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.
Problems with Buddhism...
First of all, I will state this is not a critique of Buddhism, because I am still very interested and still trying to study bit by bit and meditate. I've just run into a few problems, as a very early beginner, and was hoping for some help. I'll run though them. I deeply appreciate any response.
1) Supernatural. It appears to me that Gautama Buddha never said anything specific about the supernatural, or if he did it was that it was irrelevant. This is why I find certain concepts hard to grasp. I find it very hard to accept reincarnation, karma and other beings like mara's are actually literal. At the same time, it just seems that one way or another, it feels like belief in such things are expected.
2) Origins of Buddhism. Buddhism quite clearly borrows aspects from nearby religions such as Hinduism, and different branches clearly mix with religions like Taoism, Confucianism and folk or tribal religions (talking Tibetan Buddhism here). That doesn't mean the teachings are not true, I know, I've found what I have learnt to be useful so far. Still, it seems as though it's just another religion invented by men by borrowing aspects of already existing religions (see Christianity for a great example of this. How many previous Gods had virgin births?). All you have to do is look at the birth of Buddha to see an example of this.
3) Tibetan Buddhism. I'm not here to criticise Tibetan Buddhists. But am I the only one who thinks Tibetan Buddhism is almost like the Mormonism of Buddhism. It also seems very patriarchal in which leaders are worshipped like Gods almost.
Anyway, sorry to criticise, I just was hoping for someone to maybe show me how my comments are wrong so I can continue.
Thanks.
1) Supernatural. It appears to me that Gautama Buddha never said anything specific about the supernatural, or if he did it was that it was irrelevant. This is why I find certain concepts hard to grasp. I find it very hard to accept reincarnation, karma and other beings like mara's are actually literal. At the same time, it just seems that one way or another, it feels like belief in such things are expected.
2) Origins of Buddhism. Buddhism quite clearly borrows aspects from nearby religions such as Hinduism, and different branches clearly mix with religions like Taoism, Confucianism and folk or tribal religions (talking Tibetan Buddhism here). That doesn't mean the teachings are not true, I know, I've found what I have learnt to be useful so far. Still, it seems as though it's just another religion invented by men by borrowing aspects of already existing religions (see Christianity for a great example of this. How many previous Gods had virgin births?). All you have to do is look at the birth of Buddha to see an example of this.
3) Tibetan Buddhism. I'm not here to criticise Tibetan Buddhists. But am I the only one who thinks Tibetan Buddhism is almost like the Mormonism of Buddhism. It also seems very patriarchal in which leaders are worshipped like Gods almost.
Anyway, sorry to criticise, I just was hoping for someone to maybe show me how my comments are wrong so I can continue.
Thanks.
0
Comments
2. Buddhism does not differ much from the Upanishads. Most people erroneously assume the Buddha rejected the eternal Self which is not the case, he merely rejected perpetualism and annihilationism, that is merit making and nihilism. If there were no eternal Self, then the truth of life would be nothingness, and thus no reason to spend countless lifetimes in search of nothing, since we would all obtain that when we died.
3. Not even the Buddha wanted to be viewed as a god since he rejected the material self (but not the eternal Self: the light of the mind). Anyone who wants to be worshiped as a god is just on an ego trip.
Why don't you just take the stuff you like, and leave the stuff you don't, but try and keep an open mind?
It most possibly was. Like many other ideas in Buddhism which aren't unique for Buddhism, and which regulates human behavior to better suit the society in which they originated.
What is still relevant though, is the Noble 8-Fold Way and what is real is the cessation of suffering..
If you read the sutras in the Pali canon (the earliest) you won't find anything about the supernatural. However, I don't understand why this would cause you difficulty with believing in rebirth or kama. Buddhists don't believe in reincarnation. That would require that there be an unchanging self. Buddha taught that everything changes and everything is impermanent.
Not all Buddhism is Tibetan. If that group doesn't appeal to you, there are others where women are equal to men and nothing is worshipped. (Although I think you've misunderstood the Tibetan ideas of their leaders.)
There isn't any reason why you need to believe that Mara is literal.
