stefos

Magick can not be defined directly, it has direct correlation to being a Creator in a sense, that is innumerable and infinite in essence. When you speak of covens, you will be studying rituals and crafts that require a certain degree of Order. A certain process, but even then the results are not always the same. Most of the work should be concerned with developing a 'inwardness' of completion.

 

To say that one's craft is superior to another is FALSE. This is why I spent time studying satanic covens, their constructs, and perceptions. There defintely are demons and beings who are heartless and ruthless, I paid the price from a while but realized that most of this magick enimates from utter hate, covetness, and greed. So I found that it was not HOW the magick was working but WHY and WHAT FOR. I already had experience in Christian circles, but I did not understand the relevance of witchcraft, voodoo, dark shamanism, and satanism. Mind you, I wasn't even aware of Bodhivistas and the Hinduistic Pantheon concerning yoga as well. The universe is vast, and I learned that we all don't view it in the same manor. Some feel that God or higher beings hate them and so they seek to oppose through joining dark circles and crafts, due to the cards one may have been dealt in life. Others are just plain greedy or have been exposed to some craft of power that worships creation rather than Creator.

 

But in my honest opinion it comes down to intention. Even Aleister Crowley, revered as crazy and out of this world most of the time, understood this relevance of magick...

 

"Black magic is not a myth. It is a totally unscientific and emotional form of magic, but it does get results — of an extremely temporary nature. The recoil upon those who practice it is terrific.

It is like looking for an escape of gas with a lighted candle. As far as the search goes, there is little fear of failure!

To practice black magic you have to violate every principle of science, decency, and intelligence. You must be obsessed with an insane idea of the importance of the petty object of your wretched and selfish desires.

I have been accused of being a "black magician." No more foolish statement was ever made about me. I despise the thing to such an extent that I can hardly believe in the existence of people so debased and idiotic as to practice it."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley

 

But ultimately I seek to view magick from a supreme point of view, Brahmin as this state is called in the East. The Lord as this higher being is called in the Bible. The heavens are full of highly astute beings while hell rages with the inferno of indignation.

 

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." Isaiah 45:7

Well....that was insightful.

Thank you for sharing your personal life with us here.

I appreciate your candidness.

So a few questions:

1. Can you define magick for me?

2. Why is magick polarized to "white" & "black"?

Is there such magick as "grey"?

Technically, White & Black are polar opposites and are of time or "in the mode of becoming" to use a Buddhist phrase.

I see the terms "White" & "Black" as being interdependent.

Can you speak to that which is beyond time?

Does such a concept "fit" into the world of magick?

3. Magick seems to be associated with the will.

We all have a will.

Eating, sleeping, drinking water, clothing & shelter are basic needs but we use the will to "meet the need" as it were.

Rudolph Steiner mentioned "Feeling/Thinking/Willing"

Is this how YOU function in/with magick?

Thank you kindly,

Stefos

No shit. Dzogchen is even different than Mahamudra.

Again.....You're "enlightened" attitude & language sir.

Buddy, chiggedy check yourself & ego at the door.........Rule #1 of Buddhism

I refuse, after answering the second part of this multiquote answer to communicate your ignorant "self" again.

Dzogchen has Amitabha, Pure Lands, bardo practices etc.

 

So if you criticize Pure Land Buddhism, you are a complete hypocrite.

Pure Land Buddhism is a cult and a lieeeeeeeee.

Wake up.

There I criticized the Pure Land cult. Dzogchen is the best.

Stefos

So, your basically saying that Padmasambhava, Longchenpa or Chogyal Namkhai Norbu have propagated a mistaken delusional doctrine and are actually themselves deluded?

That's not true. The Pali canon and Chinese Agamas have teachings where Buddha expounds sunyata.

Geoff (Simple Jack)

In answer to the above points:

1 & 2:

I'm not a Buddhist scholar nor did I ever claim to be.

I have had experiences of emptiness myself actually! There was no "I" but there was consciousness & awareness.

I agree that Nama/Rupa are not the true us, The Will is not us, etc. What we are is what the 5 skandhas.are formed "around" so to speak.

Furthermore, Upon reading the Brahma Sutras of Sankaracharya, I see loopholes in certain Buddhist schools which cannot be rectified. One of them is the Sunyavada school. I'm not sure exactly what this school held to but I'll research it further.

Perhaps they put an emphasis on Sunya which had no place in the ancient texts. I'm not sure.

I also understand that the Pali texts say that Nibbana is "where conditioned consciousness ceases to exist"

Now, If the Pali texts are the oldest available texts near to the life of the historical Buddha & most closely reflect his thought, Why does did the Theras or any other Buddhist school not agree to this? They make consciousness a mere Skandha. The Buddha "supposedly in the Pali text" states that conditioned consciousness ceases in Nibbana, the inference is that our Skandha of consciousness is conditioned consciousness & not merely "consciousness" as is popularly pushed by Buddhist groups.

Do you see what I mean? Unconditioned Consciousness & Conditioned consciousness are 2 different things!

In Theravada teachings that I've heard about, not all, consciousness is an aggregate only.

Furthermore, Dzogchen doesn't say what the Theras & others say about the Skandha called "consciousness."

The Dzogchen view is completely different.

Stefos

my worldview is that i am this stream of consciousness - our actual existence - which includes anything and everything in reality. if it is perceiveable, then it is part of the stream. yes, it includes your ghost also.

 

 

why do you disagree? perception is key but what we perceive must be subject to critical verification. perceptions that cannot fit with reason must be rejected. is this not what the buddha taught? this teaching is reasonable to me and that is why i accept it.

 

why do you accept the ghost you perceived? how would you authenticate it as a reasonable part of reality?

 

 

all forms of buddhism are an endless cycle of births and deaths. buddhists are weirdos with stupid beliefs. didn't you say so yourself?

Addressing your post...each part.

1. You say that it is part of MY stream........This ghost which I saw might have the same "thought" about you!

Prove it

2. The qualifier you gave was "critically verified immediately"..........Everything can't be C.V. ID'ed immediately!

Ex. Seeing a rope at night, thinking it's a snake & then when morning comes, perceiving it was a rope only.

The ghost which I saw was not the result of alcohol, drugs, hypnotism, hysteria, delusion, paint thinner, "wishful thinking" or brainwashing. I saw it with my physical eyes floating across the hallway.

3. No, I never said "Buddhists are weirdos with stupid beliefs"

I did say that certain Buddhist sects are late inventions with not roots in ancient school....ie. Pure Land Buddhism

When quoting me, please cite my own source & give it to me please. I might have forgotten.

Thank you,

Stefos

Wow someone agreed. Time to dance.

 

This video seems to showcase this guy....For girls.

Strange...........Americanized India......What a joke.

there is only this stream of consciousness - our actual existence - in which all mankind live.

 

this stream is reality, the world, the entirety of everything the mind (not the personal mind but the human mind) has put together. nothing else exists other than this stream. we are that stream and the stream is us.

 

do you agree?

 

 

critical thinking is what is lacking in the buddhist, you said.

 

without critical thinking, weird and stupid beliefs have become buddhism, you said.

 

so, anything that cannot be critically verified immediately in an empirical and rational manner must be rejected as not true.

 

do you agree?

 

 

let's do this step by step, like krishnamurti. get one thing absolutely clear before moving on to another.

 

if we do it right, the first step (of truth) is the last step.

 

if we do it wrong, the first step is the beginning of endless cycles of birth and death in buddhism.

Answers to each respective paragraph:

1. No, I do not agree. Why? Other beings besides humans & animals exist.

Explain those in your worldview (which incidentally you have not stated)

BTW, I have seen a ghost/spirit float across a hallway. It was translucent had a winglike projection jutting out of its "back" and it had no arms just an upper part with the head & winglike projection & the lower part which "fanned" out at the bottom resembling a dress.

2. No, I do not agree. Why? Many things can be read but perception is key, not book knowledge as such.

Although a book might "point" to some truth(s) such as siddhis for example

3. Here you state "in Buddhism"........Which Buddhist form are you talking about? Theravada, Madhyamika, Zen, Dzogchen??

Stefos

what is the basis of this denial? reality is inexplicable and defies definition. rejection of something uknowable is silly.

 

 

what the buddha taught is not important. what he was supposed to have taught is. so, let's deal with that and check it out.

 

 

ok, let's junk the buddhists if they are weirdos.

 

 

these are your beliefs. leave the buddha out of this. just deal with your beliefs which are:

 

1. nibbana, a transcendent state.

2. we are composed of parts and these parts being impermanent aren't the real us per se.

3. nibbana is an aspect of brahman and the release of the personal self.

 

 

since it is stupid, let's junk buddhism in its entirety including everything the buddha was supposed to have taught.

