Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
But I will inform you that other streams of buddhism use their own canon of sutras. Some of them can be corresponded to the pali canon sutras.
Some do and some don't. I go by only the pali suttas as they are the oldest source of Dhamma available yeah? I have some resistance to things that came later including commentaries and sub-commentaries as some of them are not tallying with the pali suttas and are obvious mis-interpretations of the Dhamma. Eg: Buddhagosa
Additionally it is believed (by mahayana teachers) that the mahayana sutras stem from buddhas teaching also. For example the lotus sutra it is said about it that buddha did not believe in his lifetime was the right time to release his teachings. So he entrusted them to the naga realm until such time as the world was ripe for the lotus sutra. Now of course I do not know if 'naga realm' is literal or if there is some symbolic meaning.
So you are saying that the Buddha preached these other Dhamma lessons to the so and so realm and also told them to come forward with that Dhamma when the time is right and ... oh well, whatever. What reason have I got to believe this to be true and what difference would it make if I did. All that we need is there in the pali suttas we have as of now
Also I will point out that the pali canon itself was written after buddhas death on the assumption that ananda could remember everything buddha said exactly word for word. Which would be equally remarkable to a naga realm!
Ananda didn't write the pali suttas and certainly didn't remember all those Dhamma lessons alone. After the Buddha's passing away, Ananda and the other enlightened monks (said to be about 500) got together and collected the Dhamma into sections and they were verbally transmitted over time until later they were put into books. They are the oldest source of Dhamma teachings we have today.
Point here is, from the limited experience I have so far on the pali suttas, they seem to have all the lessons of the Buddha that we need to end suffering and attain the highest fruits of Buddhism. I personally do not feel the need to go anywhere else and am weary of any Dhamma teachings by anyone which drastically contradicts the suttas. I am also weary of certain translations. There are so many misinterpretations out there today which is such a shame.
Deshy my point is that criticizing a mahayana buddhist for contradicting the pali canon would be like criticizing the pope because he contradicts the talmud. You could do it but it would be rather silly.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Deshy my point is that criticizing a mahayana buddhist for contradicting the pali canon would be like criticizing the pope because he contradicts the talmud. You could do it but it would be rather silly.
No I don't think that's a good analogy.
A Mahayana Buddhist would adhere to much of what the Pali canon contains, (4 NT, 8Fold Path, precepts, some sutras) but there is further additional teaching added by traditions and different schools, which are based on individual social customs, practices and ethics.
There is very little that unites the Pope and the Talmud, whereas Pali texts would mean a great deal in one way or another, to Mahayana origins.....
A Mahayana Buddhist would adhere to much of what the Pali canon contains, (4 NT, 8Fold Path, precepts, some sutras) but there is further additional teaching added by traditions and different schools, which are based on individual social customs, practices and ethics.
A Mahayana buddhist would study mahayana sutras so they wouldn't be aware of the Pali Canon. For example the 4 NT and 8 Fold and precepts are not presented identically. The Pali texts mean very little to the mahayana. The talmud is Jesus culture by the way.
For example my teacher is teaching based on the mahayana lineage. From this understanding my teacher does not teach the 8 Fold path to her students. The reason, as she explains, is that until someone "has a realization which shakes the foundation of the samsaric view (my words)" they have not entered the 8 Fold path and they just have a facsimile ie 'do the right thing' which can be helpful but is not the 8 Fold.
I guess it would be more analogous to criticizing a Therevadin monks view because it contradicts the Shrimaladevi sutra, perhaps?
Deshy my point is that criticizing a mahayana buddhist for contradicting the pali canon would be like criticizing the pope because he contradicts the talmud. You could do it but it would be rather silly.
Did I criticize Mahayana?
I am just skeptical in believing the teachings out there (may it be Mahayana or otherwise) because there are so many misinterpretations and later additions. It is very easy to get misled.
Having been misled once, I always cross reference the things I read with the pali suttas, which is the oldest available Dhamma resource we have. I suggest you do the same. That is not to say the pali sutta translations are perfectly foolproof either. There are some doggy translations out there too.