Nirvana is the cessation of the cycle of birth and death, the 'cycle of birth and death' seems to imply reincarnation. If reincarnation was just a parable, the Buddha was also speaking in parables when he said he 'recalled his former lives,' it could imply a previous moment of his life (for example when he was a prince) as a former life, but I think he actually means it in the literal sense. Even if the individual soul did not reincarnate, Nature 'reincarnates' again and again, so nature itself can be said to reincarnate. Physically, the body changes into other things, as Shakespeare and others says the king turns into the worm and is eaten by the peasant. So in a way we are all part of an endless cycle of life. As this is the case, it would make sense if we could not remember our past lives, since the physical consciousness is no more, but if memory remains in the soul, then it is a possibility. I think Buddhism is clear that the ultimate goal is to NOT wander aimlessly through samsara but rather to find an unchanging liberation from it.
nothingness as in nothing, no physical or mental processes. Absolutely nothing, which is an impossibility to experience, since that would imply the witness was also nothing, and thus there would be no experience to it. If that was the aim of Buddhism, one would not need to practice austerities or to even gain in wisdom, if nothing is the goal, everyone obtains that when they die. But, if there is some type of life after death, then a cycle is what happens after death, not nothing. If liberation from this cycle implied a non-existence, then again, there would be no need to study Buddhism, all we would have to do is wait until we die. What Buddhism is truly about is the realization of one's true nature (Buddha-nature) which is eternal and taintless.
"How is it that one is called a 'Buddha'?...gnosis that the mind (citta) is purified
(visuddham)...such is how one is deemed a 'Buddha'." [SN 5.154, DN
2.100, SN 3.42, DN 3.58, SN 5.163] "The Tathagata is without the mark
of all things, he dwells upwards within the signless inflexured (mind
upon itself) mind (citta). There within, Ananda, dwell with the
Soul as your Light, with the Soul as your refuge, with none other as
refuge."
There is a thread on nirvan and nothingness. You might want to check it out.
I'm Theravadan so you're beliefs may be coming from a different perspective.
1. Jataka stories. there are over 500 stories told by the Buddha about his previous lives. Not sure if I believe in reincarnation, but karma can also be seen as negative conditioning, like bad habits, or in a western equivalent, causality. It's not such a mystic practice as to fall into supernatural from this perspective, which I, not being able to accept reincarnation yet, find easier to accept and see in life.
2. If you're looking for the oldest religion, it wont help, the oldest known religions are Dionysian-Shivitic cults, and predate 6000BC. They split into Hinduism in the East, and Developed into the Greek mythology on the west (though only really survived in small cults, like Orphism) So no, it's not the oldest faith, but the oldest faiths are kind of ridiculous in some ways. I personally don't approach religion from it's history, but from it's philosophies and their validity. If this is an issue for you, I'm afraid no religion will satisfy you. I was an Atheist before reading works by HH the Dalai Lama, it's not about the past, it's about the worth of the religion in the present and future, to me anyway.Besides, Buddha practiced with ascetics and lived in a predominantly Hindu world, so of course it would influence his ways.
3. That's probably because of assimilation with older religions like the Bon shamans. Kind of how Christ is Dionysus but reworked to fit into a monotheistic society. By taking part of one religion, and mixing it into the ideas of a new religion, it's easier to propagate that religion as not some ridiculous fad (which is why scientology is so crazy seeming, because it completely goes off in a different direction). But the core teaching are true to Buddhist Ideals, so I don't think it's influence by others matter. Just chose the faith or way of life that suits you, Old and Original does not = right... It took me about 9 years of research to understand this.
Good luck in your studies; open your mind to all possibilities, let go of preconceptions as they are the roadblocks along your path. Namaste!
I Buddhism the term "rebirth" is used. The metaphysical idea is something about how the self will materialize in a future form - I read about it a long time ago, and I'm not really into metaphysics.
It's also used when people reach a higher state of understanding, when they escape suffering but also when bad karma bears it's fruit and one gets reborn in a lower realm - the greedy gambler might get "reborn" without any money left. A literal hell!
I'm purely interested, when did people around here decide what branch of Buddhism they followed, and did you get a "teacher" or the sorts?
Socrates,
I have plenty of problems with Buddhism myself, so I can sympathise. Most problems seem to revolve around the anatta (no-self) doctrine.
