question just got overlooked in the flurry of posts....
See the Buddha's teachings on "The Four Foundations of Mindfulness." There are many books about it. Look for the original teaching. The Buddha instructs about breathing, long breath, short breath, and how to support that work with observing body, feelings, thoughts, etc. He doesn't teach mantra. He teaches breath observance. Which is easily transformed into mantra practices, because the breath makes sounds, like "shoo" "sah" "ha," etc.
Love,
TMS |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Jan 07 2009 : 10:33:26 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson
Tibetan Buddism is sort of a misnomer.
A better way to look at it, is the last remaining vestige of the once flourishing and dominant Buddism of India.
It is wrong to suggest that Tibetan Buddism is not really authentic Buddism.
I see it as the ONLY surviving tradition of true Indian Buddism.
You suggest that the energy body, or "tantric" practices of Tibetan Buddism are inventions of the Tibetans.
All pranayama and kundalini type practices are part of the ORIGINAL INDIAN Buddism, and then subsequently imported into Tibet.
Theravada Buddhism is Indian Buddhism; it survives in Sri Lanka. There are many Buddhists still alive in India. Though, they are probably all Tibetan. |
Edited by - themysticseeker on Jan 07 2009 10:57:14 PM |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Jan 08 2009 : 2:37:17 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson
I don't consider Theravada authentic buddism
How do you support that? |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Jan 08 2009 : 2:49:46 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson
By the way,
Buddism is not a non-dual system. Yes Buddist lamas and authors will use that term, but it means something else in Buddism.
Dependent origination is between dual and non-dual, free from both extremes.
It is a very unique understanding, which I find to be the most intellectually satisfying of any Indian philosophical system I have encountered.
Eventually I hope that intellectual understanding will yield way to personal experience.
Yes. But in the initial stages an aspirant is told to look at things as non-dual, and to meditate on emptiness (which is not the real emptiness or nonduality) as a simulation of the direct experience. Metaphors are used "space-like" "sky-like" etc.
The experience is non-conceptual and therefore is neither dual nor non-dual.
Alwayson, You mention that this is very intellectually satisfying. I was in the mind-only rut for a long time. The reasoning and logic about emptiness is very koan like, neither dual nor non-dual.
This may be a good time to begin moving beyond concepts and practicing meditation, using "neither dual nor non-dual, a nonconcept" as the object of your inquiry. As concepts come to mind in meditation, say "not that," and let it pass. When a feeling arises say, "not that" and so on until the little flashes begin. This is called, "resting in tranquility and insight without judgment." That helped me anyway.
I sense your urgency. I felt this way for a while, tense, reaching, unsure, judging. Relax... Be at ease. Enter the stream and let it flow...
Love,
TMS |
|
|
|
alwayson
Canada
288 Posts |
Posted - Jan 08 2009 : 2:52:42 PM
|
There are many people who do not think theravada is authentic.
In fact it breaks certain vajrayana vows to stay in a theravadin's house for more than a week.
Don't get me started on this issue, we only have limited server space |
Edited by - alwayson on Jan 08 2009 3:06:10 PM |
|
|
|
alwayson
Canada
288 Posts |
Posted - Jan 08 2009 : 3:00:51 PM
|
TMS,
I have already experienced non-dual awareness, or whatever you want to call it.
I understand the illusionary nature of the thoughtstream and the Silence behind.
You may think you have had experience with emptiness, but unless you have seen the third vision of thogal, you have not experienced emptiness profoundly.
You have much to learn.... |
Edited by - alwayson on Jan 08 2009 3:45:46 PM |
|
|
|
Neptune
99 Posts |
Posted - Jan 08 2009 : 3:24:20 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson
I don't consider Theravada authentic buddism
Go ahead and try to explain yourself. You're the one who made the comment. You are trying to communicate something?
Not to diminish my considerable interest in your reply regarding "Theraveda buddism" (often spelled Buddhism in my experience),...
I refer to a great book, from my bookshelf, entitled "Entering the Stream--An Intro To The Buddha And His Teachings."
It discusses in detail the life of Buddha, the spread of Buddhism, the various schools that followed after the historical Buddha passed away from bad pork, and so on.