Not only Dalai Lama but any religious teacher of Buddhism should take care when they talk because there are so many many instances that I have found them recklessly misinterpreting the original Buddha's teachings and preaching things the Buddha himself never said anywhere in the pali suttas.
Well you did urge the da lai lama not to preach things the buddha never said in the pali canon. And even if the da lai lama WERE preaching something in the pali canon such as the 4NT he would quite possibly present it in a way which might be unfamiliar to you because the da lai lama due to the influence of the mahamudra or dzogchen view. Perhaps.
My teacher says to test a teaching by whether it brings liberation to me. Which of course in the midst of confusion is quite difficult. But without discernment she says we wouldn't be able to study the dharma at all. Discernment is a quality we have automatically to some degree at least.
Its not about oldest translation. If I have a 4000 year old cookbook and I don't like the way the food tastes, then what good is it?
The da lai lama has no more reason to cater his speaches to the understanding of the pali canon than he does to cater to the soto zen or nichiren traditions.
Its not about oldest translation. If I have a 4000 year old cookbook and I don't like the way the food tastes, then what good is it?
What aspect in the pali suttas cannot you digest or not taste well?
It is not about "the oldest". It is about "the oldest is the most original we have and the rest are interpretations". Would you rather believe an interpretation which does not tally with the originals over and over again?
And the Dalai lama comment is in reply to what DD said. I personally have not followed Dalai Lama teachings well enough to comment on it.
Do you trust a lineage of cooking teachers or the first cookbook in that lineage? Which can you learn the most from?
I haven't read the Pali Canon. I did participate in a Pali chatroom for awhile. I'm really not criticizing it. I am simply saying that I will not restrict what I say to be consistent with something that I have not read! I also think its surprising to expect the Da Lai Lama to only teach material from the Pali Canon. The tibetan view is that there are THREE turnings of the wheel of dharma. Not one. Perhaps all three can be found in the Pali Canon but I wouldn't know.
Do you trust a lineage of cooking teachers or the first cookbook in that lineage? Which can you learn the most from?
As long as they do not take recipes of the first cookbook, alter it and then call it the same name. That is misinterpretation.
However, Dhamma cannot be a simile for cooking. Truth is truth. There is no specific "flavor" of truth although there are flavors for bread pudding. :crazy:
Well thinking of this maybe the following would be helpful to look up on wikipedia the bodies of buddha according to the Mahayana. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trikaya There is nirmanakaya, dharmakaya, and sambhogakaya.
Now the Pali Canon might be included in some of those bodies but it is not the limit of all three.
And if you want to continue to criticize the Da Lai Lama for teaching something outside of the Pali Canon continue. I am just saying that I find it silly. I feel that I have expressed that to a sufficient degree!
Jeffrey - may I suggest that it would be well worth your while to read the Pali Canon. I am a long -term Vajrayana practitioner and for me my recent Pali Canon investigations have been an eye-opener . If you are familiar with Mahayana teachings you will see where some of them originated - even Nagarjuna. I also suggest you watch HH Dalai Lama's teachings on the 4 Noble Truths on YouTube.
As for the 'Trikaya' I can't see what relevance that has to anything previously mentioned here.
Dazzle that is a good suggestion to read the Pali Canon. Thank you for the suggestions of reading material!
I think what Deshy said is that the Da Lai Lama should not teach something outside of the Pali Canon. Fundamentally what he/she is expressing is that the Pali Canon IS buddhas teaching, but that the mahayana teachings ARE NOT buddhas teaching and should not be taught. I find that a harmful view. It is a fact that there is not one world religion. But we can still be friends. The Da Lai Lama says that his religion is kindness. Can you be kind to him and allow him to teach his spiritual tradition?
I guess that is more to the point than the kayas.
I don't mind if you say the Da Lai Lama speach is not buddha's teaching. (Or David Koresh, Tom Cruise, Pope, Eckardt Tolle)(or DD or Mat or Jeffrey or Dazzle or fivebells or federica)
I do mind if you say that he shouldn't speak or tell him WHAT he should speak
The central question is whether sex can ever be an enlightened activity. I don't really see how it could be.
Isn't sex used in certain Tantric Buddhist traditions?, I may be wrong, but, I think I read that sex was a tool used, but, only be very high level lamas or initiates.