It teaches that neither within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, can be found anything that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a self-existing real ego-identity, soul or any other abiding substance (Taken from the Buddhist Dictionary of Nyanatiloka)
Anyway, as far as "belief" in anything, the Buddha is reported to have said (within the Pali Canon of Scripture) that he taught this and this alone, suffering (dukkha) and the ending of suffering. That the way to this "ending" was in practice/cultivation of the Path (rather than "belief" as such?)
Pertinent to this is sutta 63 of the Majjhima Nikaya, which can be read here......http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html
Pertinent also would be the book by Stephen Batchelor, "Buddhism Without Beliefs".
As far as where Buddhism "comes from", it is taught that the Dharma is "rediscovered" again and again, that the only difference between ourselves and a Buddha is that each historical Buddha rediscovers the "way/path", while we learn from him. Personally I see no conflict in seeing that the "rediscovery" in historical time should involve bits and pieces from various other doctrines and teachings that eddied about during his lifetime. Others may think differently. The Dharma rain falls (indiscriminately) and each responds according to their kind, as the Lotus Sutra says. A Buddha responds by gaining enlightenment for the sake of others, for us all.
Tibetan Buddhism is a bit of a closed book to me, but knowing what I do of Mormonism, personally I'm unable to see the resemblance! It does emphasise "masters" as such but after that I'm a bit in the dark........
Anyway, all the best, and steer clear of the hemlock.....
:winkc:
I don't follow any specific "type" of Buddhism - I just implement Buddhist practice in my life. I meditate and follow the 8-fold path to the best of my ability - that's the important thing.. All the odd stuff - phrases where you can see are invented purely to make the Tipitaka easier to remember due to it's prehistoric age, the myhts of people with magical abilities, the wild exaggerations and such - are irrelevant imo..
The core of Buddhism is the practice of the Way..
I take issue with two interrelated ideas supported by a few others on this thread, namely:
1. That because Buddha spoke of past lives he was thereby essentially Teaching about the necessity of believing in endless rebirths/samsara. Not necessarily. It is also possible (and to me more likely) that the reason Buddha spoke thus was that he told stories in the context of the people's cosmology. They had very hard, mostly miserable lives and believed that the harsh underpinning of reality was eternally inescapable, except for a select few.
Now, I am not objecting to any intrinsically necessary postulation of samsara here merely because I choose to. I am objecting simply because I am unable to see it as the fundament underlying reality. Perhaps this is because I spring from a Hellenic/JudeoChristian background, but also because I have studied Ancient Western Philosophy, with an emphasis on the Presocratics and Greek and Roman Religions. Username_5's post #17 of the thread running parallel to this one in the Modern Buddhism section, which I have quoted below, sums up my thoughts here:
2. That Buddhism did not borrow any values from any other religions. To suggest that ideas are not fluid, but are even able to crystallize in "unalloyably" pure forms, to coin a word, is simply not true. We all know how hard it is to remember things in detail and how suggestible our impressions are, to name but a few problems with this sort of apartheid approach.
3. And lastly, likening the relationship of Tibetan Buddhism with some nonexistent "pure Buddhism" to the contrast between Mormonism and Christianity exhibits a poor exposure to the history of Buddhism and its many manifestations —a very, very forgivable and understandable predicament in which most of us also find ourselves.
___________________________
I do like to make short, concise posts, but sometimes have to tackle a giant. That giant is the subject matter of my first two objections.
#1: If the teaching of samsara and rebirth is a sine qua non for the Buddhist, then how can the Dharma be dispersed broadly in the West?
In my day we used to laugh at the suffix "-ism" as being this dizzy blonde fixation to being a blonde, as it were. In other words, it's not real (Not to put down real blondes, of course!) No Christian I know goes around saying, "Christianity teaches this," or "Christianity made me do it." For Christians, there is only Christ and the Church, no Christianism pushing at them. No, the Christian follows Christ as each Christian finds him. In other words, KISS (Keeping It Simple, Stupid!), The Christian alive today does not have to bend all his mind and understanding after a certain mold of belief or cosmology. Of course, in medieval times, during the Inquisition, and in the early days of the Protestant Reformation there are such horror stories of either honing fine points of theology the "right" way or dying; but those days are long gone in the Christian world.
#2 Samsara: An Inherited Concept It's Borrowed, It Flowed In, 'Twas the Matrix of Thought, ETC. &c ...
Samsara is a giant, I conclude, that need not be seen as doctrinal. In the West is just extra baggage, as far as I am concerned.
See my blog posts on rebirth, kamma and Mara; maybe you'll find them helpful.
From what I understand, Hinduism is a relatively modern term (coined by the British if memory serves me right) that's used to describe a diverse collection of Indian spiritual traditions, many of which arose after the Buddha's lifetime. Much of the Mahabharata, including the Bhagavad Gita, for example, was most likely composed after the Buddha's lifetime, as was the Ramayana and the majority of the Puranas. In fact, I think it's fair to say that Buddhism actually influenced much of what we call 'Hinduism' today.
The Buddha was one of the great wandering ascetics (Pali: samana, Skt: shramana) who taught in the later Vedic Period, and whose teachings were considered heterodox because they rejected the authority of the Vedas. The most prominent 'orthodox' tradition in northern India at that time was Brahmanism, which, of course, relied heavily on the Vedas for their religious authority, and included some of the early Upanishads as well.
While many people think of the the Buddha as a reformer of Brahmanism, I think it's more correct to say that he replaced it with his own unique philosophy, often redefining many of the key philosophical terms and concepts of his contemporaries, giving them his own meaning and context. This is clearly documented with a variety of words such as brahmin, kamma, khandha, nibbana, etc.
The Buddha was also an expert at word play, especially puns (which don't always translate well into English), and many of these were in reference to passages from the Vedas and Upanishads. Much of this was apparently lost on later Buddhist commentators, but has since been rediscovered by modern scholarship and textual analysis. Nevertheless, the Buddha wasn't limited to just puns, and he added his own unique ideas to Indian thought. For example, in The Place of Buddhism in Indian Thought, Ananda Guruge writes:
I'm not very familiar with Vajrayana, so there's not much I can really say about it.
Interesting observation re: Tibetan Buddhism and Mormonism. Others have made similar observations. The polygamous Mormons take additional wives, often saying that God told them this person was to be their wife. Lamas in the "Old Tibet", upon visiting a household to do a blessing and falling in love with the householder's daughter, would say they have to take her as a wife, because she's a khandroma, a goddess who has the power to advance their practice through tantric sex. I don't know if this still happens in India and Nepal. But I think it would be interesting for someone to do a comparative study of Vajrayana and Mormonism. There may be other parallels, in the ceremonialism, maybe, in a generalized way, or some other aspects. I know secrecy is a core part of Mormonism, as it is in Vajrayana. I think there's no question that Tibetan Buddhism is patriarchal; the monastic power structure is the ultimate "Old Boys' Network".
briefly: "...monks became increasingly attracted by the structures of Indian medieval life. The [tantric] texts themselves introduce to monks the themes of power, personality, eroticism, violence in defense of the Dharma, spells, and the mythology of absolute supremacy." That's where the sort of "personality cult" that some lamas cultivate came from, the tradition of "warrior monks" in the monasteries, which continues today, the incantations and magical aspects of Vajrayana (though Bon clearly contributed to that as well), etc.
As for the Mormonism angle about the Tibetan Buddhists, OK! People can draw parallels nearly everywhere. But be careful, seeing things through narrow or colored lenses does not improve your understanding.
Can you give us the date of this book by Davidson and some "provenance" about his expertise? Is he writing about Tibetan Vajrayana or "Indian Esoteric Buddhism"?
However, what the Buddha taught, his middle way, is, as far as I'm aware, unique.
Imagine we were standing together in front of a tree and I asked you to bring me that which made the tree a tree.
You could bring me a leaf and I would say this is not tree, this is leaf. You could bring me bark and I would say this is not tree, this is bark. You could bring me a root, a branch, a seed or some sap and each time I would say it wasn't tree that you had brought me.
You could tear the tree to bits, down to atoms even, and you would simply be incapable of bringing me the essence of "tree".
The same is true of ourselves, no matter where we look within ourselves at no point will we find a core self, a soul, an atman. It isn't there to find.
I agree. I've struggled with these beliefs (karma, rebirth etc) myself, but in the end would Buddha rather we believe as he did or practice as he did?
I concur, they aren't really comparable. Mormonism is an extreme form of Christianity, it's the Bible taken to it's logical and literal conclusion, plus some fanciful decoration. Tibetan Buddhism is certainly a different way of approaching the dharma, compared with older traditions like Theravada, but at it's heart it's still the dharma.
Here is a piece from the back cover of the book (Columbia U. Press, 2002):
"Drawing on primary documents--many translated for the first time--from Sanskrit, Prakrit, Tibetan, Bengali and Chinese, Davidson shows how changes in medieval Indian society, including economic and patronage crises, a decline in women's participation, and the formation of large monastic orders, led to the rise of the esoteric tradition in India that became the model for Buddhist cultures in China, Tibet and Japan." I think his analysis provides some interesting insights into processes that had a strong influence on what became Tibetan Buddhism.
It’s interesting that several here have spoken of a parallel between Mormon “Christianity” and Tibetan Buddhism. I do take some exception to that, since that implies to me the claim that Tibetan Buddhists are somewhat removed from “True Buddhism.” Perhaps that’s because I do not consider essential Christian Teaching to be represented by anyone not emanating from the Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or gnostic circles. I may be wrong in this, but I speak from a Christian perspective —for that is the tradition from which I spring and understand most fully.
There’s even another parallel not yet mentioned in this thread: the Tibetan termas. These are treasures unearthed, much as Joseph Smith’s golden tablets were. Many of these are scriptures “unearthed” or “revealed” by long, solitary meditations in a cave, kinda like with Muhammed and possibly Joseph Smith. It is the personal vision and charisma learned in meditation and the treasured stories that give at least the “Old School” (Nyingma) lineage some distinctive qualities.
Notwithstanding these parallels and others, I don't think coinciding sets of lifestyles and habits constitute any helpful handle on furthering the understanding of the Tibetan Buddhist religious culture here. To me, the pointing out of these parallels is the sort of thing one might once laugh about, because it is genuinely odd and funny that there are these strange resemblances.
But a few odd facts should not lead us down the road to categorizing our Buddhist brothers and sisters of the four major Tibetan traditions differently on their account. Some skillful professor might preface his remarks with details like this to help his students parse the difference between Japanese Buddhists and the Tibetan, but that would just be to get their attention and perhaps coin a mnemonic key for them.
I am given to understand that it is by the transmission of dreams and stories of the Lamas, who stand representing Buddha, that the Tibeten “canon” of scripture is still open, in much the same way (in hindsight) that the Zen “canon” still lay open not even a couple hundred years ago.
According to my understanding, Siddhartha Gautama spoke Ardhamagadhi and not Sanskrit or Pali. Therefore very few of his actual words reached the ears of those who much later transcribed this oral tradition to either papyrus, palm leaves, or stones. True, the Buddha had great charisma and the ancients no doubt were capable of memorizing huge amounts of data verbatim. However, it is a fact that the canon of Buddhist scripture continued to grow for centuries.
Keep Tibetan Buddhism Alive!
In some of the thousands of suttras he mentions supernatual things. Whether they are the opinions of the actual buddha or later additions to the corpus of Buddhism is anyones guess.
Karma is real and not supernatural at all:)
I think that one of the biggest mistakes we can make as Buddhists is to confuse Dharma with Buddhism.
Absolutely. Again, the key to separating what is Dharma and what may be external influences is the noble truths. These are utterly unique to dharma.
namaste
Buddha rejected both eternalism and nihilism and advocated a middle path between these two extremes. See, the Dhammapada:
Madhyamaka might be explicitly Mahayana, but the extremes of eternalism are not to be found in the Theravada either. See, Alagaddupama Sutta: The Snake Simile:
"But, monks, there is here a well-instructed noble disciple who has regard for Noble Ones, who knows their teaching and is well trained in it; who has regard for men of worth, who knows their teaching and is well trained in it: he does not consider corporeality in this way: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; he does not consider feeling... perception... mental formations in this way: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; and what is seen, heard, sensed, and thought; what is encountered, sought, pursued in mind, this also he does not consider in this way: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; and also this ground for views (holding): 'The universe is the Self. That I shall be after death; permanent, stable, eternal, immutable, eternally the same shall I abide in that very condition' — that (view), too, he does not consider thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self.'
I do, however, not understand how your thorough addressing of a very fine point of distinction between Buddhist thought and the Hindu Upanisadic traditions has anything at all to do with the Problems of Buddhism that the OP presented us with.
I'm confused enough already.
With the best of intentions!
Nirvy
Thank you!
I apologize if this was not the right thread in which to post. However, I perceived a misrepresentation of the Dharma as being eternalistic and sought to shed light on the situation by submitting my understanding of the Madhyamaka in response.
An eternal Self that is subject to transmigration seems to be one of the "problems of Buddhism" that the OP expressed. This, of course, is not the kind of reincarnation that the Buddha espoused.
In my opinion I do not think Buddhism had adopted any ideas from other religions as Lord Buddha gain enlightenment through meditation and not through conversing with people of other religions.
Lord Shakyaumuni Buddha had a long history of meeting many Buddhas stated in the Buddhawamsa and cultivating a lot of merits before hand. It is difficult to pinpoint the exact origins of Buddhism, the First Bodhisattva who became the first sammasambuddha in Samsara as it took place many aeons before. Aeons in this context seems to be an extremely small unit of measurement of time, measuring and calculating the time before countless Buddhas had reached enlightenment.
Fully enlightened Buddhas from the past, present and future managed to realize the Dhamma fully by themselves without aid and what exactly is this Dhamma ?
Source: Sammā Diṭṭhi – A Treatise on Right Understanding by T. Magness (Venerable Suratano Bhikkhu)
Description of the document:
The Noble Eightfold Path has Sammā Diṭṭhi (right understanding) at is head because Buddha knows that in order to strive one must know why, how, and when. Without Right Understanding of “self” within and the universe outside, the task will be made much harder. So, an aspirant must know himself, the nature of his “self” and the cause of suffering and the cessation thereof, in order to put an end to all suffering and the endless cycles of birth and death. The Sublime Dhamma, seen with the aid of Vijjā Dhammakāya, provides all the answers to these questions so that Right Understanding will lead us on the right Path to Nibbāna.
Exact source: Chapter 6 of the document
I have not read this entire thread (not much of it, actually) so your quotes may come from somewhere in the thread, but we usually cite our sources when we quote something. Apologies if they come from somewhere else in the thread.
Sorry I forgot to cite the source of the quote ::o
This is true. In fact, Buddha learned the four jhanas from the mendicants he studied under before he became enlightened. In the end, he rejected the overall teachings of the mendicants as being incomplete, as not leading to the cessation of suffering. But the four jhanas remain and can be found in almost all forms of Buddhism, and some Hinduisms too.
No, I don't think it is a requirement. Buddhism is certainly not dogmatic.
The belief can be useful though. A belief that you could reincarnate in one of the lower realms can be an excellent impetus to begin practicing. A belief that, even if you are reborn again as a human, you will have to go through all the trials of growing-up, going to school, being potty trained yet again, etc. can be an impetus to begin practicing in earnest. A belief that this cycle will go on and on and on and on, so that eventually you become terribly bored with samsara can be an impetus to practice until there is liberation.
Furthermore, some Buddhists interpret reincarnation not as between lives, but between moments. If you can maintain that there is a continuity of being between the moments of your daily life, is it really that much more different to maintain that there is a continuity between lives?
If we keep focused on what Buddhism is all about, suffering and its cessation, and so to that put forth all effort in understanding how suffering arises and the path that must be walked rightly... we'll be OK. The concept of rebirth is not something everyone can accept; there are fundamental differences in how we all think, hence why we have atheists, agnostics and religious mentalities among us.
What we should try to do, if we can not accept it for ourselves, is to cultivate a position of neutrality where we do not attach to "disbelief" as the opposite attachment to "belief". To detach from either is difficult, but detachment is a major part of Buddhism and it can greatly help if you simply can not believe.
Chrysalid,
Another way of not understanding it intellectually (:)) is, rather than the emphasis on what could be called a reductionist view (afterall, as William Blake once said, we murder to dissect) we could go for the becoming view. i.e. there is the acorn, then the sapling, then the young tree, then the fully grown oak, then........ If at any time the acorn had "acorness" as its essence, or the sapling "saplingness" then they could never become anything else - each would congeal, and in that sense would "die". It is only because each is "empty" that they journey on.........Anyway, for me this encompasses the symbolism of the Pure Land, where gold represents the undifferentiated nature of enlightement, while the lotus flower symbolises the uniqueness/suchness of each. The Pure Land is full of infinite golden lotus flowers.
Let go what is behind, let go what is before, let go the middle and get beyond becoming (Udana)
What's essence got to do with anything I said? From the perspective of the Classical Christian, Mormons are not Christian, in the same way that members of the Unification Church ("Moonies") are not.
I was simply trying to say that referring to Tibetan Buddhists as the "Mormons" of Buddhism is misleading to many like myself.
Nirvana,
Not seeking to offend or implying that you intended any particular thing, just a light hearted question (as was implied by the smilie attached) that used your quote as a launch pad...........
(I did say earlier in the thread that I personally saw no resemblance, though admitting I was relatively unknowlegeable concerning TB)
This happens a lot, as I do tend to see the background before I see what's right before me in the foreground. I was sincerely requesting a rephrasing to help me understand the question or difficulty.
I was baffled that my stating that there was no one "True" expression of "Buddhism" might have been turned around to mean that I thereby believed the very opposite, namely:
I'm interested in hearing opinions on whether or not Tibetan Buddhism is appropriate for the West, in view of Shamar Rinpoche's decision that it isn't, and that it has been problematic in the past. The OP, also, seems to have doubts or concerns about Vajrayana. What is people's perception/understanding of Vajrayana, and what it might have to constructively offer the West, that other Buddhist traditions don't? What is unique about the practices that people are drawn to?
RE: OP's comment that the lamas are "revered like Gods, almost"--I've read explanations by lamas that it's necessary for the student to develop a God-like reverence for and trust in their teacher, because "this is the person you have hired to deconstruct your ego", in the words of Dzongsar Khentse Rinpoche. Is this why we choose Vajrayana, to have our egos completely deconstructed, destroyed, and replaced by the lama's spirit? (This is what occurs, according to some reports.) Why do people choose Vajrayana?
Nirvana, I should also have explained that my question was not even addressed to you as such.
All the best
tariki
:smilec:
1. Supernatural elements, including beliefs in literal reincarnation: Yes, for many Buddhists of the world, Buddhism is a religion of simple devotion and worship. Buddha is prayed to and they have beliefs in literal Heavens and Hells and Gods and Demons. Reincarnation was and is a common belief and remains very much a part of Buddhism for many people.
I'm not that sort of Buddhist, and neither are many Western Buddhists, although I would never criticize anyone for a practice centered around simple devotion. It's just not for me. The difference between Buddhism and faith based religions is, we don't require you to believe in the supernatural or miracles or whether or not Buddha remembered past lives or anything other than the evidence of your own eyes and the Noble Truths.
2. Buddhism contains elements of earlier and later religions. Yes, no culture and thus no religion exists in a vacuum. There is no immaculate conception for any religion, for the reason that if nothing else, we are forced to use the language and concepts that people are already familiar with. The same holds true as Buddhist missionaries spread to other cultures.
3. Tibetan Buddhism: Sort of a unique accident of geopolitical events that has made Tibetan Buddhism so well known to the Western world. It has a unique cultural flavor that fascinates us. But Buddhism, like Christianity, has developed many such schools and sects over the centuries. Someone raised a Southern Baptist, for instance, and a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, would appear to practice entirely different religions yet both are called Christian and at their core is the word of Christ. Same with Buddhism. Zen and Tibetan Buddhism have, at their core, the teachings of Buddha.
Hope this helps.
I haven't read all the replies so this may be redundant, but to answer your original question, many people explore Buddhism as something both practical and a process of self-exploration. The Buddha said that he taught above all "suffering and the end of suffering" as opposed to correct metaphysical beliefs. He also said that you should not believe something because someone else tells you, but explore and know for yourself. You can easily find vipassana teachers who explain things this way. Regarding other meditation styles and schools, I am not too familiar, but no doubt there are plenty of practical teachers out there.
Mike