servantofshakti

what exactely are the buddhas from a hindu pov?We have them in our tantras,but what are they?

Recommended Posts

The Buddhist deity vajravArAhI (Tibetan: Dorje Pa'mo) is associated not only with several Buddhist Mahasiddhas, but also with several siddhas of the shaiva and shAkta sects. BhagavatI is worshiped in the adharAmnAya of shrIkula tantra as upAmnAyanAyika, vajrayoginI being the AmnAyanAyikA. BhagavatI bimbAmbikA recognizes the fact that the deity is Buddhist in origin, as does baDabAnala tantra, and both prescribe the use of trishakti-chAmuNDA during the observance of tAntrikI sandhyA during mahAnishA instead of vajravArAhI, however prescribing her mantra for purposes of japa.http://www.kamakotimandali.com/blog/index.php?p=1143&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 

 

So we worship a buddhist diety.but then it must be asked.what are buddhist deities?and why do we worship one?

 

what I mean by this is that,the Bauddhas certainly have visionary experiences with their dieties,go to their lokas(purelands)etc and we have adopted them in some Tantras http://lca.wisc.edu/~gbuhnema/deities1.pdf http://lca.wisc.edu/~gbuhnema/deities1.pdf so they definately do exist.

 

.

 

however Jayaratha considered them to be false gods.if they are false gods why do we have them and their mantras in our tantras?

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, servantofshakti said:

if these were enlightened beings as some would like to say,it must be asked why the reject ishvara and the Vedas after enlightenment.

 

 

There were two large areas of cultural tradition in Ancient India, one was Vedic and the other Sramana.  The Vedic tradition followed Vedanta (the end of or conclusions of the Vedas) and the other was loosely based around Samkhya and resulted in Buddhism and Jainism.  Tantra appeared in medieval India from about 600 AD when both traditions were already very ancient.  Some scholars have claimed that for instance Buddhist tantra was a copy of Hindu Tantra - but actually its much more complicated and nuanced than that.  I think it is probably wrong to think that by this stage there were separate boxes labelled Hindu and Buddhist - there was dharma and there were practitioners who did not operate in silos.  Some of the great Buddhist mahasiddhas are recognised by Hindu traditions also e.g. Tilopa.

 

Buddhists accept the existence of gods in the six lokas.  Only modern western buddhists deny them.  So Buddhist tantric mandalas include sometimes Hindu deities like Indra, Brahma and Shiva.  What Buddhists don't accept is that there is one creator god who made everything and they don't identify the absolute, the dharmakaya as a deity.

 

Ishvara is the god of Patanjalis Yoga - and his philosophy is often described as Samkhya with Ishvara - and also it could also be described as Mahayana Buddhism with Ishvara.  The difference is nuanced and in the final analysis very slight.  From a non-dualist practitioners point of view, that is any good yogi Hindu or Buddhist it's about actual realisation and not dogma - and so the closer those practitioners get to the final realisation the closer in view they get to each other.

 

This probably doesn't answer your question - cos I'm rambling :) but anyway its an interesting question.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

the "four fold negation" per Buddhism points to the fact that one can not know (in the common meaning of the word)  - anything definite except for the indefinite, for instance:

 

  1. " 1. Not real.  2. Not unreal. 3. Not both real and unreal.  4. Not neither real nor unreal.

Another way we can look at reality is as one (or “oneness” in spiritual terms), as many separate things, or as any combination thereof. So the four negations are:

  1. 1. Not one.  2. Not many.  3. Not both one and many. 4. Not neither one nor many.