Isn't sex used in certain Tantric Buddhist traditions?, I may be wrong, but, I think I read that sex was a tool used, but, only be very high level lamas or initiates.
David.
In some historical texts and books its mentioned but often its just symbolic language for various energies arising in the body when doing certain practices. I've never heard of it happening in a literal sense offline otherwise, except in people's fantasies maybe.
I don't know of specific practices that involve sex. Like sort of sexual ceremonies or rites. But then I don't know much :cool:! I do know that sexuality is another opportunity to observe phenomenon. A part of daily awareness practice.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited April 2010
I do know there have been some scandals involving elevated Tibetan Lamas allegedly indulging in sexual activities with female followers on the premise of practising tantric sex, or at least sexual rituals and having a fight in court about it....:(
Perhaps thats correct but some of the scandals it wasn't that they offered to have 'tantric sex' with students but rather that they offered to have regular sex. And in the case I am familiar with that teacher had not taken vows to abstain from sex. So in my view it is analogous to a college professor hitting on a student or at least comparable. Sex is always complicated.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited April 2010
No, it isn't.
It's the all the associated attachments and clinging to it, that is the complication.
I do know there have been some scandals involving elevated Tibetan Lamas allegedly indulging in sexual activities with female followers on the premise of practising tantric sex, or at least sexual rituals and having a fight in court about it....:( <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
I think its just sex rather than 'tantric' sex. It's also not quite the same as a college teacher or professor hitting on a student. It's more like a celebrity hitting on a fan, because a lot of adulation and awe can be involved on the part of female Tibetan Buddhist students with regard to their male teachers.
In some historical texts and books its mentioned but often its just symbolic language for various energies arising in the body when doing certain practices. I've never heard of it happening in a literal sense offline otherwise, except in people's fantasies maybe.
.
Thanks for the info, I've heard it's symbolic too, but, I've also heard that, in certain situations, actual sex is involved (I think it was in John Powers 'Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism', where the Dalai Lama is quoted as saying only initiates of a very high level are capable of performing it, and that there may not be any of that level around today, or something similar).
Either way, I find the Tantric Buddhist traditions really interesting (like the idea of it being capable of leading you to Nirvana in one lifetime, etc).
Depends what you mean by observing. How I'm using that word its something that you can do while having sex. It actually makes it more pleasurable because your less caught up in it. The body often feels good when you observe it. Not sure if you will find that in your own experience.
If one were actually observing they would experience what 'did' come up rather than what they had expected to from their comprehension of a book. Which of course the two could possibly be the same.
I'm speaking of something totally ordinary. Just feel your senses when you have sex. Some amount of consciousness particularly in moving not to mention if you are wondering about something. I find slowing it down can feel quite good but I suppose you could still be aware of the senses quite well whatever pace.
Ordinary experience. Daily awareness. What did daily awareness mean to you? The thought that sex is harmful to buddhist practice is just an idea. If you don't see how it is so in your own experience then it doesn't really matter does it. You have to realize your practice from your own experience.
I'm not following your argument. Can you elaborate, please?
Well...if you decide to practise celibacy and cannot put out the fire but instead burn all day and all night with lust & fantasies, which is more enlightened?
I think people engaging in sex do so because they feel more than the ordinary (unless they are prostitutes earning a living and switch off counting sheep or their bank balance).
People generally engage in sex because they are lusty & lonely.
If they can mutually mitigate these two forms of suffering with another human being in a way that does not create greater suffering, that is cool.
Well there are different ideas people have when they have sex. Some people are thinking "look at what I hunted down. I am the bestest ever"... some people are thinking "maybe this will make us love eachother more"
Personally I enjoy the pleasure and I don't consider it making love. I don't love a girl because of the sex. [I have had abundant proof in my life that sex is not proof of love. Countless examples] I love her for the mutual support. Giving and take. Because of how we are wired there is a bit of an imprint from sex but for me it is basicly a mutually pleasurable experience which we do together to feel good. It can be bodhicitta sometimes which even putting our socks on can also be.