On page 46-47:
In the early centuries after the Buddha's death, the Buddha Dharma spread throughout India and became a main force in the life of its peoples. It's strength lay in its realized (arhat) teachers and large monasteries that sheltered highly developed spiritual and intellectual communities. As the Dharma spread to different parts of India, differences emerged, particularly regarding the Vinaya, or rules of conduct...Among the principal schools was a conservative faction, the Sthaviravada (way of the elders), which held firmly to the old monastic ideal with the arhat at its center and to the original teaching of the Buddha as expressed in the Tripitaka."
"In all, eighteen schools with varying shades of opinion on points of doctrine or discipline developed by the end of the third century BCE.
"According to the Sthviravadin tradition (known in Pali as the Theravada), which continues today in Southeast Asia, a Third Council took place in the time of King Ashoka at which the king declared the Sthaviravadin teachings the standard from which all other schools deviated."
"Under King Ashoka, institutions of compassion and nonviolence were established throughout much of India, such as peaceful relations with all neighboring states, hospitals and special officials to oversee the welfare of local populations, etc. Thus he remains today the paragon of a Buddhist ruler, and his reign is looked back upon by Buddhists as a golden age."
After the Fourth Council, in the second century of the common era, the "way of the bodhisattva, or the Mahayana (Great Vehicle), appeared."
Sometime around the eighth century common era, "yet another form, known as Mantrayana, Vajrayana, or Tantra, become prominent" in India.
"Like the Mahayana, the Vajrayana (Diamond Vehicle) was based on a class of scriptures ultimately attributed to the Buddha, in this case known as Tantras." (Where were they in the many centuries between when Buddha died and they were "discovered" I'd like to know.)
So Theraveda was the original Buddhism of the Buddha. Mahayana and then later, Vajrayana appeared. Buddhism evolved over many centuries.
I personally have the greatest respect for what the historical Buddha recommended and maybe I'm a purist, but that's what I have always known as Buddhism. Theraveda! |
Edited by - Neptune on Jan 08 2009 6:34:44 PM |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Jan 08 2009 : 6:51:54 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson
TMS,
I have already experienced non-dual awareness, or whatever you want to call it.
I understand the illusionary nature of the thoughtstream and the Silence behind.
You may think you have had experience with emptiness, but unless you have seen the third vision of thogal, you have not experienced emptiness profoundly.
You have much to learn....
Hi Alwayson, I think this is the second time you told me I have much to learn. I never claimed to be beyond learning. From your writing, I sense a voice not exactly brimming over with compassion. All your knowledge comes across as mere book learning, dry and harsh. You don't practice love. I merely reached out to you, because I was in the same rut. Let yourself feel. Open up. Don't judge. Not all systems have a third vision of thogal. There are other systems that lead to the same vision. Non-dual awareness or whatever you want to call it is intuitive wisdom; it's compassionate like a grandmother. You have a lot of knowledge and a lot to offer, but you judge; it closes the opportunities for sharing.
Don't be like someone who has a huge horde of treasure and points out that other's trinkets are worthless. In Mahayana terms, that would make you a solitary realizer. If you want to follow the mahayana path, you must cultivate a compassionate passion for teaching dharma. Practice it. Be soft.
Love,
TMS |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Jan 08 2009 : 7:08:51 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson
There are many people who do not think theravada is authentic.
In fact it breaks certain vajrayana vows to stay in a theravadin's house for more than a week.
Don't get me started on this issue, we only have limited server space
You are using the common fallacy known as "bandwagon." "Other people believe it so it is true." You have much to learn... about argument and support. In the case of mystical practice, you may have much to unlearn.
Do you have historical support for this assertion? In fact, Neptune is right, the split between Theravada and Mahayana happened in India. Both are authentically Indian. Even if they were not, would that matter? Would that impact the effectiveness of the techniques? You espouse much about Dzogchen. Dzogchen is the overlap of Mahayana with Bon. There is very little Indian tradition in Dzogchen. It is quite Tibetan.
You are ascribing too much importance to Indian authenticity. I'm Indian, so I can tell you authoritatively that other traditions also get it right. Indians do not have a unique gift for "awakening." It doesn't take a 1000 page Sanskrit text to awaken. Open up.
But you are correct, don't get started on this topic. Please don't mind dump to prove us all wrong. There's no right or wrong. Be more at ease please.
Love,
TMS |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
The One & Only Way