 

 

your thread is about three things:

 

1. the skeptical buddhist.

2. critical thinking.

3. buddhism.

 

we have junked 1 and 3. this leaves 2 (critical thinking). shall we apply this to check out your beliefs?

 

what is a transcendent state? and what are those parts that we are composed of?

A "transcendent state" is, in terms of physics and in terms of our actual existence, what is actually occurring.

Beyond the imaginations of mind and the extremes of the emotions.

Those "parts" are body & brain & mind & that which perceives things such as the aura which I have perceived and other phenomena such as spheres of light, which I have perceived also.

More to come....

If you don't agree with the teachings of vajrayana you don't have to continuously tell us that you don't agree.

We understand that.

 

Try to stick to Pali buddhism and be happy with that.

Or is it that you can't leave it alone because you are afraid that there might be some truth in Vajrayana ?

No....I didn't disavow Vajrayana at all!

Vajrayana is the method of energy. It's useful.

What I'm saying is this "Which is the original Dhamma? Pre-Pali or today's sects?"

See, THE point is this: There are Theosophical writers who are clairvoyants and they are Theists (albeit impersonal).

They mention the chakras, nadis, and various koshas as well.

Rudolf Steiner mentions chakras, nadis, etc. along with "western" correspondences to "eastern" modes.

Vajrayana's roots are in the Upanishads ultimately. The Buddha was a Yogi....any sane person must acknowledge this.

The most salient point about the relationship of the Buddha & Upanishads was that the Buddha didn't disavow Brahman in the Pali texts.

He did say that Brahma was a "god."

The point of this thread was "Being skeptical & critically thinking also."

People who want security will often most of time cling to anything out of fear........This I know from experience.

Take Care

Stefos

Stefos, I suggest study of the Chandogya Upanishad if you haven't already done so...? or not, and I will not get in arguments about such.

 

Good fortune to you.

Thank you sir.

I don't desire to argue either....never have!

Be blessed........

This question about Krishnamurti -- has any of his students carried on his teachings? None, as far as im aware.

 

A reliable measurement of any teachers' worth is the pool of awakening students he nurtures. Its called lineage. No lineage means a non-progressive philosophy. While such teachings may have a few sparkles here and there, if there isn't a trickling down effect, then it means somewhere along the way, some stagnation is bound to have happened.

 

Following such a philosophy may yield some result, but it requires extra effort to sieve thru what is redundant and what is not. Better to look to more progressive lineages to save some precious practice time.

 

Im not putting this man down. I have benefitted from his work in the past. But there have been moments of muddiness too.

Regarding your questions of "awakening":

Krishnamurti when asked about transformation he said "A mind that listens with complete attention will never look for a result because it is constantly unfolding like a river, it is always in movement."

Also he continued "Such a mind is totally unconscious of its own activity in the sense that there is no perpetuation of a self, of a "me" that is seeking an end."

So those quotes, my friend, can be found in the book "Can Humanity change? Krishnamurti in dialogue with Buddhists"

Pick it up there's much more.

Krishnamurti also stated that we waste energy by chatter, smoking, drinking, being in a daydream mode, meat eating, etc. This energy is what is used when we inquire into "What is" and should not be used towards "What should be" although Krishnamurti acknowledged the "What should be" insofar as morals & ethics were concerned and things like taking care of this planet, etc.

There are the various schools, the Krishnamurti archives in the U.S./U.K./India and of course people who gather together that study & discuss the teachings.

No lineage is needed really.......Why say "I belong to the Gelugpas or the Sakyas?" Is that THE point?

Teachings are needed not "schools" & "lineages"........I do understand that you probably mean where the integrity of the teachings are kept but that my friend is people not books even though books are useful.

Stefos

If you play with enough magick, you will begin to see plenty of parallels and constructs. You begin to see the forces behind the words. The TAO itself, The Great Architect, The Creator, if you will. The only difference in black and white magick, is one's intention. Inner-tention.

Say whaaat?

Play with magick? Who can give an accurate description of this magick? Who can give an accurate description & understanding of nature spirits IN CONTEXT of the greater world & the Why of it?

Sir, forgive my ignorance but, WHO in the world today knows anything about real magick?

The Order of the Golden Dawn purported to claim such knowledge but they were defunct.

Now, The order has been revived per se under a certain gentleman.

Who to believe?

Comments?

Thanks

The limitless dharmic methods can be categorized under three main approaches in accord with how is the condition of a human being.

These three are also called the three existences of a human being:body, energy and mind.

 

The canonical buddhism focuses on the body aspect where Vajrayana focuses on the energy aspect.

 

Trying to marry these two aspects is not a good idea because it will lead to various contradictions since working with the body implies abandoning the objects of the senses in order to achieve liberation whereas in working with the energy, the objects are not seen as an impediment any more.

Because the passion arisen from the interaction with objects is used as a fuel and as a means of transforming that experience into the nature of deity

 

I think the problem comes from seeing canonical buddhism as the absolute point of reference.

And i believe that the Pali canon preserves the teaching related to our bodily existence.In that regard the message of the Buddha is complete and nothing was left out.

 

If you want to understand the energy side of our existence Vajrayana vehicle is the one to practice.This vehicle is separate from pali canon and its roots are totally different and separate.

 

By opening our hearts to the limitless time span we gradually begin to understand that Pali Buddhism and Vajrayana are only a drop in the infinite ocean of dharmic methods.

 

So my advice is that if you are interested in approaches who deal with energy you should seek to receive vajrayana teachings where the complete understanding about chackras, nadis, prana is preserved.If your goal is to debate whether the pali canon is complete or incomplete my advice is to try not to see anything beyond it and take it as it is.

Thank you for sharing!

The Buddha DID mention "boundless energy" and the bodily phenomena as well.

It makes no sense to say or have a "Body/Energy" duality..........There is no such thing sir!

Comments?

stefos,

 

From the textbook of Dr. Upinder Singh (daughter of prime minister and noted historian):

 

"The earliest formal exposition of Advaita or non-dualistic Vedanta was put forward by Gaudapada in the 7th or 8th century in his Mandukyakarika, a verse commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad. Gaudapada was influenced by Madhyamika and Vijnanavada Buddhism."

 

Also the Mandukya Upanishad itself was influenced by Mahayana:

 

Hajime Nakamura, Trevor Leggett. A History of Early Vedānta Philosophy, Part 2. Reprint by Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 2004 page 284-6

 

"As was pointed out in detail in the section titled Interpretation, many particular Buddhist terms or uniquely Buddhist modes of expression may be found in it."

 

"From the fact that many Buddhist terms are found in its explanation, it is clear that this view was established under the influence of the Mahayana Buddhist concept of Void."

 

"Although Buddhistic influence can be seen in the Maitri-Upanishad, the particular terms and modes of expression of Mahayana Buddhism do not yet appear, whereas the influence of the Mahayana concept of Void can clearly be recognized in the Mandukya-Upanisad."

 

"Although Mahayana Buddhism strongly influenced this Upanisad, neither the mode of exposition of the Madhyamika school nor the characteristic terminology of the Vijnanavada school appears."

 

If you want to see the verbatim verses Gaudapada took from Madhyamaka, you can click:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=sx12hxoFVqwC&pg=PA88&dq=The+Method+of+Early+Advaita+Ved%C4%81nta+It+is+not+a+matter+for+dispute+whether&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wr8ZUZ7iGceR0QGHuID4Cw&ved=0CDMQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Method%20of%20Early%20Advaita%20Ved%C4%81nta%20It%20is%20not%20a%20matter%20for%20dispute%20whether&f=false

 

So why do you hate Madhyamaka and Mahayana as noted in the other thread?

 

Also, isn't Samkhya the definitive Hindu philosophy as it forms the underlying basis of the tantras?

 

My understanding is that tantrics like Abhinavagupta held the tantras higher than the Vedas and Upanishads.

Gaudapada might have been influenced....you've been influenced by Christianity!!!!

Sankara was not from what little I've studied.

Sankara blasted the Buddhist schools of his day to pieces.

The main problem of the Buddhist schools:

Momentariness.....How does one explain the accumulation of the Skandhas or Karma by this idea?

Sankara said........It's nonsense.........If you posit a "Store consciousness", you can also posit a "self."

This is why the non-dual approach is stressed in Mahamudra & Dzogchen. Sankara didn't mention these schools.

My perspective is that momentariness exists BUT it is upheld by the substratum of permanence!

Hard to understand....Harder to perceive: A holistic field in which momentary phenomena occur.

Regarding "Buddhist" schools in general:

The problem is NO ONE can nail down what the Buddha actually taught en toto. Period.

The "Buddhist" schools which exist today are new inventions...Ex. Pure Land Buddhism

I believe that the Buddha did teach certain things but the lines between what he taught & what happened after his death are blurred so much that it IS impossible to ascertain.

Transcendental matters are eternal....different "schools" be they Vedanta, Buddhist, Tantric, Esoteric might or might not carry forward primeval truths........to be discussed.

Finis

Hi T.S....

Society has a "mixed grab bag" understanding of the latin word "occultus" meaning "hidden."

So, technically ANYTHING "hidden" is occult, to begin with.

Secondly, IF by occult you mean New Age.....most of society sees this as flukey & flakey.

Lastly, IF by occult you mean "an esoteric body of knowledge/understanding/perceptions" then very little of society even knows about let alone cares about THIS definition of the word "occult." I for one would be very careful when moving into THIS body of understanding/perception. Without a teacher, one gets involved with stuff which can be perceived but not understood. To me understanding matters in what I perceive.

For me, I've perceived various things which I can talk about but which must be perceived to be understood ultimately.

Sorry for being academic! ahahahaha....

But what I've said is true.

Take care

Stefos

Some tantras of the Vajrayana were revealed to Mahasidhas in pure vissions, dreams directly from Dharmakaya .

The deity practices revealed are called Sambogakaya emanations.

They form the basis of the various sadhanas practiced today in Vajrayana.

 

The dharmic methods for achieving supreme liberation are not limited to the form of canonical buddhism.

Canonical buddhism is only one of the limitless dharmic methods that existed over the eons.

Hi Anderson,

This is my perspective:

First, Transcendent realities exist

Second, The Buddha (Shakyamuni) is part of that

Third, Shakyamuni wasn't the only Enlightened person

Fourth, I believe that Buddha DID in fact understand Chakras, Nadis, Prana, Bindu, etc. fully

When it comes to Vajrayana, I see a gap between it and the Pali "layout" so to speak.

Now, in another Buddhist thread someone posted about a French gentleman's work insofar as "Tantric Theravada" or something to this effect was concerned.

The Pali suttas talk about Chakras & Prana. To take that line of thought directly, one comes to Nadis & Bindu & Granthis as well. It's no wonder then when meditating as a Yogi, Shakyamuni Buddha understood this stuff. This "stuff" however has the Vedas & Upanishads as its source and not somewhere else as far as I know!

So, How do you see the organic blending of the two "ways" of meditating per se?

Do you believe that the Pali texts do not preserve the original sayings of the Buddha, insofar as "esoteric" stuff being kept out of them is concerned?

Please share your perspective sir

Stefos

This question about Krishnamurti -- has any of his students carried on his teachings? None, as far as im aware.

 

A reliable measurement of any teachers' worth is the pool of awakening students he nurtures. Its called lineage. No lineage means a non-progressive philosophy. While such teachings may have a few sparkles here and there, if there isn't a trickling down effect, then it means somewhere along the way, some stagnation is bound to have happened.

 

Following such a philosophy may yield some result, but it requires extra effort to sieve thru what is redundant and what is not. Better to look to more progressive lineages to save some precious practice time.

 

Im not putting this man down. I have benefitted from his work in the past. But there have been moments of muddiness too.

Well, consider what Krishnamurti said when he stopped the Order of the Star of the East & gave all proceeds, lands, $$, etc. back to the original owners......He didn't care if only 5 people were willing to put into practice "the teachings."

Period.

Krishnamurti never called what he taught "my" teachings but "the teaching."

Krishnamurti brought people up into what he was saying per se. He said "if people live the teaching" not "Gee, I want to create a lineage with TONS of people!"

Finally, Krishnamurti walked his talk, right? Of course he did. The teachings encompassed a LOT of ground.

The problem is people, like you & I, don't want to live the teachings.....we want to debate them, discuss them, intellectualize them, conceptualize them, etc.

No.....Do what the man said, Forget what you've been taught about lineages because Krishnamurti did.

Have you read Mary Lutyen's 3 part work on his life? That's some far out stuff he went through.

Krishnamurti always said "Truth is impersonal"........Lineages too often stress the person & not the teaching(s).

At 21:40, Dalai Lama openly trolls Ganesh, Shiva, Saraswati worshipers who have no higher spiritual purpose.

 

Of course this doesn't mean that worshiping these deities is wrong, because he later adds Buddha to the list. He is saying that there needs to be some higher spirituality.

Why would I want to worship a (minor) deity & not the Ultimate itself?

In Vedanta, Brahman is the Ultimate not Ganesh, Shiva & Saraswati.

Adi Shankaracharya never mentioned to "worship Ganesh/Shiva/Saraswati" he only talked about Brahman-Nirguna/Saguna.

In Pali text Buddhism, Conditioned consciousness ceases to be when one attains Nibbana which is the "unborn, undying, unbecoming."

The human language & thought fail past a certain point to be able to explain & express certain realities.

Ex. The behavior of quarks......Please tell me how that works in the ultimate sense.

Essentially, a unified field of existence (to be qualified) is what we're looking at when it comes to Ultimate reality

Later

The Mahasiddhas are Indian, not Tibetan.

 

Krishnamurti was a New Age writer. I don't care about Krishnamurti.

You SHOULD care about Krishnamurti. He mentioned emptiness, Choiceless Awareness, morals & ethics, being without a self, what "reincarnation" REALLY is, what Kundalini really is, etc. etc.

I think & am convinced 100% that that man knew a LOT of stuff he didn't speak of and had amazing clarity.

This man lived during our lives. Why not examine what he said? Are you afraid? I have many of his books & he makes complete sense.

To dismiss someone by saying "He's a New Ager" makes no sense. This man was known to many people.

You obviously have never read any teachings & thus make an ignorant statement.

Mahasamghika means "greater community". So it is not the breakaway group. Its the original group.

 

A bunch of old dudes (Sthaviravāda) broke away from the Mahasamghika, because they wanted to change the vinaya.

 

A Concise History of Buddhism by Andrew Skilton 2004. p. 49, 64

 

 

Maybe even later. So what?

 

 

I know that. That's what I've been repeatedly been saying.

Regarding the Buddhist circles post Buddha's death:

The Sthaviravada & Mahasamghika still lived together in each others monastery's man! Wake up!

They didn't make 2 separate schools.

The 24 schools period thoroughly confused what "Buddhadharma" really was.

Regarding Mahayana & Vajrayana & Dzogchen:

Mahayana aka Nagarjuna (who made up the Samsara/Nirvana notion) is wrong and is a late invention.

Shakyamuni Buddha never stated this "At least" in the Pali texts nor is this Samsara/Nirvana 2 sides of the same coin part of Shakyamuni's teachings.

Insofar as Vajrayana is concerned, each school (Sakya/Gelug/Kagyu/Nyingma) dismisses the others as being off!

Sakya Pandita, Je Tsongkhapa, etc. etc.

Dzogchen dismisses all of them except Atiyoga (in the Nyingma school) as being partial in base, path, and fruit.

Ohhhh Kayyy....We really understand what Buddhadharma is now. How obfuscated the modern Buddhist "scene" is!

Finally Regarding this statement:

"I know that. That's what I've been repeatedly been saying."

Proves that Vajrayana is not Buddhadharma but a later invention.

One cannot reconcile the Jhanas, Kasinas, etc. with concentration on various seed syllables at particular chakrams, Tummo, moving prana through the body via yogic practices, etc.

Consider the above point deeply......

Jhanas, Kasinas, Noble 8 fold path vs. 3 main subtle energy channels, chakrams, Tummo, etc.

Do you see the vast gap? Nagarjuna taught something which is not part of Shakyamuni's train of thought (in the Pali texts at least) nor was it ever part of any ancient (Pre-Mahayana) school.

Let's think about this.

We already went over this before. And you admitted your mistake before:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/26805-buddha-kept-silent-about-god/page-13#entry406702

 

 

The Indian Mahasiddhas taught Vajrayana. Not Buddha.

That wasn't a mistake, now in hindsight. That was me believing you without researching the matter that much deeper.

The Mahayana came into being around 50 B.C.......What 400 yrs after the Buddha's Parinirvana???

The Indian Mahasiddhas are teaching another doctirne. Period.

The point of this entire post is "What did the Buddha actually teach?" & "How did these lineages come about?"

Unfortunately, you refuse to admit what actual original Buddhadharma is IN REALITY.

This "conversation" is done.

1. Theravada descends from a secessionist group who wanted to change the original vinaya. Please read a basic history book such as Andrew Skilton's A Concise History of Buddhism. Their secessionist origin is even preserved in the name.

 

2. Mahayana arose in reaction to crypto-realist Abhidharmas, of the sort Theravada follows. Thus Mahayana is the closest to what the Buddha taught. Mahayana was developed by the original sangha, the Mahasamghika.