I remember one time my girlfriend informed me that she felt that I was really finally 'making love' to her. It was ironic because that particular encounter I didn't want to have sex at all but I agreed because I didn't want to have an argument or break up because I had rejected her. That was bad communication of course but I point it out because what was inside my head and how I was perceived as 'making love' were quite different.
I think people engaging in sex do so because they feel more than the ordinary (unless they are prostitutes earning a living and switch off counting sheep or their bank balance).
I find some ordinary experiences also quite wonderful. Meditation is ordinary to me. Holding a baby is special of course so amazing but aren't babies rather ubiquitous aka ordinary?
When I use the word ordinary I don't mean that it depresses me. Like work that I don't really want to be doing would depress me. And if you are depressed even wonderful experiences like Christmas, chocolate cake, and meditation are also depressing.
Some people are thinking "look at what I hunted down. I am the bestest ever"... some people are thinking "maybe this will make us love eachother more"
Beguilement happens.
I love her for the mutual support.
Loneliness.
..we do together to feel good.
Blow off some steam, some lust.
Craving & pleasure are merely two sides of the same coin.
It can be bodhicitta sometimes which even putting our socks on can also be.
Of course it is. Two people being compassionate towards eachother, mitigating their lust & loneliness. Be grateful.
I remember one time my girlfriend informed me that she felt that I was really finally 'making love' to her.
Of course. She wants you to show a little committment and sacrifice, in doing something for "her". She wants you to show less "self-cherishing" and more Bodhisatva activity.
I remember one time my girlfriend informed me that she felt that I was really finally 'making love' to her. It was ironic because that particular encounter I didn't want to have sex at all but I agreed because I didn't want to have an argument or break up because I had rejected her. That was bad communication of course but I point it out because what was inside my head and how I was perceived as 'making love' were quite different. <!-- / message --><!-- edit note -->
Many women view sex in a different way to men and see it as the way to getting a husband ,home and children.
Sex is an overrated obsession with some people. It's just desire with physical tension and then orgasm and release with sticky fluids. Attaching 'love' to it is often a sentimental add-on. Feelings usually change in one way or another because they are impermanent.
And incidentally if I had sacrificed too much I would have ended up very resentful. That happens too. Another thing if I had told her "oh that WAS making love look how I sacrificed to have sex with you". That would equal the start of a sequence of events (screaming? crying insults? drinking? taunting me with other 'boyfriends') which would probably end in me sleeping on the couch feeling confused guilty angry etc..:p
Well...if you decide to practise celibacy and cannot put out the fire but instead burn all day and all night with lust & fantasies, which is more enlightened?
:buck:
Come on, you know the answer to this. You burn! That's right where you want to be!
Fundamentally what he/she is expressing is that the Pali Canon IS buddhas teaching, but that the mahayana teachings ARE NOT buddhas teaching and should not be taught.
Did I even mention Mahayana in my posts? All I said was the Pali Canon IS the oldest source of Dhamma available and everything else are later additions. I am personally not interested in later additions, commentaries, sub-commentaries, interpretations etc. I find the Pali suttas more acceptable and believe it to be closest to what the Buddha must have preached. That is just my personal opinion
You burn for a time, until the capability Buddhist practice is pointing to becomes clear. Then things change. See the story of the Buddha's response to Mara's challenges at the time of his enlightenment.
Comments
The Evidence:
He left his wife to hang around with other single men.
A fondness for moonstones.
Always looking in the mirror of dhama.
I'll get my coat:p
Not yet! See not only do i do bad dharmic philosophy I also do bad jokes!:p
Some do and some don't. I go by only the pali suttas as they are the oldest source of Dhamma available yeah? I have some resistance to things that came later including commentaries and sub-commentaries as some of them are not tallying with the pali suttas and are obvious mis-interpretations of the Dhamma. Eg: Buddhagosa
So you are saying that the Buddha preached these other Dhamma lessons to the so and so realm and also told them to come forward with that Dhamma when the time is right and ... oh well, whatever. What reason have I got to believe this to be true and what difference would it make if I did. All that we need is there in the pali suttas we have as of now
Ananda didn't write the pali suttas and certainly didn't remember all those Dhamma lessons alone. After the Buddha's passing away, Ananda and the other enlightened monks (said to be about 500) got together and collected the Dhamma into sections and they were verbally transmitted over time until later they were put into books. They are the oldest source of Dhamma teachings we have today.
