• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ask MysticSang'ha anything

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
Patty, I just want you to know that I'll answer you a little later today. But first I need to address the differences further with each of the four Tibetan schools.

That would be Kagyu (which I know James was a former practitioner of - Karma Kagyu), Sakya, and Geluk (of which I practice).

But I will get to your questions right afterward. I don't want to give a hasty reply here. M'kay? :)




Peace,
Mystic
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
To continue............

The New Translation schools began their formation, and this was mainly due to the influx of Indian conventional monasticism. A few guys were rather important at this time, Atisha - who penned the Bodhi-patha-pradipa..........later reintroduced as the Lam-Rim; Virupa, who taught what is known as the lamdre ("path and fruition"); and Tilopa, who is considered the human founder of the Kagyu lineage.

Let's see if I can nail this down all right.

Atisha founded the Kadampa school based on a scholarly approach to enlightenment. He was a true espouser of the Mahayana ideals, and even though he understood the importance of the Tantras, he felt that they should be there as a support for the exoteric teachings. This was then later absorbed by the Geluk school and it's founder, Je Tsongkhapa, and it remains as it's primary practice today.

Which, I know, looks like it puts me at odds with how I approach this world as a "mystic." :cool: But, that's OK. We all have our own paths to walk. =D

We spend most of our time studying the texts and getting into debates about Dharma teachings.........mostly about karma. We spend time on meditation, either guided or vipasanna, and so very little on the Tantras. The Geluk school practices the teachings mainly what I'd written earlier: the Lam-Rim. This is what's called "The Graduated Path to Enlightenment."

The Sakya school was founded by another Indian monk named Virupa. He was a brilliant scholar that traveled to Tibet to spread the Dharma, but was once discovered in a monastery eating the flesh of a bird (pigeon, in particular, but don't quote me on it, lol). He was immediately expelled, and the story goes that he then walked across a lake, opened his hands, and the pigeon he was eating flew away........alive and well. He demonstrated that reality is not what is always seen, and that everything that was observed was an illusion in the first place. His teaching, including the Lamdre, is known as "path and fruition", and it is taught from what I understand in poetic language..........."vajra songs." This Vajraygatha is told from beginning to end like a story, beginning with the practitioner entering the Buddha-Dharma and ending with the practitioner's full realization and enlightenment.

Finally, if James is lurking and would like to comment, the Kagyu school was founded by a tantric vision by Tilopa of an old woman who tested him with all sorts of maddening requests from ripping off his clothes, yelling like a madman, practice only in secret..........he eventually followed the dakini's instructions and attained realization in his lifetime. These Tantra-Dharma transmissions were passed down from guru to student for generations, and the yogins that are part of this lineage are some of the most revered teachers in all of Tibetan Buddhism: Tilopa, Naropa, Maitripa, Marpa (who was a householder), and perhaps our most beloved yogin........

Milarepa.

I wanted to point out how each school was founded to give you an idea of what is distinctive of each of them. For the most part, we've kept these foundations in place. As a whole, we're very much alike if compared with, say, Rinzai Zen Buddhism or Pure Land. But our beginnings, I think, tell the story of how we're just a little different in our visions for putting the Dharma to practice.




Peace,
Mystic
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
I have some questions for you, Heather.

You mentioned earlier perceptions that were "absolutely NOT of this gross physical/material world." As I understand the concept of "unity," there is only one world ("form does not differ from emptiness"). Do you consider yourself to be a dualist?

Ultimately, no, but I do recognize and convey my personal experiences so that others may do the same. I feel that I can speak of dualism without getting stuck on it. Does that make sense? :)

You mentioned earlier 'three cosmological "functions"' of body called Sambhogakaya, Nirmanakaya, and Dharmakaya. Without demanding too much detail from you, as explanation might get very long, am I correct in concluding that these are three perspectives on humanity? Are they for all conscious beings (life-forms)? Do all things have these three functions of body?

Let me put it this way............all life forms/conscious beings have this potential to realize these forms. All have the potential to realize as a Nirmanakaya (like Shakyamuni Buddha), as a Sambhogakaya in the celestial realms, and as the Dharmakaya, which takes us back to the beginning of our very definition: this is our very nature, our Buddha-Nature.

samsara? I suspect I know, but really should ask.
What is Sang'ha?

Both Engyo's and lilithu's answers in this thread are very sufficient, and I have nothing more to add than a "thumbs up." :trampo:




Peace,
Mystic
 
I was just wondering, Buddhism, based on non-violence, has a lot of monks//followers who eat meat, can it be fair to be base it non-violence?



Thanks in advance :)
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Ultimately, no, but I do recognize and convey my personal experiences so that others may do the same. I feel that I can speak of dualism without getting stuck on it. Does that make sense? :)
Ultimately, no. :)

I can tell you in what way it doesn't make sense to me, but maybe that's just me: it doesn't reflect the belief that you have about reality, so it doesn't actually convey a personal experience that you had. So how could others have the same?
 

Engyo

Prince of Dorkness!
I was just wondering, Buddhism, based on non-violence, has a lot of monks//followers who eat meat, can it be fair to be base it non-violence?



Thanks in advance :)
Penguino -

Can you please define fair in the context of this question? It would probably help if you also define non-violence. Are we talking about non-violence towards human beings, all sentient beings, all life, what?
 

Engyo

Prince of Dorkness!
P -

That still doesn't define the question tightly. Eating meat isn't violent. Killing animals to provide meat to be eaten generally is (or can be). I thought the question had to do with non-violence.

The reason I say we need to define it is that (for example) Martin Luther King Jr. practiced and taught non-violence, which had absolutely nothing to do with diet.

And, of course, we have yet to define what fairness is or is not in this context.

OH, BTW, Heather I'm sorry to hijack your thread. Please split it if you think that would help...........
 
Yeah but, an animal has to be killed to eat it. Also even by eating a died aniimals meat still makes a demand for more meat so mroe would die.
 

Engyo

Prince of Dorkness!
I'm not arguing that point - what I am asking you is exactly how you want to use the terms "non-violence" and "fairness" in regard to your question about Buddhism.

The Buddha himself ate meat, and did not forbid his followers to do the same. He did say that they should not partake of any animal killed expressly for them. In other words, if a village had slaughtered an animal so all could eat, and that is what a passing monk was offered, then he did not need to refuse. If the animal was killed to provide a feast for the monk specifically, then that was not permitted/recommended. Since monks were required to subsist by begging in those days, refusing much of what was offered didn't make a lot of sense.

So even the Buddha's teaching was not absolute in either direction - it has to do with the specific situation you find yourself in. This is also why people often get into difficulty when making sweeping statements about Buddhism..........
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
Ultimately, no. :)

I can tell you in what way it doesn't make sense to me, but maybe that's just me: it doesn't reflect the belief that you have about reality, so it doesn't actually convey a personal experience that you had. So how could others have the same?

Ya lost me there. :confused:




Peace,
Mystic
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
I was just wondering, Buddhism, based on non-violence, has a lot of monks//followers who eat meat, can it be fair to be base it non-violence?



Thanks in advance :)

There seems to be an interest in how Buddhists (I guess generally speaking) regard vegetarianism. Penguino, would you like to start a thread on it in Same Faith Debates under Dharmic religions?




Peace,
Mystic
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Ultimately, no, but I do recognize and convey my personal experiences so that others may do the same. I feel that I can speak of dualism without getting stuck on it. Does that make sense? :)
It must come as no surprise Mystic Heather, but you make perfect sense to me. I think part of the difficulty of understanding these esoteric concepts is that people, quite naturally, assume the mind is "consciousness" without taking into consideration that the mind is a byproduct of "consciousness". It is relatively simple to step outside of Duality and be in Oneness, or "Home" as you yourself called it. The seeming contradiction arises when one perceives that that Oneness is multidimensional. In other words the singularity IS diversity itself. The thing that binds them is the diversity, as localised aspects of the One. I hope that makes some sense.

I'll try and think up some tough questions for you Heather.
Keep up the great work.
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
It must come as not surprise Mystic Heather, but you make perfect sense to me. I think part of the difficulty of understand these esoteric concepts is that people, quite naturally, assume the mind is "consciousness" without taking into consideration that the mind is a byproduct of "consciousness". It is relatively simple to step outside of Duality and be in Oneness, or "Home" as you yourself called it. The seeming contradiction arises when one perceives that that Oneness is multidimensional. In other words the singularity IS diversity itself. The thing that binds them is the diversity, as localised aspects of the One. I hope that makes some sense.

I'll try and think up some tough questionf for you Heater.
Keep up the great work.

Yup. Bingo! Thanks for embellishing on this point, Paul.

If you're able to give me some tough questions, I'll try and think up some tough answers. ;)




Peace,
Mystic
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
Heather, do have any idea where your karma is leading you?

I have a few educated guesses here and there. So, I guess I have some idea of where my karma is leading me. We'll see, though, where my decisions will ultimately take me............this "me" named "Heather." (I'm assuming you're speaking of this incarnation, correct?)




Peace,
Mystic
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Ya lost me there. :confused:
I'm sorry. I must have misunderstood. I was addressing the belief that reality is understood as "oneness" as opposed to duality. You appeared to me to couch the world in one belief, while professing another (many Buddhists appear to do this). But if I'm wrong, then nevermind. I don't want it to turn into debate.
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
I'm sorry. I must have misunderstood. I was addressing the belief that reality is understood as "oneness" as opposed to duality. You appeared to me to couch the world in one belief, while professing another (many Buddhists appear to do this). But if I'm wrong, then nevermind. I don't want it to turn into debate.

LOL That's OK. We can at times talk in paradoxes. I comes with the territory.

Read too many koans and the speech gets really wonky. :D




Peace,
Mystic
 
Top