 

3. As the Indian Mahasiddhas founded Vajrayana, of course Vajrayana came later.

 

4. I sense a slight hostility to the tantras. Lets take the Cakrasamvara Tantra specifically. There exists centuries of commentaries on the Cakrasamvara Tantra from the Indian university of Vikramshila. This is just one example. So are you more authoritative than the Indian professors?

1. The Theras or "Elders" weren't the break off group...the Mahasamghika were.

2. The Theravada Abhidharma is older than the Chinese & Tibetan ones.

3. Yep, the now labeled "Vajrayana" came later but one would be hard pressed to find Vajrayana being part of what the Buddha actually taught. Although the term Chakkhu or "Chakra" is found in the Pali Nikayas and "winds" are found also (Obviously winds being in English..i.e. pranic winds per se). Modern Vajrayana is not what the Buddha originally taught.

4. Again you Indo-Tibetanized bias is coming out. Vikramshila didn't exist until "late 8th/early 9th century" which is 1200 years after Shakyamuni's death......Hmmmm...why do not go back further in time?

I don't deny the subtle energy system at all. It's Vajrayana & Mahamudra/Dzogchen that I look at & say "Where did this come from really?" The answer is "Vajrayana, Mahamudra & Dzogchen are teachings that have syncretistic roots."

Stefos

Stefos,

 

Its true that Theravada was not the main Hinayana school.

 

However Theravada is definitely Hinayana:

 

A. They do not accept the Mahayana sutras

B. They do not accept the bhumis

C. Their goal is to achieve nirvana and become an arhat, through the typical Hinayana path

D. etc.

No, Hinayana, as used by polemic texts, pertains to a particular school which is now defunct.

Also, some scholars have stated the the pejorative term "Hinayana" was created due to a misunderstanding of a particular stance or position that a non Mahayana school had as well.

In any case, you have a "Tibetanized" bent any way it's sliced.

I suggest you question your views.

There are Tamil Siddhas also who have a "claim to fame" as well as other non Buddhist siddhas.

The arguments don't end with the mostly Tibetan Mahasiddhas you hold to.

P.S. You have not addressed the question about Krishnamurti........Don't skirt around it, answer it.

Candrakirti was an Indian professor at the Indian university of Nalanda my friend.

 

Not Tibetan.

 

There you go.

I didn't imply that Chandrakirti was a Tibetan, only that Tibetans use him to establish their doctrinal tenets.

There you have it.

Stefos,

The answer is that I dont focus in hinayana. I focus on the teachings of the Mahasiddhas.

That was not the question! Krishnamurti never taught "Hinayana." He taught Choiceless Awarness which exactly corresponds to the "Self Liberation through Naked Awareness" of Dzogchen.

Krishnamurti's teachings, per se "his", approached each person where they were at and then brought them up to what Krishnamurti taught.

Furthermore, Theravada & it's Pali canon are not Hinayana, perhaps a branch maybe.

Hinayana, by & large, is a polemic appellation given to a school which is no longer in existence and with whom the Tibetans argued polemically (I.E. Chandrakirti)

Theravada is not the sole vehicle of Hinayana....wrong answer.

I've heard this stated before ONLY by Tibetan teachers exclusively.

Different beasts altogether.

Go to Wikipedia & type Hinayana & read the article......

Bad source but it quotes its sources.

Walpola Rahula mentions what I state above several times as do other Buddhist scholars.

There you go.

This is from the Pali canon, your favorite source for Buddhism:

You know what?

You need to back off the patronizing....." MY favorite source for Buddhism"

I never said that.

I DID say that the Pali is the most complete ancient compilation of the Buddha's supposed teaching.

Of course there was that find that archaeologists made which is older than the Pali: On bark or something to this effect.

No, the Pali doesn't reflect the sum total of what the Buddha taught....no way.

Again, Take J.Krishnamurti's life: He taught for roughly the same amount of time as the Buddha did and VOLUMES were written, not 4 NIkayas worth with the questionable 5th.

Please, look at the question I posted and answer.

No more pedantics.

Stefos

You don't recall 16 pages of discussion mostly involving your stuff?

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/26805-buddha-kept-silent-about-god/page-16

Oh I recall all of it alright.

Answer my question now about Krishnamurti & the Buddha's supposed speech.

I'm done talking to you until I get an answer.

Stefos