Point here is, from the limited experience I have so far on the pali suttas, they seem to have all the lessons of the Buddha that we need to end suffering and attain the highest fruits of Buddhism. I personally do not feel the need to go anywhere else and am weary of any Dhamma teachings by anyone which drastically contradicts the suttas. I am also weary of certain translations. There are so many misinterpretations out there today which is such a shame.
Well, I laughed to that comment of yours.
Well, at least we know Mat's English.....
I'd recognise that humour anywhere!
A Mahayana Buddhist would adhere to much of what the Pali canon contains, (4 NT, 8Fold Path, precepts, some sutras) but there is further additional teaching added by traditions and different schools, which are based on individual social customs, practices and ethics.
There is very little that unites the Pope and the Talmud, whereas Pali texts would mean a great deal in one way or another, to Mahayana origins.....
For example my teacher is teaching based on the mahayana lineage. From this understanding my teacher does not teach the 8 Fold path to her students. The reason, as she explains, is that until someone "has a realization which shakes the foundation of the samsaric view (my words)" they have not entered the 8 Fold path and they just have a facsimile ie 'do the right thing' which can be helpful but is not the 8 Fold.
I guess it would be more analogous to criticizing a Therevadin monks view because it contradicts the Shrimaladevi sutra, perhaps?
Did I criticize Mahayana?
I am just skeptical in believing the teachings out there (may it be Mahayana or otherwise) because there are so many misinterpretations and later additions. It is very easy to get misled.
Having been misled once, I always cross reference the things I read with the pali suttas, which is the oldest available Dhamma resource we have. I suggest you do the same. That is not to say the pali sutta translations are perfectly foolproof either. There are some doggy translations out there too.
My teacher says to test a teaching by whether it brings liberation to me. Which of course in the midst of confusion is quite difficult. But without discernment she says we wouldn't be able to study the dharma at all. Discernment is a quality we have automatically to some degree at least.
Its not about oldest translation. If I have a 4000 year old cookbook and I don't like the way the food tastes, then what good is it?
The da lai lama has no more reason to cater his speaches to the understanding of the pali canon than he does to cater to the soto zen or nichiren traditions.
What aspect in the pali suttas cannot you digest or not taste well?
It is not about "the oldest". It is about "the oldest is the most original we have and the rest are interpretations". Would you rather believe an interpretation which does not tally with the originals over and over again?
And the Dalai lama comment is in reply to what DD said. I personally have not followed Dalai Lama teachings well enough to comment on it.
I haven't read the Pali Canon. I did participate in a Pali chatroom for awhile. I'm really not criticizing it. I am simply saying that I will not restrict what I say to be consistent with something that I have not read! I also think its surprising to expect the Da Lai Lama to only teach material from the Pali Canon. The tibetan view is that there are THREE turnings of the wheel of dharma. Not one. Perhaps all three can be found in the Pali Canon but I wouldn't know.
As long as they do not take recipes of the first cookbook, alter it and then call it the same name. That is misinterpretation.
However, Dhamma cannot be a simile for cooking. Truth is truth. There is no specific "flavor" of truth although there are flavors for bread pudding. :crazy:
Anyway I'm off to bed.
Now the Pali Canon might be included in some of those bodies but it is not the limit of all three.
And if you want to continue to criticize the Da Lai Lama for teaching something outside of the Pali Canon continue. I am just saying that I find it silly. I feel that I have expressed that to a sufficient degree!
As for the 'Trikaya' I can't see what relevance that has to anything previously mentioned here.
.
.
I think what Deshy said is that the Da Lai Lama should not teach something outside of the Pali Canon. Fundamentally what he/she is expressing is that the Pali Canon IS buddhas teaching, but that the mahayana teachings ARE NOT buddhas teaching and should not be taught. I find that a harmful view. It is a fact that there is not one world religion. But we can still be friends. The Da Lai Lama says that his religion is kindness. Can you be kind to him and allow him to teach his spiritual tradition?
I guess that is more to the point than the kayas.
I don't mind if you say the Da Lai Lama speach is not buddha's teaching. (Or David Koresh, Tom Cruise, Pope, Eckardt Tolle)(or DD or Mat or Jeffrey or Dazzle or fivebells or federica)
I do mind if you say that he shouldn't speak or tell him WHAT he should speak
peace and
.
Isn't sex used in certain Tantric Buddhist traditions?, I may be wrong, but, I think I read that sex was a tool used, but, only be very high level lamas or initiates.
David.
In some historical texts and books its mentioned but often its just symbolic language for various energies arising in the body when doing certain practices. I've never heard of it happening in a literal sense offline otherwise, except in people's fantasies maybe.
.
It's the all the associated attachments and clinging to it, that is the complication.
I think its just sex rather than 'tantric' sex. It's also not quite the same as a college teacher or professor hitting on a student. It's more like a celebrity hitting on a fan, because a lot of adulation and awe can be involved on the part of female Tibetan Buddhist students with regard to their male teachers.
.
Thanks for the info, I've heard it's symbolic too, but, I've also heard that, in certain situations, actual sex is involved (I think it was in John Powers 'Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism', where the Dalai Lama is quoted as saying only initiates of a very high level are capable of performing it, and that there may not be any of that level around today, or something similar).
Either way, I find the Tantric Buddhist traditions really interesting (like the idea of it being capable of leading you to Nirvana in one lifetime, etc).
David.
If one were actually observing they would experience what 'did' come up rather than what they had expected to from their comprehension of a book. Which of course the two could possibly be the same.
For most, it feels good to them, whether they observe it or not.
Ordinary experience. Daily awareness. What did daily awareness mean to you? The thought that sex is harmful to buddhist practice is just an idea. If you don't see how it is so in your own experience then it doesn't really matter does it. You have to realize your practice from your own experience.
:buck:
People generally engage in sex because they are lusty & lonely.
If they can mutually mitigate these two forms of suffering with another human being in a way that does not create greater suffering, that is cool.
Personally I enjoy the pleasure and I don't consider it making love. I don't love a girl because of the sex. [I have had abundant proof in my life that sex is not proof of love. Countless examples] I love her for the mutual support. Giving and take. Because of how we are wired there is a bit of an imprint from sex but for me it is basicly a mutually pleasurable experience which we do together to feel good. It can be bodhicitta sometimes which even putting our socks on can also be.
I remember one time my girlfriend informed me that she felt that I was really finally 'making love' to her. It was ironic because that particular encounter I didn't want to have sex at all but I agreed because I didn't want to have an argument or break up because I had rejected her. That was bad communication of course but I point it out because what was inside my head and how I was perceived as 'making love' were quite different.
When I use the word ordinary I don't mean that it depresses me. Like work that I don't really want to be doing would depress me. And if you are depressed even wonderful experiences like Christmas, chocolate cake, and meditation are also depressing.
Loneliness.
Blow off some steam, some lust.
Craving & pleasure are merely two sides of the same coin.
Of course it is. Two people being compassionate towards eachother, mitigating their lust & loneliness. Be grateful.
Of course. She wants you to show a little committment and sacrifice, in doing something for "her". She wants you to show less "self-cherishing" and more Bodhisatva activity.
:smilec:
Many women view sex in a different way to men and see it as the way to getting a husband ,home and children.
Sex is an overrated obsession with some people. It's just desire with physical tension and then orgasm and release with sticky fluids. Attaching 'love' to it is often a sentimental add-on. Feelings usually change in one way or another because they are impermanent.
.
Come on, you know the answer to this. You burn! That's right where you want to be!
Did I even mention Mahayana in my posts? All I said was the Pali Canon IS the oldest source of Dhamma available and everything else are later additions. I am personally not interested in later additions, commentaries, sub-commentaries, interpretations etc. I find the Pali suttas more acceptable and believe it to be closest to what the Buddha must have preached. That is just my personal opinion
You mean everyone who is celibate burns? lol
:rolleyes:
Floaty, empty, butterfly-in-the-tummy feeling....
prefer a water bed by comparison.....
Wonder if the' Mile High Club' could be something similar to copulating in voidness if a hatch was opened in the floor ? :buck:
.
I was just being naughty.
:vimp: