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.
@yiming, You really think you have no say? Then how do you come to be here? I think your perspective is all that needs changed. Buddhism is all about "skillful karma", which means choices that you make. Choose to look at life and see the impermanency and the selfless nature of everything, the constant change and ownerless-ness. Choose to speak only in ways that are beneficial, can be understood, and never with the intent to harm. Choose to act in ways that bring non-suffering/peace and concord.
Everything you choose to do is your control, your exertion, your path, your life. If you would only see that your choices lead either to release from suffering or to further suffering, you can change your direction in a snap!
http://www.buddhanet.net is a great resource for all things Buddhism, and does not cater to any specific tradition (meaning you can find information on all forms and schools of Buddhist thought).
Isn't the goal of the advanced Vajrayana practices to raise the Kundalini/Inner Fire? That's radically different from meditation in other traditions, isn't it? And sometimes consorts are used for that purpose. Radically different.
Can I ask if you're an offline Tibetan Buddhist practitioner with a teacher, CW, or are you just getting it all from books and the internet?
From books and university courses on TB from the leading Tibetologists of the day (long ago). But I assume HHDL is a reliable source regarding contemporary practice. Some of the married lamas in the different sects practice this, according to acquaintances of mine who have spoken to them. These practices are the most advanced, and so aren't taught to most students, though we've had several members here in the past who said they learned these practices.
The reason why I ask is because I was involved with Vajrayana for most of my life and apart from stories of long past lineage teachers with consorts from centuries ago cropping up occasionally, I never heard of actual consorts being "used" as a teaching. Possibly because most of the teachers were monks!
Well, if we look at cases like Kalu Rinpoche, we know that being a monk doesn't stop advanced practitioners from using consorts. Well-known married lamas who practiced with their wives would be: Dilgo Khentse Rinpoche, Dudjom Rinpoche, to name just two.
Isn't the goal of the advanced Vajrayana practices to raise the Kundalini/Inner Fire? That's radically different from meditation in other traditions, isn't it? And sometimes consorts are used for that purpose. Radically different.
Can I ask if you're an offline Tibetan Buddhist practitioner with a teacher, CW, or are you just getting it all from books and the internet?
From books and university courses on TB from the leading Tibetologists of the day (long ago). But I assume HHDL is a reliable source regarding contemporary practice. Some of the married lamas in the different sects practice this, according to acquaintances of mine who have spoken to them. These practices are the most advanced, and so aren't taught to most students, though we've had several members here in the past who said they learned these practices.
Hi,
As I mentioned before, I was a Tibetan Buddhist practitioner for many years and these practices were not taught to long term students.
Who were the members here who said they'd learned these practices and which school of Tibetan Buddhism did they belong to offline?
Well, if we look at cases like Kalu Rinpoche, we know that being a monk doesn't stop advanced practitioners from using consorts. Well-known married lamas who practiced with their wives would be: Dilgo Khentse Rinpoche, Dudjom Rinpoche, to name just two
You are just speculating, CW, Having sex with a wife or a girlfriend doesn't mean one does "consort practice"
Dudjom Rinpoche always referred to his wife as the "Sangyum". And Dilgo Khentse Rinpoche was widely acknowledgeda s being a tantrika. I'm not sure what the objection to this is; it's an important component of the tradition. Is there some sort of moral judgment about these practices from the Western side?
Lately I've been feeling as if I'm the rebirth of both of my parents, the result of their clinging to life. Maybe that's the reason having sex in some traditions (monastically-speaking) is immediate expulsion, considered an act in complete opposition to the practice. Pre-existing consciousness as causal condition for the arising of new consciousness, an old flame giving rise to a new flame. Just a passing thought.
No,CW, there's no moral judgement from my point of view, its just people talk about so many Vajrayana practices on the internet when in fact they often have little knowledge or understanding of them offline.
Its best to investigate properly offline because one can't practice Vajrayana from the internet anyway.
Well, my post about practicing with a consort originally was a response to the question about the differences between Mahayana and Theravada, to get back to the OP. This discussion isn't about learning practices from the internet, it's about comparing Mahayana and Theravada.
Going back to the early part of this thread, the comment was that one difference between Mahayana (Vajrayana, specifically) and Theravada is that Vajrayana practices using tummo/Inner Fire, while Theravada doesn't. That's indisputable, isn't it? And Shamar Rinpoche doesn't hide the fact that he and the 16th Karmapa spent quite a bit of time in the West teaching these techniques, and that their students used consorts. I don't think this aspect of TB practice is a secret, is it?
That was my point when that discussion was going on. I got the impression from the post that the poster was saying that work with chakras and doing things like tum-mo were sort of the "end point" of Vajrayana practice, and I don't think it is. The ultimate decision was that it's a long way from Theravada, whatever one may think of it. I had not heard of Western students doing tum-mo with consorts, or anyone for that matter, but it's still a long way from Theravada.
True. I know of a sangha in the US that years ago held a weekend retreat that was a tummo "contest", but didn't involve consorts. I think it's a good question as to whether raising the Inner Fire and experiencing the spiritual bliss and insights related to that phenomenon are the ultimate goal for advanced Vajrayana practitioners. I'm not qualified to say, but it's an interesting question. I've also read that Japanese Buddhism has a similar practice that used to be fairly popular but now is practiced in secret only by a few.
Going back to the early part of this thread, the comment was that one difference between Mahayana (Vajrayana, specifically) and Theravada is that Vajrayana practices using tummo/Inner Fire, while Theravada doesn't. That's indisputable, isn't it? And Shamar Rinpoche doesn't hide the fact that he and the 16th Karmapa spent quite a bit of time in the West teaching these techniques, and that their students used consorts. I don't think this aspect of TB practice is a secret, is it?
Just as a little side note Dakini- the karmapa associated with the Sharmapa isn't the one that's generally considered to be the officlally recognised Karmapa.(who is often seen with HHDL and is thought to maybe take over from him one day)
Just as a little side note Dakini- the karmapa associated with the Sharmapa isn't the one that's the officlally recognised Karmapa.
I was talking about the 16th Karmapa, whom Shamar used to be associated with. Whoever Shamar's associated with now isn't relevant to this discussion, is it? Neither of them are going around teaching tantric sex, haha! Shamar has given up on that, saying it's not appropriate for the West. (or even the East, according to his statement on his website.)
Well, back to the OP, it's one difference between Mahayana and Theravadan, the raising of the Inner Fire, and all that. Anyway, you asked about the Karmapa, so it came up in clarifying between the 16th and 17th, and Shamar's activities with the i6th. really, we don't need to drag this on, do we? :rolleyes:
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
Lately I've been feeling as if I'm the rebirth of both of my parents, the result of their clinging to life. Maybe that's the reason having sex in some traditions (monastically-speaking) is immediate expulsion, considered an act in complete opposition to the practice. Pre-existing consciousness as causal condition for the arising of new consciousness, an old flame giving rise to a new flame. Just a passing thought.
this is a very interesting thought. i don't have any children, nor do i wish to physically birth children (i want to adopt), so i'm not sure what the thoughts and feelings that give rise to two people making this decision are like... but it does make sense.
blockquote rel="Cloud">Lately I've been feeling as if I'm the rebirth of both of my parents, the result of their clinging to life. Maybe that's the reason having sex in some traditions (monastically-speaking) is immediate expulsion, considered an act in complete opposition to the practice. Pre-existing consciousness as causal condition for the arising of new consciousness, an old flame giving rise to a new flame. Just a passing thought.
Sex is the result of clinging to life, but it also causes attachment. Monastics are supposed to be practicing non-attachment. Right. but I don't quite follow your comment about "pre-existing consciousness as a causal condition for the arising of new consciousness". Pre-existing consciousness on whose part? The parents'? Because in theory, there's a pre-existing consciousness floating around the bardo waiting to embody, as well.
I know very little about tummo. How does it contribute to the end of suffering?
Sometimes I wonder if tummo practitioners don't confuse the bliss experience of the Inner Fire with enlightenment itself. But we'll have to wait for our Vajrayana practitioners to contribute their understanding here, to get an answer. But Gopi Krishna, who had a spontaneous Kundalini (Inner Fire) awakening that dominated the rest of his life, and later was sponsored by the UN to tour and speak on the subject, believed that Kundalini/Inner Fire does give rise to an enlightened mind, and that it was the evolutionary goal of humankind.
@yiming, You really think you have no say? Then how do you come to be here? I think your perspective is all that needs changed.
Well, the historical Buddha didn't buy what you say i.e. change his perspective. He changed every other person's perspective. He was quite assertive. What you are advocating is non-assertiveness and compliance. People who are non-assertive are prone to suffer panic attacks (Wikipedia).
The thread is about the differences between Theravada and Mahayana, not about tum-mo.
Perhaps you missed the bit where Dakini held up tummo as a substantial difference between the two schools. If it contributes to the end of suffering in a way which can't be found in Theravadin practice, that will be interesting. Plus, stop trying to control what I say, please.
In Tibetan Buddhism the primary purpose of tummo is to gain control over subtle body processes as a foundation for very advanced mystical practices analogous to Completion stages of 'highest yoga tantra' (Anuttarayoga Tantra). Such refined internalized yogas are practices to support entry into the highest contemplative systems, for example the Dzogchen or Mahamudra systems.
So it's a concentration practice purported to have incidental magical effects, and is primarily used to power states of attention necessary for insight practice. There are many different types of concentration practice one can do, but they don't make a substantial difference to Buddhist practice. They're a preparatory step on the way to insight meditation. It's a difference on the same level as emphasizing establishing a long training in morality as a foundation for insight practice, versus teaching insight meditation very early in a practitioner's training.
@yiming, You really think you have no say? Then how do you come to be here? I think your perspective is all that needs changed.
Well, the historical Buddha didn't buy what you say i.e. change his perspective. He changed every other person's perspective. He was quite assertive. What you are advocating is non-assertiveness and compliance. People who are non-assertive are prone to suffer panic attacks (Wikipedia).
I really don't understand what you mean @yiming. You seem to be making yourself a victim of the world instead of an equal part of it. Though you can't control the world, you can control yourself, and that's what I'm saying... in your control, of yourself, is your freedom. Skillful karma, following the Noble Eightfold Path, awakening to the transient ownerless reality we share, that's where you'll find peace. I'm not advocating any of the things you're talking about, I'm talking about seeing life as it really is, to alleviate your own suffering and the suffering of others. That's what Buddhism is about and that's what the Buddha taught.
I used to suffer from anxiety and had to take medication frequently, but following this path has made me a lot more accepting of life as it is, which has destroyed that anxiety from arising again. No more meds. Whatever you're talking about, it's the opposite of what I'm talking about and what Buddhism is.
I've thought about this differences-between-Mahayana/Theravadan, and the tummo question, and here's what I've come up with. Tantric Buddhism (Vajrayana) is, as someone commented much earlier, sort of the short-cut path to enlightenment, i.e. there exists the option to reach Enlightenment in one lifetime, if one is willing to take the risk. The tantric methods are said to be dangerous. And raising the Inner Fire is one of those methods, or a component of it. I can't help but think that the bliss state one achieves from Inner Fire/Kundalini is what early tantric Buddhists took for Enlightenment. After all, Padmasambhava spent a lot of time with consorts practicing tantra. Was it just about improving his concentration? Where are our more experienced TB members?
well padma sambhava was a great buddhist warrior, who singlehandedly introduced buddhism to tibet, and defeated and converted much of the anamistic native bon shamans, i'm not even sure he was a monk, but he was a sorcerer and used his powers to ultimately benefit tibetans and buddhism, now if some of his followers say he was Mr tantric sex, maybe its the followers pulling the tantric sex hood over the eyes of their believers, not old padma, just a possibility
oh and dakini, i don't see how a kundilini feeling in ones body could possibly be mistaken for enlightenment,enlightenment is a course of action followed by an enlightened being, not any kind of physical feeling or meditative state.
Padmasambhava was given Yeshe Tsogyal, the King's wife, as a consort, and had other consorts as well. He came from Odiyana, sort of a hotbed of tantric sex. ...so to speak. Some historians say Tsogyal was one of his three wives. (He wasn't a monk.) He later sent Tsogyal to practice with consorts of her own.
Kundalini isn't just a feeling in one's body. It opens the mind to intuitive insight; it's very much a mental phenomenon. There must be a reason why its the basis of advanced esoteric practices.
well if he wasn't a monk and lived in a polygomous society like Tibet, then i guess he just was not celibate, he was born in nepal on a lotus blossom according to record or at least found there, that is why he is refered to as the lotus born one,
while some traditions of tibetan lamas still can marry, and even have multiple wives (i'm not sure) but if the're true the're certainly not supposed to be committing adultery, the lay precept, and certainly not supposed to be banging one innocent female lay practitioner after the other, in the name of planting some sort of "seed of enlightenment" joke,
even a married lama is still required by tradition to be a very moral person. Obviously there seem to be some randy tibetan lamas running around the western circles, that need to be run right back to the male only monasteries they came from, IMHO.
while some traditions of tibetan lamas still can marry, and even have multiple wives (i'm not sure) but if the're true the're certainly not supposed to be committing adultery, the lay precept, and certainly not supposed to be banging one innocent female lay practitioner after the other, in the name of planting some sort of "seed of enlightenment" joke,
even a married lama is still required by tradition to be a very moral person. Obviously there seem to be some randy tibetan lamas running around the western circles, that need to be run right back to the male only monasteries they came from, IMHO.
HAHA! I don't know how we got onto this subject, fmJ, but I couldn't agree with you more! ^_^ And students of the dharma are off-limits according to the ethical rules for teachers, I looked it up. They're to be treated like celibates.
Well, I asked first. If your process works then you are enlightened and able to answer my questions about life.
To answer your question, life is all about me and how I see myself as a human person living among other people on the planet Earth. There is no freedom. I have no say in how I want to live my life; not here in this forum controlled by moderators nor out there beyond the web controlled by dictators. Life sucks.
Now, tell me something I don't know. I want to find out whether you are a false prophet, a wolf in sheep's clothing, a bad teacher or the historical Buddha.
Hi yiming. When the question about the bottom or meaning of all life arises, that is an indication for depression or spiritual sickness. I kindly suggest seek out a doctor. However, in dharmic terms: One who looks for freedom in people, among people or anywhere in the world is not free. There is suffering in relationships and world systems. But there is an origin, solution and a process. Now regarding your question: The process it not different from the eightfold path, anapanasati, and so on. Reformulating it only creates trust in a mind of trust, and doubt in a mind of doubt. Look at the ancient scripts. Support yourself, don't let yourself down or be defined by outside structures. With much metta.
Finally watched this video (had saved it to PC), it does make some interesting points. I tend to agree that if there were no Mahayana, Buddhism would not have spread so well, and probably Theravada would have died out as well. I think they need each other. That's my opinion anyway.
Since none here have pointed out the fundamental difference between the two schools of Buddhism, may I offer my view which I had gotten somewhere I can't remember.
Therevada teaches gradual enlightenment through practice while Mahayana teaches instantaneous enlightenment.
The Mahayana argument is that awakening from ignorance is sudden and much like the arousal from sleep. There is no intermediate stage between the sleep state and the awakened state. The Theravadin, who tells himself that he is ignorant now but with practise he will eventually become enlightened, is fooling himself.
"Therevada teaches gradual enlightenment through practice while Mahayana teaches instantaneous enlightenment."
This is just not correct, or, at best, it's an oversimplification. Mahayana teaches that in some cases "instantaneous enlightenment" can happen, but this is by no means anything like a primary difference.
Padmasambava as a youth was a very joyful spirit. Many people wondered about this. On one occasion he threw a stone off a building and it fell on someone and killed them. All the people then hated Padmasambava.
From this he had an instant recognition that people are conditioned. I don't know the rest of the story and its very out of context, but I just had to give a shout out for Padma.
I would suggest that the end result is the same, the real difference is merely in motivation which changes on the journey anyway. As a case in point I refer to a recent posting of Dharma Dhatu titled "No Religion" http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/comment/194603#Comment_194603
....Those who have penetrated to the essential nature of religion will regard all religions as being the same. Although they may say there is Buddhism, Judaism, Taoism, Islam, or whatever, they will also say that all religious are inwardly the same. However, those who have penetrated to the highest understanding of Dhamma will feel that the thing called "religion" simply doesn't exist at all. There is no Buddhism; there is no Christianity and there is no Islam. How can they be the same or in conflict when they don't even exist? It just isn't possible. Thus, the phrase "no religion!" is actually Dhamma language of the highest level. Whether it will be understood or not is something else, depending upon the listener, and has nothing to do with the truth or with religion.....
The Diamond Sutra explains all the labels like Arhat, Bodhisattvas etc are just labels used to grade pupils on their spiritual progression. Hence there is no different path. Just different methods and progression. There is no difference.
The Lotus Sutra explains that Arhats are encouraged to progress the Bodhisattva path so they can attain Buddhahood.
Arhatship isn't ultimate enlightenment, just escape from the cycle of birth and death by becoming sages.
Hence why Arhats are all honoured ones, but they do not have the honoric titles of Buddhas.
This continued claim of differences, beef between claims of Pali being more accurate than Sanskrit, Therevada being the "true" teachings are only hurting Buddhism.
What I "think" (highlighted to show its a personal belief) is that different teachings are valid for different people, and this article comes to the same conclusion, though, I suppose the reader has to accept the authority of the author to come to that conclusion.
The author is saying within all religions "pure water" can be found.
Of that, I have doubts.
For example, if we had never been exposed to the Buddha-Dhamma and our only religious exposure was of that found in the Bible or the Koran, do we still believe our minds could find "pure water" (of emptiness) in those religious scriptures?
...if we had never been exposed to the Buddha-Dhamma and our only religious exposure was of that found in the Bible or the Koran, do we still believe our minds could find "pure water" (of emptiness) in those religious scriptures?
In their mainstream forms, they have been corrupted by institutionalization, just as mainstream Buddhism has. However, you can certainly find "pure water" in the practices of the Trappist monks or the Sufis.
Comments
Everything you choose to do is your control, your exertion, your path, your life. If you would only see that your choices lead either to release from suffering or to further suffering, you can change your direction in a snap!
http://www.buddhanet.net is a great resource for all things Buddhism, and does not cater to any specific tradition (meaning you can find information on all forms and schools of Buddhist thought).
As I mentioned before, I was a Tibetan Buddhist practitioner for many years and these practices were not taught to long term students.
Who were the members here who said they'd learned these practices and which school of Tibetan Buddhism did they belong to offline?
You are just speculating, CW, Having sex with a wife or a girlfriend doesn't mean one does "consort practice"
Its best to investigate properly offline because one can't practice Vajrayana from the internet anyway.
I've also read that Japanese Buddhism has a similar practice that used to be fairly popular but now is practiced in secret only by a few.
"Don't be an arahant, don't be a bodhisattva, don't be anything at all – if you are anything at all you will suffer"
Sex is the result of clinging to life, but it also causes attachment. Monastics are supposed to be practicing non-attachment. Right.
but I don't quite follow your comment about "pre-existing consciousness as a causal condition for the arising of new consciousness". Pre-existing consciousness on whose part? The parents'? Because in theory, there's a pre-existing consciousness floating around the bardo waiting to embody, as well.
But Gopi Krishna, who had a spontaneous Kundalini (Inner Fire) awakening that dominated the rest of his life, and later was sponsored by the UN to tour and speak on the subject, believed that Kundalini/Inner Fire does give rise to an enlightened mind, and that it was the evolutionary goal of humankind.
I used to suffer from anxiety and had to take medication frequently, but following this path has made me a lot more accepting of life as it is, which has destroyed that anxiety from arising again. No more meds. Whatever you're talking about, it's the opposite of what I'm talking about and what Buddhism is.
A great resource for all things Buddhist is http://www.buddhanet.net (well maybe not all things). Another is http://www.accesstoinsight.org though it's primarily Theravada.
oh and dakini, i don't see how a kundilini feeling in ones body could possibly be mistaken for enlightenment,enlightenment is a course of action followed by an enlightened being, not any kind of physical feeling or meditative state.
Kundalini isn't just a feeling in one's body. It opens the mind to intuitive insight; it's very much a mental phenomenon. There must be a reason why its the basis of advanced esoteric practices.
while some traditions of tibetan lamas still can marry, and even have multiple wives (i'm not sure) but if the're true the're certainly not supposed to be committing adultery, the lay precept, and certainly not supposed to be banging one innocent female lay practitioner after the other, in the name of planting some sort of "seed of enlightenment" joke,
even a married lama is still required by tradition to be a very moral person. Obviously there seem to be some randy tibetan lamas running around the western circles, that need to be run right back to the male only monasteries they came from, IMHO.
This is just not correct, or, at best, it's an oversimplification. Mahayana teaches that in some cases "instantaneous enlightenment" can happen, but this is by no means anything like a primary difference.
From this he had an instant recognition that people are conditioned. I don't know the rest of the story and its very out of context, but I just had to give a shout out for Padma.
Buddhism, Judaism, Taoism, Islam inwardly the same?
:screwy:
The Lotus Sutra explains that Arhats are encouraged to progress the Bodhisattva path so they can attain Buddhahood.
Arhatship isn't ultimate enlightenment, just escape from the cycle of birth and death by becoming sages.
Hence why Arhats are all honoured ones, but they do not have the honoric titles of Buddhas.
This continued claim of differences, beef between claims of Pali being more accurate than Sanskrit, Therevada being the "true" teachings are only hurting Buddhism.
What I "think" (highlighted to show its a personal belief) is that different teachings are valid for different people, and this article comes to the same conclusion, though, I suppose the reader has to accept the authority of the author to come to that conclusion.
Of that, I have doubts.
For example, if we had never been exposed to the Buddha-Dhamma and our only religious exposure was of that found in the Bible or the Koran, do we still believe our minds could find "pure water" (of emptiness) in those religious scriptures?