Very unpopular opinions

[Apech]

Bodhi-cheating

 

The art work of early Buddhism shows what early Buddhism and the Buddha was like.  He is not depicted but represented by a pair and sandals, or an empty cushion and so on.  He is surrounded by dancing and singing, by nature spirits including voluptuous female nature spirits, and naga serpents.  This is a shamanistic scene.  Buddha was a shaman who imparted knowledge.  A few centuries after his death the great king/emperor Ashoka appropriated Buddhism because it gave a chance of a way out of the otherwise inevitable consequences of the wide-scale slaughter he had perpetrated as part of his empire building.  He felt sorry for this - sorry for himself in fact and wanted to save himself from the hell realms.  The state subsidised Buddhism he introduced was, unlike the original Buddhism both scholastic and monastic.  Early Buddhism had no written texts but under the new Buddhism the collections of texts became everything - where liberation came from listening to the text being read, thinking about them, meditating on them and so on.  State funding institutionalised Buddhism into monasteries and universities - much as Constantine did to Christianity - and created a new form of Buddhism which emphasised intellectual learning and religious hierarchies.  Early Buddhist monks wandered in groups no larger than three, lived and worshipped in close connection with the local communities on whom they depended for food and supplied services such as healing and spells for good harvests and so on.  But for the monastics the text became everything in a kind of 'sola scriptora' approach.  Attempts by modern Buddhists to re-find 'early Buddhism' fall into the trap of trying to abstract ideas from the texts and end up with a kind of desiccated secular mental exercise.  Oddly to us moderns the closest thing to early Buddhism would be vajrayana even though it has much later historical roots.  And it is the main criticism of vajrayana that it introduces magical, yogic and deity practices which places it much closer to what the Buddha was actually like.

[snowymountains]

Interesting, I hear you.

 

Some counterpoints,

 

Though shamanism is not well defined, Buddhism does not have a form of journeying, which many shamanic cultures do have.

 

No reason to believe Tibetan Buddhism is closer to the original form of Buddhism compared to other flavours. From a history point of view eg Tantric practices are not attributed to the historical Buddha.

 

Why assume he did a form of Yoga, or that magical spells were a practice

 

The Buddha is not here to tell us what he did and all we have is the various Canons.

 

There can only be divergences after 2500 years, but why take the Tibetan texts more seriously than eg the Pali Canon ?

Only historical research can determine that.

[Nintendao]

1 hour ago, snowymountains said:

journeying, which many shamanic cultures do

 

 

[Maddie]

3 hours ago, Apech said:

Bodhi-cheating

 

The art work of early Buddhism shows what early Buddhism and the Buddha was like.  He is not depicted but represented by a pair and sandals, or an empty cushion and so on.  He is surrounded by dancing and singing, by nature spirits including voluptuous female nature spirits, and naga serpents.  This is a shamanistic scene.  Buddha was a shaman who imparted knowledge.  A few centuries after his death the great king/emperor Ashoka appropriated Buddhism because it gave a chance of a way out of the otherwise inevitable consequences of the wide-scale slaughter he had perpetrated as part of his empire building.  He felt sorry for this - sorry for himself in fact and wanted to save himself from the hell realms.  The state subsidised Buddhism he introduced was, unlike the original Buddhism both scholastic and monastic.  Early Buddhism had no written texts but under the new Buddhism the collections of texts became everything - where liberation came from listening to the text being read, thinking about them, meditating on them and so on.  State funding institutionalised Buddhism into monasteries and universities - much as Constantine did to Christianity - and created a new form of Buddhism which emphasised intellectual learning and religious hierarchies.  Early Buddhist monks wandered in groups no larger than three, lived and worshipped in close connection with the local communities on whom they depended for food and supplied services such as healing and spells for good harvests and so on.  But for the monastics the text became everything in a kind of 'sola scriptora' approach.  Attempts by modern Buddhists to re-find 'early Buddhism' fall into the trap of trying to abstract ideas from the texts and end up with a kind of desiccated secular mental exercise.  Oddly to us moderns the closest thing to early Buddhism would be vajrayana even though it has much later historical roots.  And it is the main criticism of vajrayana that it introduces magical, yogic and deity practices which places it much closer to what the Buddha was actually like.

 

It almost sounds like you're saying Ashoka was the Buddhist Constantine? I find this interesting for several reasons, but I'll refrain for the moment. 

 

What do you base this upon?

Edited May 23 by Maddie

[Taoist Texts]

3 hours ago, Apech said:

He is not depicted

whats the significance of this?

[Maddie]

11 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

whats the significance of this?

 

I can't speak for what Apech might have intended but what I had heard before was that the statues of the Buddha and their veneration began after contact with the Greeks, thus making it more of a religion as opposed to a personal cultivation and liberation system. 

[steve]

4 hours ago, Apech said:

Bodhi-cheating

 

The art work of early Buddhism shows what early Buddhism and the Buddha was like.  He is not depicted but represented by a pair and sandals, or an empty cushion and so on.  He is surrounded by dancing and singing, by nature spirits including voluptuous female nature spirits, and naga serpents.  This is a shamanistic scene.  Buddha was a shaman who imparted knowledge.  A few centuries after his death the great king/emperor Ashoka appropriated Buddhism because it gave a chance of a way out of the otherwise inevitable consequences of the wide-scale slaughter he had perpetrated as part of his empire building.  He felt sorry for this - sorry for himself in fact and wanted to save himself from the hell realms.  The state subsidised Buddhism he introduced was, unlike the original Buddhism both scholastic and monastic.  Early Buddhism had no written texts but under the new Buddhism the collections of texts became everything - where liberation came from listening to the text being read, thinking about them, meditating on them and so on.  State funding institutionalised Buddhism into monasteries and universities - much as Constantine did to Christianity - and created a new form of Buddhism which emphasised intellectual learning and religious hierarchies.  Early Buddhist monks wandered in groups no larger than three, lived and worshipped in close connection with the local communities on whom they depended for food and supplied services such as healing and spells for good harvests and so on.  But for the monastics the text became everything in a kind of 'sola scriptora' approach.  Attempts by modern Buddhists to re-find 'early Buddhism' fall into the trap of trying to abstract ideas from the texts and end up with a kind of desiccated secular mental exercise.  Oddly to us moderns the closest thing to early Buddhism would be vajrayana even though it has much later historical roots.  And it is the main criticism of vajrayana that it introduces magical, yogic and deity practices which places it much closer to what the Buddha was actually like.

 

Very interesting perspective. I wonder if Bön teachings and practice give us a sense of early Buddhism?

[snowymountains]

3 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

whats the significance of this?

 

It is significant and this still the case in Theravadan tradition, very little statues, very little paintings etc.

The Buddha (per Pali Canon) advised against worship and ritual.

 

Tbh my take the inverse of Apech's.

 

The closest to early Buddhism would be Theravadan Buddhism, after that/very close some Zen lineages.

Tibetan probably being the furthest away from the historical Buddha as it was incorporated Tantric practices which appeared later than the historical Buddha, Yogas, which again didn't exist at the time of the historical Buddha, Dzogchen, which is of unknown origins etc.

Edited May 23 by snowymountains

[Apech]

8 hours ago, snowymountains said:

Interesting, I hear you.

 

Some counterpoints,

 

Though shamanism is not well defined, Buddhism does not have a form of journeying, which many shamanic cultures do have.

 

I use the term shamanism in its broadest acquired sense and of course not the original Siberian sense.  I mean being in contact with hidden realities - gaining knowledge from there and transmitting it back to mankind.

 

8 hours ago, snowymountains said:

No reason to believe Tibetan Buddhism is closer to the original form of Buddhism compared to other flavours. From a history point of view eg Tantric practices are not attributed to the historical Buddha.

 

Well yes Tantric practices  came from Oddiyana from sometime maybe 6th Century or thereabouts.  Oddiyana is believed to be the Swat valley now part of modern Pakistan/Afghanistan where the kingdoms deriving from Alexander the Greats invasion held sway.  Also on the silk route and thus a passageway to and from China and also Rome and the West.  There was much mixing - which incidently included Ashoka sending Buddhist 'missionaries' as far as Libya.  So historically the emergent vajrayana is far from the original Buddhism as would have been found in the 5th Century BC Maghada.  But that depends one what you mean by close and far in terms of approach and attitude.  We often confuse historical closeness with actual proximity of thought - which I believe is a mistake.

 

8 hours ago, snowymountains said:

Why assume he did a form of Yoga, or that magical spells were a practice

 

Why not assume it?  He practiced various forms of Samhkya based meditation and ascetic practices before his enlightenment.  Magic spells were practiced generally by Buddhist monks in all periods including the Theravada.

 

8 hours ago, snowymountains said:

The Buddha is not here to tell us what he did and all we have is the various Canons.

 

We have much more than that.  We have our own minds and buddha-nature which if we realise them as they really are we will see as the Buddha did without any need for textual authority.

 

8 hours ago, snowymountains said:

There can only be divergences after 2500 years, but why take the Tibetan texts more seriously than eg the Pali Canon ?

Only historical research can determine that.

 

Many people make the mistake that thinking there was some kind of pure Ur-Buddhist stream, which journeyed to Tibet and became corrupted by gods, demons, magic and folk religion leading to Tibetan Buddhism.  This is completely historically inaccurate.  The Buddhism which came to Tibet in two main waves (9th C and 11 C) was the prominent form of Buddhism practiced in Northern India at the time - namely the Mahayana of Atisha and the Vajrayana of Padmasambhava and others.  The Tibetans did of course add commentaries and some new practices over the years - and while there were periods of decadence and so on - they were corrected by the great teachers like Sakya Pandita and brought into alignment with the Buddha's teachings. 

 

 

[Apech]

6 hours ago, Maddie said:

 

It almost sounds like you're saying Ashoka was the Buddhist Constantine? I find this interesting for several reasons, but I'll refrain for the moment. 

 

What do you base this upon?

 

I was using Constantine for comparison - I'm not saying they are the same but that they both practiced Imperial patronage of a religion.  If you have the time this video is quite interesting:

 

 

[Maddie]

2 hours ago, snowymountains said:

 

It is significant and this still the case in Theravadan tradition, very little statues, very little paintings etc.

The Buddha (per Pali Canon) advised against worship and ritual.

 

Tbh my take the inverse of Apech's.

 

The closest to early Buddhism would be Theravadan Buddhism, after that/very close some Zen lineages.

Tibetan probably being the furthest away from the historical Buddha as it was incorporated Tantric practices which appeared later than the historical Buddha, Yogas, which again didn't exist at the time of the historical Buddha, Dzogchen, which is of unknown origins etc.

 

I could be wrong, but what I think Apech is arguing here is that the reason it seems that Theravada is the closest to original Buddhism is because of the work of Ashoka, and maybe it is actually closer to that. Not saying this is correct or incorrect but maybe what Apech was saying in his hypothesis? 

[Apech]

6 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

whats the significance of this?

 

There are various theories, including the suggestion that it is comparable to Muslim artists not portraying the prophet (pbuh) - but I think this is unlikely.  I think it is because the Buddha was the Tathagata - 'thus gone one' and so it was an artistic device to show that although he was present ... he was also beyond 'self' and thus shown as a void.

 

 

[Apech]

4 hours ago, steve said:

 

Very interesting perspective. I wonder if Bön teachings and practice give us a sense of early Buddhism?

 

 

I have no idea ...can they???

[Maddie]

1 minute ago, Apech said:

 

There are various theories, including the suggestion that it is comparable to Muslim artists not portraying the prophet (pbuh) - but I think this is unlikely.  I think it is because the Buddha was the Tathagata - 'thus gone one' and so it was an artistic device to show that although he was present ... he was also beyond 'self' and thus shown as a void.

 

 

 

The Buddha would often tell his followers not to cling to his physical form because to do so was missing the point of the Dharma. I think this is why early Buddhist art does not depict him very often. 

[Apech]

12 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

I could be wrong, but what I think Apech is arguing here is that the reason it seems that Theravada is the closest to original Buddhism is because of the work of Ashoka, and maybe it is actually closer to that. Not saying this is correct or incorrect but maybe what Apech was saying in his hypothesis? 

 

 

I think that at least in some respects the Pali Canon is the result of Ashoka's imperial capture of what was previously a minority religion.  An attempt at orthodoxy like what happened with early Christian texts at Nicea and so on.  I think this might be hinted at in the video I posted above.

 

 

Edited May 23 by Apech

[Maddie]

Just now, Apech said:

 

 

I think that at least in some respects the Pali Canon is the result of Ashoka's imperial capture of what was previously a minority religion.  An attempt at orthodoxy like what happened with early Christian texts at Nicea and so on.

 

 

 

Ok so I was kind of in the ballpark in regards to your point lol. I think this is a very interesting and worthy point to explore due to the fact that the sense of Buddhism I get from reading the Pali canon is somewhat different from what I see in modern day Theravada being practiced. 

[Apech]

6 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

Ok so I was kind of in the ballpark in regards to your point lol. I think this is a very interesting and worthy point to explore due to the fact that the sense of Buddhism I get from reading the Pali canon is somewhat different from what I see in modern day Theravada being practiced. 

 

Theravada likes to present itself as something like pure Buddhism but it has a long history of its own which is worth looking at.  If you have read Buddhaghosa for instance you might wonder what is going on. lol.

[Maddie]

Just now, Apech said:

 

Theravada likes to present itself as something like pure Buddhism but it has a long history of its own which is worth looking at.  If you have read Buddhaghosa for instance you might wonder what is going on. lol.

 

I've never heard of the Buddhaghosa before. Yes I have noticed this as well. Theravada likes to portray itself as (in some cases) almost identical to original Buddhism, and at the beginning I took this for granted since I did not know any better. In time however as I read more of the Pali canon and then saw what the Theravada did and thought this did not seem to be exactly the case in my opinion. 

[snowymountains]

6 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

I use the term shamanism in its broadest acquired sense and of course not the original Siberian sense.  I mean being in contact with hidden realities - gaining knowledge from there and transmitting it back to mankind.

 

On that topic (don't remember which Sutta atm), he recommended journeying within, with insight meditation, not elsewhere, so no journeying per se

There are of course references in the Suttas of him eg talking to devas, so in a broader sense correct, he did operate in more realities

 

10 minutes ago, Apech said:

Why not assume it?  He practiced various forms of Samhkya based meditation and ascetic practices before his enlightenment.  Magic spells were practiced generally by Buddhist monks in all periods including the Theravada.

 

Yogas are not in the Suttas and they were invented later.

 

Depends what you mean by magic spells, in the Suttas nor in the vishutimsga do I recall a spell, but if you are aware of spells in either text, feel free to point it out, I'd be very interested to take a look.

There are references to powers but haven't come across spells.

 

14 minutes ago, Apech said:

Many people make the mistake that thinking there was some kind of pure Ur-Buddhist stream, which journeyed to Tibet and became corrupted by gods, demons, magic and folk religion leading to Tibetan Buddhism.  This is completely historically inaccurate.  The Buddhism which came to Tibet in two main waves (9th C and 11 C) was the prominent form of Buddhism practiced in Northern India at the time - namely the Mahayana of Atisha and the Vajrayana of Padmasambhava and others.  The Tibetans did of course add commentaries and some new practices over the years - and while there were periods of decadence and so on - they were corrected by the great teachers like Sakya Pandita and brought into alignment with the Buddha's teachings. 

 

 

 

I wouldn't call it corruption, but I'd definitely call it something different. It became something new by fusing with tantric practices, yogic practices, which came later, perhaps even with Tibetan shamanism and became something else.

 

16 minutes ago, Apech said:

We have much more than that.  We have our own minds and buddha-nature which if we realise them as they really are we will see as the Buddha did without any need for textual authority.

 

That's fair but also something different to how early Buddhism looked like.

 

Even without textual authority I still believe the Theravadan practices and the Zen ones to be closer to the real thing.

I'm also sure there is stuff missing from these practices, simply because not all tools needed to remove conditioning are there.

Oddly some of what's missing, may be in other traditions but not in a complete form but that's a different discussion.

[Apech]

6 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

I've never heard of the Buddhaghosa before. Yes I have noticed this as well. Theravada likes to portray itself as (in some cases) almost identical to original Buddhism, and at the beginning I took this for granted since I did not know any better. In time however as I read more of the Pali canon and then saw what the Theravada did and thought this did not seem to be exactly the case in my opinion. 

 

I've never practiced Theravada so perhaps I shouldn't comment.  I am sure there is a lot of good in it and a good fit for many.  When I was researching the history of Buddhism the work of certain bhikshus was very useful, sincere and well researched.  But I never found it attractive as a vehicle for my work ... but this may be a personal thing.  I think originally this is how it was and according to the testimony of Chinese Buddhsts visiting India it was the case that monks in same monastery would practice sutrayana and mahayana side by side.  It is thought that mahayana was at one time just a monority practice in many communities which grew in popularity over time to gradually replace the sravaka tradition.  There was no schism just a gradual growing apart over time.

 

 

[snowymountains]

20 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

I could be wrong, but what I think Apech is arguing here is that the reason it seems that Theravada is the closest to original Buddhism is because of the work of Ashoka, and maybe it is actually closer to that. Not saying this is correct or incorrect but maybe what Apech was saying in his hypothesis? 

 

I say it's closer than Tibetan because Tibetan incorporated practices which appeared later than the historical Buddha, while Theravada didn't, that's independent of Ashoka 

[snowymountains]

13 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Theravada likes to present itself as something like pure Buddhism but it has a long history of its own which is worth looking at.  If you have read Buddhaghosa for instance you might wonder what is going on. lol.

 

Vishutimaga is a collection of oral traditions, which were collected by Buddhagosa and merged thematically alongside info from the Suttas, it's not his invention.

I haven't looked at the historical accuracy of this but as a meditation manual it's quite good and complete.

[Apech]

13 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

I say it's closer than Tibetan because Tibetan incorporated practices which appeared later than the historical Buddha, while Theravada didn't, that's independent of Ashoka 

 

The Theravada had tantric practices but they purged them (not completely tho).  Sorry I can't cite reference for this but it might be in Gombridge's History of Theravada (not sure).

 

PS. I've read a lot on this but I didn't keep notes as at the time it was purely for my own self education.  There are tho some good academic books on Buddhism which are quite useful.

 

 

Edited May 23 by Apech
Gombridge

[Apech]

6 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

Vishutimaga is a collection of oral traditions, which were collected by Buddhagosa and merged thematically alongside info from the Suttas, it's not his invention.

I haven't looked at the historical accuracy of this but as a meditation manual it's quite good and complete.

 

 

His take on the 12 steps of dependent origination is poor to say the least - even modern Buddhologists say so.

[snowymountains]

2 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

The Theravada had tantric practices but they purged them (not completely tho).  Sorry I can't cite reference for this but it might be in Gobridge's History of Theravada (not sure).

 

PS. I've read a lot on this but I didn't keep notes as at the time it was purely for my own self education.  There are tho some good academic books on Buddhism which are quite useful.

 

 

 

It doesn't, no, there's like only one monastery which has a single tantric-like practice and it's considered sort of heretic, not part of Theravada. Tantras were created after the historical Buddha