You can practice Madhyamaka by studying its logical arguments why any assertions about the nature of reality are self-defeating. You can also use it as a kind of koan practice. Accept, for the sake of argument, that things are not real, unreal, both, or neither. Contemplate where that leaves you. In either case, the Middle Way philosophy cuts through conceptualization and points you directly to the true nature of reality"

 

Hmm, it does? Good luck with what to me is a deeply and totally convoluted form of mental gymnastics;  or just study the Upanishads which do not make such mental speculations that can easily leave one adrift in forms of further confounding pretzels.   (although there is a time place for pretzels, until there is not, lol)  

  

Edited by old3bob
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, old3bob said:

the "four fold negation" per Buddhism points to the fact that one can not know (in the common meaning of the word)  - anything definite except for the indefinite, for instance:

 

  1. " 1. Not real.  2. Not unreal. 3. Not both real and unreal.  4. Not neither real nor unreal.

Another way we can look at reality is as one (or “oneness” in spiritual terms), as many separate things, or as any combination thereof. So the four negations are:

  1. 1. Not one.  2. Not many.  3. Not both one and many. 4. Not neither one nor many.

You can practice Madhyamaka by studying its logical arguments why any assertions about the nature of reality are self-defeating. You can also use it as a kind of koan practice. Accept, for the sake of argument, that things are not real, unreal, both, or neither. Contemplate where that leaves you. In either case, the Middle Way philosophy cuts through conceptualization and points you directly to the true nature of reality"

 

Hmm, it does? Good luck with what to me is a deeply and totally convoluted form of mental gymnastics;  or just study the Upanishads which do not make such mental speculations that can easily leave one adrift in forms of further confounding pretzels.   (although there is a time place for pretzels, until there is not, lol)  

  

 

 

I think you have to place Nagarjunas Madhyamaka as a critique of whatever was being postulated at the time as being the ultimate cause.  It did lead Buddhism down something of a rabbit hole of nihilism but most tantric practitioners - while they may be nominally prasangika are actually closer to Yogacara because of the positive assertions about the nature of ultimate reality.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Apech said:

What Buddhists don't accept is that there is one creator god who made everything and they don't identify the absolute, the dharmakaya as a deity.

 

Just wanted to add as a side note, that neither do Vedantins. As is with most feebly attempted descriptors of the Absolute, consider the following to be equally inept, however much it may appease the mind's inquiry:

 

ParaBrahman is epitomized impersonality.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, neti neti said:

 

Just wanted to add as a side note, that neither do Vedantins. As is with most feebly attempted descriptors of the Absolute, consider the following to be equally inept, however much it may appease the mind's inquiry:

 

ParaBrahman is epitomized impersonality.

 

As I understand it the 'pathway' is different.  For instance the investigation of atman and its nature as not different to brahman vs. investigation into non-self and waking up to dharmakaya.  So if you started to progress on one way but mix in things from the other way you could get potentially very confused and get nowhere.  Having said this - Patanjali, it could be argued did exactly that - without the confusion :)

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Apech said:

 

 

There were two large areas of cultural tradition in Ancient India, one was Vedic and the other Sramana.  The Vedic tradition followed Vedanta (the end of or conclusions of the Vedas) and the other was loosely based around Samkhya and resulted in Buddhism and Jainism.  Tantra appeared in medieval India from about 600 AD when both traditions were already very ancient.  Some scholars have claimed that for instance Buddhist tantra was a copy of Hindu Tantra - but actually its much more complicated and nuanced than that.  I think it is probably wrong to think that by this stage there were separate boxes labelled Hindu and Buddhist - there was dharma and there were practitioners who did not operate in silos.  Some of the great Buddhist mahasiddhas are recognised by Hindu traditions also e.g. Tilopa.

 

Buddhists accept the existence of gods in the six lokas.  Only modern western buddhists deny them.  So Buddhist tantric mandalas include sometimes Hindu deities like Indra, Brahma and Shiva.  What Buddhists don't accept is that there is one creator god who made everything and they don't identify the absolute, the dharmakaya as a deity.

 

Ishvara is the god of Patanjalis Yoga - and his philosophy is often described as Samkhya with Ishvara - and also it could also be described as Mahayana Buddhism with Ishvara.  The difference is nuanced and in the final analysis very slight.  From a non-dualist practitioners point of view, that is any good yogi Hindu or Buddhist it's about actual realisation and not dogma - and so the closer those practitioners get to the final realisation the closer in view they get to each other.

 

This probably doesn't answer your question - cos I'm rambling :) but anyway its an interesting question.

I like the general direction of your post :) 
 

However, imho, most of Hindu dharma/cosmology stems from two primary ones — Purva mimamsa and  samkhya. 
 

Purva mimamsa is the ritual aspect of Vedic dharma. The philosophical aspects developed in the form of the upanishads.  
 

Many concepts of samkhya influenced the Hindu worldview, such as the purusha/Prakriti or Shiva/shakti dual  nature we see in the phenomenal universe. 

 

I do believe that samkhya gave birth to yoga, and eventually yoga became the practical tool for the realization of philosophy — and it was flexible enough to be repurposed into a practical tool for nondual traditions.  

Ishwara also exists in Vedantic systems. In dualistic Vedanta, ishwara is the absolute.
 

In nondual Vedanta, ishwara is the Saguna aspect of Brahman, which is essentially pure awareness foiled in Satva guna. Brahman itself is nirguna, so unconditioned pure awareness - “ triguna rahitam “, Hence the famous verse from the Brahmasutras — 

 

Brahmanandam parama sukhadam kevalam jnaanamurtim 
Dvandvaateetam gaganasadrusham tatvamasyadi lakshyam -1
Ekam nityam vimalamachalam sarvadheesaakshibhuutam 
Bhaavaateetam triguna rahitam sadgurum tam namaami. -2

 

 

 

Blissful Brahman, bringer of peace

Nondual and the fount of knowledge.

Beyond duality and like the sky in nature, the sign of Brahman are the realizations captured in statements like “you are that (tat tvam asi)”.

 

Nondual and eternal, pure and changeless, is the eternal witness to all phenomena. 
 

Beyond all emotions,  free from the influence of the three gunas (rajas, tamas and satva), my salutations to that highest Guru. 


PS. I realized after posting the original comment, I’d mixed up verses, so posting the correct version + my translation thereof. 


And there has been enormous cross pollination between traditions in ancient times — via the process of debates between schools of thought. 

Edited by dwai
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we can all epitomize or not until the cows come home... the catch is that only Self can know/be the Self.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Apech said:

 

As I understand it the 'pathway' is different.  For instance the investigation of atman and its nature as not different to brahman vs. investigation into non-self and waking up to dharmakaya.  So if you started to progress on one way but mix in things from the other way you could get potentially very confused and get nowhere.  Having said this - Patanjali, it could be argued did exactly that - without the confusion :)

 

Agreed. Interestingly enough though, any model is a working model... thus amalgamations of apparently different schools of thought can be successfully integrated into one's practice to much effect. Chaos Magick comes to mind.

 

But just as a tried and tested way can lead one to the goal, a 'pathway' of confusion may also be sufficient for, at the least, pushing one past certain thresholds.

Edited by neti neti
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies to this thread.but i think they miss the mark.the buddhists believe in the deva realm so they can absorb devas as dharmapalas and if people have visionary excperiences with devas,they can be dismissed as just visions of Devas.but Buddhas and Bodhisattvas have no real place in hindu cosmology.one must ask why we have buddhist dieties in our tantras,but also what exactely buddhist dieties are with their lokas.because to me,it seems that if buddhist dieties exist,this proves the superiority of buddhism over hinduism in regards to buddhism being true,since hinduism cannot really explain why and how buddhas and bodhisattvas exist etc

 

let me know of Im right or wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

the historic Buddha (edit) had to set  his raft down,  and by all accounts knew it.

 

the Self (a four letter word to some Buddhists)  is not bound by rafts either...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by old3bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, servantofshakti said:

Thanks for the replies to this thread.but i think they miss the mark.the buddhists believe in the deva realm so they can absorb devas as dharmapalas and if people have visionary excperiences with devas,they can be dismissed as just visions of Devas.but Buddhas and Bodhisattvas have no real place in hindu cosmology.one must ask why we have buddhist dieties in our tantras,but also what exactely buddhist dieties are with their lokas.because to me,it seems that if buddhist dieties exist,this proves the superiority of buddhism over hinduism in regards to buddhism being true,since hinduism cannot really explain why and how buddhas and bodhisattvas exist etc

 

let me know of Im right or wrong.

We don’t have Buddhist deities in our  tantras, Buddhists have our deities ;) 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, dwai said:

We don’t have Buddhist deities in our  tantras, Buddhists have our deities ;) 

in Shakta tantra we have Vajrayogini,wich is buddhist in origin and the tantra allegedly admits such.also professor buhnemann has instances of deities and mantras in hindu tantras,I linked two articles in the op.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also Manjushri is placed in some hindu tantras,different from the greater manjughosa wich is shiva.you can read about that here http://www.kamakotimandali.com/blog/index.php?p=211&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

 

in the mahaskanda purana,Shiva says he created the Buddhist Sutras and suttas(bauddha agamas),and the jain ones too and that he does so to bring them closer to the path of the Vedas.like an upaya.

 

in the same Work,Shiva says that he appears as Buddhas to bring people closer to the path of the vedas.

 

all buddhas,bodhisattvas and dakinis are emanations of the one Adibuddha Vajradhara-Samanthabadra anyway wich emanate the 5 dhyani sugatas,wich in turn emanate the dakinis,bodhisattvas etc so if the adibuddha is Shiva then the buddhas,bodhisattvas and dakinis would be shiva who runs the buddhist religion to bring people closer to the path of the vedas.

 

if we know who the adibuddha is,then we know who all the bodhisattvas are because theyre all energy emanations of such.if Adibuddha is actually Kalaa cakra then all buddhas,bodhisattvas and dakinis are merely lord Shiva,as kalacakra was probably shiva originally.

 

https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/13623/where-is-buddhism-also-considered-a-valid-path-in-hindu-scriptures

 

Quote

22nd Chapter of YajnaVaibhava Khanda of Suta Samhita of Skanda Purana deals with the validity of various paths. The chapter itself is named as as 'MargaPramanya Nirnaya' which means 'Decision of Validity of Paths'. There the Path of Buddhas and Arhatas is also considered one among the many paths.

अथातः संप्रवक्ष्यामि मार्गप्रमाण्यनिर्णयम् ।
श्रद्धया सहिता यूयं श्रृणुश्वं मुनिपुड़्गवा ।।
वेदांश्च धर्मशास्त्राणि पुराणं भारतं तथा ।
वेदाड़्गान्युपवेदांश्च कामिकाद्यागामानपि ।।
कापालं लाकुलं चैव ययोर्भेदान्ह्विजर्षभा ।
तथा पाशुपतं सोमं भैरवप्रमुखागमान् ।।
तेषामेवोभेदांश्च शतशोऽथ सहस्रशः ।
विष्वागमांस्तथा ब्रह्मान्बुद्धार्हद्यागमानपि ।।
लोकायत तर्कशास्त्रं बहुविस्तरसंयुतम् ।
मीमांसामतिगम्भीरां सांख्ययोगौ तथैव च ।।
अनेक भेदभिन्नानि तथा शास्त्रान्तराणि च ।
निर्ममे शंकर साक्षात्सर्वज्ञः संग्रहेणतु ।।

Listen with faith, O sages, to what I say as to the truth of the various paths. Vedas, Dharmasastras, Purana, Bharata, Vedangas and minor Vedas; Kamika and other agamas; Kapala and Lakula in all their variety; the Pasupata, Soma, Bhairava and other agamas with their hundred varieties: Vaishnava and Brahma agamas; the agamas of the Buddhas and the Arhats; Lokayata, and the Tarkasastras in all their vastness; the profound Mimamsa, as also Sankhya and Yoga; all these and many more Sastras, the Omniscient Divine Being has made in brief.

Why There are Many Paths ?
अधिकारिविभेदेन नैकस्यैव सदा द्विजा ।
तर्कैरेते हि मार्गास्तु न हन्तव्या मनीषिभि ।।
यथा तोयप्रवाहाणां समुद्र: परमावधि ।
तथैव सर्व मार्गाणां साक्षान्निष्ठा महेश्वरः ।।

The wise say that each of these sastras is intended for a particular class according to the individual qualification, not all for one. These paths are not to be rudely handled by the learned subjecting them to rigorous unrelenting logic. As all streams ultimately empty themselves into the ocean, so all these paths ultimately lead to the Mahesvara (/Great Lord) Himself.

Thus each path and shastras are according to individual qualification of People.

How Lord helps from Other Paths ?
तत्तन्मार्गेनुगुण्येन साधकत्वं ह्युपैति सः ।
तत्प्रसादात्क्रमान्मार्गान्विशिष्टानेति मानवः ।।
तत्र तत्र स्थितो देवः प्रसादं कुरुतेऽस्य तु ।
सोपानक्रमतो देवा वेदमार्गस्य हेतवः ।।

Worshipped in what form so ever by people as ordained in their respective scriptures. He assumes that form and takes the devotee on to the next higher step, By His Grace man attains to superior paths. The Divine Being worshipped in the form in which He is represented in these paths takes the devotee step by step onward to the path of the Veda.

Why can't other Paths be wrong ?
तस्मादुक्तेन मार्गेण शिवेन कथिता अमी ।
मार्गा मानं न चामानं मृषावादी कथं शिव ।।
महाकारुणिको देवः सर्वज्ञो निर्मल खलु ।
तथाऽपि वेदो मार्गाणामुत्तम: सर्वसाधक ।।

"Thus these paths, laid out as they are by Shiva, are all of them true and serviceable. How can Shiva be a deceiver? He is supremely merciful, omniscient, and altogether stainless. Yet of all the paths, the  path  of  the  Veda  is  the  best.  as  conducing  to  all  good."

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I miss-expressed the raft parable earlier,  so this:

 

“The dharma too is like a raft. It serves the purpose of crossing over, not the purpose of grasping.

“When you understand that the dharma is like a raft, and that you should let go even of positive things (dhamma), then how much more so should you let go of negative things (adhamma).”  Stephen Batchelor

Edited by old3bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow interesting thread. tradition cross-talk deserves more discussion that it currently has! one of the worst things you can hear from a practitioner is " I don't bother with / check X tradition ever" excuse me?! That's just illogical, no one has complete path and stages fully explained from perfect angles. Another tradition is just more information of the world we live in for you

 

I am still an amateur, but what do you think of this basic model I've kind of observed; the trikaya:

 

Nirmanakaya, this body, yinshen - non-immortal going through rebirth, (although may stop aging of the body and arrogantly call that immortality, or it's possibility is just a myth)

Sambokaya, self-realised, yangshen - limited immortal, still needs to reincarnate eventually (according to bhagavad gita this consciousness still 're-births' at the end of each Brahmic day - trillions of years - big bang/big crunch ?)

Dharmakaya, self-liberated, wuji? or yangshen in wuji?... - eternal immortal, never needs to reincarnate

 

?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The devotee of Neem Karoli Baba named Krishna Das, a westerner and now a famous singer, tells a story of a brief conversation he had once with the guru. (Neem Karoli Baba/"Maharaji" commonly accepted as an avatar/expression of Hanuman energy)

He, Krishna Das, was hanging out with Maharaji, and Maharaji spied Krishna Das' notebook, a kind of scrapbook in which he kept things of note on his spiritual journey. Maharaji turns to a page, puts his finger on it, and asks Krishna Das what this was?

Maharaji had placed his finger on a page that showed a mahamudra teaching. Krishna Das said it was just some Buddhist thing, and he felt embarrassed, having kept some Buddhist thing, when Maharaji, his guru, is clearly of the Indian/Hindu thing. Remember, Maharaji often displayed his omniscience--he knew everything--and so understood that Krishna Das felt embarrassed.

Maharaji tells someone to read it. Maybe it was written in Tibetan, but someone there could read it. After the devotee had read it out loud, Maharaji exclaimed, "Teek!", as if to say: It is correct.

Then Maharaji flipped again in Krishna Das' notebook, and lands on a picture of himself. He shows it to Krishna Das and asks him, "Krishna Das, who's this?" And when Krishna Das laughed and answered But, Baba, it's you, Maharaji shook his head and smiled, lay the one finger on the photo and said, "Buddha."

(this was my own version of the story of his story)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

so what are you trying to imply?   Note: "budh" to awake, know is a word from Sanskrit (which it is said to have a 3500 year history  thus Buddhists obviously did not have the term 3500 years ago being that Buddism was not yet founded along with it not yet adopting the Sanskrit language) 

Edited by old3bob
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is pretty easy to discern which teaching is superior.

 

The one you actually practice. 

 

23 hours ago, servantofshakti said:

it seems that if buddhist dieties exist,this proves the superiority of buddhism over hinduism in regards to buddhism being true,since hinduism cannot really explain why and how buddhas and bodhisattvas exist etc

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, old3bob said:

so what are you trying to imply?   Note: "budh" to awake, know is a word from Sanskrit (which it is said to have a 3500 year history  thus Buddhists obviously did not have the term 3500 years ago being that Buddism was not yet founded along with it not yet adopting the Sanskrit language) 

Yeah that's a very good point to point out. Buddhism claims there is ONE buddha. Similarly just about every traditions claims there is ONE atma. Or if an immortal they say you actually ARE siva, etc. That shows a common ground at least.

 

I wonder if it's just a matter of different levels or sub achievements of the dharmakayas realization that differs in traditions?

 

What follows after the trikaya/shavabivakaya (nature body) is fully realised. Evolution stops? I would imagine it continues on forever, simply in ways we cannot have the paradigm off from our current level of realisation, or as hinduism would say, we cannot know it with our inferior knowledge.

Edited by EmeraldHead
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, old3bob said:

so what are you trying to imply?   Note: "budh" to awake, know is a word from Sanskrit (which it is said to have a 3500 year history  thus Buddhists obviously did not have the term 3500 years ago being that Buddism was not yet founded along with it not yet adopting the Sanskrit language) 


Was this directed to me and my post?

If so, I would answer: "Good question. If it matters to you, then maybe read it again and something will reveal itself. Be well. -mote"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

grasping at straws to give or justify a Buddhist bias...is what it sounds like.  (or maybe you are just being transcendentally cryptic for the hell of it?)

 

 

Edited by old3bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, EmeraldHead said:

wow interesting thread. tradition cross-talk deserves more discussion that it currently has! one of the worst things you can hear from a practitioner is " I don't bother with / check X tradition ever" excuse me?! That's just illogical, no one has complete path and stages fully explained from perfect angles. Another tradition is just more information of the world we live in for you

 

I am still an amateur, but what do you think of this basic model I've kind of observed; the trikaya:

 

Nirmanakaya, this body, yinshen - non-immortal going through rebirth, (although may stop aging of the body and arrogantly call that immortality, or it's possibility is just a myth)

 

23 hours ago, EmeraldHead said:

Sambokaya, self-realised, yangshen - limited immortal, still needs to reincarnate eventually (according to bhagavad gita this consciousness still 're-births' at the end of each Brahmic day - trillions of years - big bang/big crunch ?)

 

23 hours ago, EmeraldHead said:

Dharmakaya, self-liberated, wuji? or yangshen in wuji?... - eternal immortal, never needs to reincarnate

 

?

 

Leaving placeholders above to add later if possible...

 

TBH, I've thought about this mapping and how it overlaps many times with the Vedantic model but there seems to be subtle differences (at least the way I understand the 3 kaya model of Buddhism). 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites