Buddhism after death

[ratikala]

namaskaram

But you speak for him, don't you?

no I dont speak for him , ...I spoke of him , , .....and asked politely if you would mind not speaking crudely and then implying that you speak for all of us , ....?

We can trust you to give us the straight poop, and I'm sure we all do.

you were given a sanskrit verse with translation in brackets , yet you claim not to understand it ????

thiat is fine if you speak for your self alone but , ....

Well said, but why do you insist on quoting the Gita in a language many of us don't understand? It would be like quoting Milarepa in Tibetan.

I'd think that simply quoting in English alone for this crew is enough.

then you say English alone is enough ''for this crew '', ....

again you assume on our behalf that we all wish to belong to this ''Crew'', ....

I for one do not , ..... I fully support the use of Pali and Sanskrit and think it would do no harm for any one interested in Buddhism to familliarise them selves with its native scripts , ...or at leat be willing to learn , ....

 

[Osal]

I fully support the use of Pali and Sanskrit and think it would do no harm for any one interested in Buddhism to familliarise them selves with its native scripts , ...or at leat be willing to learn , ....

Why should I learn?

There are many reputable translators who do a more that adequate job. Only in texts that are specially meant for language students are source languages used. I have saddhanas that contain the source text, the phonetic equivilant and english. I never use the source language. Ever. I know many Buddhists who do the same thing. I prefer staight english sadhanas because they are easier to read.

Also, there aren't many Buddhists who are particularly interested in the Gita. It's not, nor is it intended to be a Buddhist text.

It basically comes down to economy. If a phrase from the Gita is relevant to a Buddhist discussion, simply say what it is. To include the Sanskrit is pointless, because the peole who would actually benefit from it's inclusion are very few. You wast everyone else's time. It also makes you look a little pretentious.

All I wanted to know was why. Maybe there's a reason I don't realize and I was hoping Aupmanyav would enlighten. His lack of direct response to a direct question is, at the very least, disappointing.

 

[SomeRandom]

No, for the audience's sake ;-).

But if The Bard wrote in Middle English we don't quote the oginal and then translate while the play is acted out.

Thaat would be stupid.

Lol
Because Shakes wrote plays not books. There are some things just not doable in a visual medium but that you can do with the written. Quoting an entire play then translating it is one of those things. So yes there are actual translations of Shakespeare's text that do exactly that. Original on one page translation on the next. You see this done with Chaucer Middle English on one side modern translation on the other and even Homer or Dante with the original then the translation on the next page. So.....it's not like we don't do this sort of thing.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Osal ji

Why should I learn?

There are many reputable translators who do a more that adequate job. Only in texts that are specially meant for language students are source languages used. I have saddhanas that contain the source text, the phonetic equivilant and english. I never use the source language. Ever. I know many Buddhists who do the same thing. I prefer staight english sadhanas because they are easier to read.

agreed the sadhanas with the main body of the text in english are easier to read and understand for english only speakers , but the portions of mantra contained in each sadhana (in my sadhanas at least) are in transliteration but still rendered in Sanskrit , ...are you not curious as to what these mean ?

Also, there aren't many Buddhists who are particularly interested in the Gita. It's not, nor is it intended to be a Buddhist text.

It basically comes down to economy. If a phrase from the Gita is relevant to a Buddhist discussion, simply say what it is. To include the Sanskrit is pointless, because the peole who would actually benefit from it's inclusion are very few. You wast everyone else's time. It also makes you look a little pretentious.

as Buddhists we should be aware that all is not nececarily as it appeares , ....in which case it is often foolish to jump to conclusions , ....what to one person may appear to be pretentious to another may appear to be a kind jesture , I for one welcome the use of sanskrit especialy if the person more knowledgable than my self gives the trandlation in brackets , ...

All I wanted to know was why. Maybe there's a reason I don't realize and I was hoping Aupmanyav would enlighten. His lack of direct response to a direct question is, at the very least, disappointing.

do you realy hope for another to reply to your questions after you have implied that what they have said is irelavant ''Poop'' ?

should we not as Buddhists , particularly Mahayana Buddhists , veiw all as mother sentient beings ?

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram , osal ji

you like Milarepa ? .....this is nice , ...

 

[Aupmanyav]

All I wanted to know was why. Maybe there's a reason I don't realize and I was hoping Aupmanyav would enlighten. His lack of direct response to a direct question is, at the very least, disappointing.

Osal, you did not notice, otherwise I have always given you the poop straightway. In #8, that one should think for him/herself. In #10 that going through what the wise (various views) have said is not contraindicated. That should be part of the research. In #14 that 'samata' is not just about life and death, but about all situations in life. And finally in #32 that we need to accept translations (there are good translations and bad, there are biased translations and unbiased ones), but we can't go very far without translations. I thank Ralph Griffith to have translated the RigVeda, otherwise I would not have been able to understand it. But because of a line in Sanskrit, you were not in a mood to notice what I had said.

 

[Osal]

you have implied that what they have said is irelavant ''Poop'' ?

I have said nothing of the sort.

I refered to Aupmanyav's stuff as "the straight poop". It's a phrase that is rather common in the part of the US I come from. It means "the truth" or "the honest truth". So my meaning is exactly the oposite of what you evaluate my intention to be.

Afterthought: You could have also googled the phrase "straight poop" and the very first return has the explanation as well.

It's actually a bit pretentious for me to use that kind of language because I know there will be many who will not understand. I must also confess that its a bit deliberate on my part. I'm trying to illustrate a point.

I could have said, the straight poop - the honest truth. That would approximate what Aupmanyav does, but I would view that as clumsy. It would be better to simply use language that most people will understand and skip all the affectation.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram

I have said nothing of the sort.

I refered to Aupmanyav's stuff as "the straight poop". It's a phrase that is rather common in the part of the US I come from. It means "the truth" or "the honest truth". So my meaning is exactly the oposite of what you evaluate my intention to be.

Well , ...Haa Haa, ... how funny , ..

you complain about the use of Sanskrit , ......and you use some American popular slang . !!!

It's actually a bit pretentious for me to use that kind of language because I know there will be many who will not understand. I must also confess that its a bit deliberate on my part. I'm trying to illustrate a point.

yes totaly pretentious , .....and a little hypocritical , ....link to very nice Sanskrit dictionary was provided for you , ...
but you failed to provide an on line dictionary of regional colloquialisms, .....

I could have said, the straight poop - the honest truth. That would approximate what Aupmanyav does, but I would view that as clumsy. It would be better to simply use language that most people will understand and skip all the affectation.

in future please provide translations in brackets for all slang and uninteligable Americanisms , ....or mark afectations with an ......*

but now seriously , .....and this is a question , ...
do your Sadhanas realy have the Mantras translated ??? ...or do you learn these portions in Sanskrit ?

 

[Osal]

namaskaram

No more Osal Ji?

and doesn't namaskaram mean "eat poop and die? ;-)

you complain about the use of Sanskrit ,

No, I complain about the uneccessary or pretentious use of sanskrit.

......and you use some American popular slang . !!!

Yes,. To make a point. One you seem to keep missing.

yes totaly pretentious , .....and a little hypocritical , ....link to very nice Sanskrit dictionary was provided for you , ...
but you failed to provide an on line dictionary of regional colloquialisms, .....

Not hypocritical. I'm not pretending to be something I'm not. I provided a suuestion to try Google whuch provided a link to Urban Dictionary. Something anyone with a modicome of experience on the web would already know.

but now seriously , .....and this is a question , ...
do your Sadhanas realy have the Mantras translated ??? ...or do you learn these portions in Sanskrit ?[/QUOTE]

Yes, the Mantras are translated - into Tibetan. I don't read Tibetan, but I have teachers who provided me with translations years ago. In some case, as you pointed out earlier, there are bija - or seed syllables, which cannot be translated and, in fact, predate sanskrit. So, OM is OM, AH is AH, etc.

But Mantra is one thing and scriptural quotes are another.

I have access to Milarepas songs in Tibetan. To quote them, even phonetically, would be utterly pointless, even though in lineages that honor Mila, his words are as sacred as the Buddha's, and it's better for everyone if I just quote the english.

 

[ratikala]

Good evening Sir , ....

No more Osal Ji?

definatly no more ji , .....I think I will call you Jim in future , .....

and doesn't namaskaram mean "eat poop and die? ;-)

do all 62 year olds in America behave in such a dissrespectfull manner ???

or are you trying to be funny , .....? ...if so sorry deffinate fail !

No, I complain about the uneccessary or pretentious use of sanskrit.

who mentioned shakespeare earlier , ..........''.Me thinks the man complains too much''..

Not hypocritical. I'm not pretending to be something I'm not. I provided a suuestion to try Google whuch provided a link to Urban Dictionary. Something anyone with a modicome of experience on the web would already know.

your spelling is worse than mine ...ir is that another point you are trying to make

Yes, the Mantras are translated - into Tibetan. I don't read Tibetan, but I have teachers who provided me with translations years ago.

with all due respects , ....in tibetan you will find mantra written in Uchen , Lantsa , Siddham , ..and a few other scripts , but , these are just scripts , .........all are sanskrit !!!

In some case, as you pointed out earlier, there are bija - or seed syllables, which cannot be translated and, in fact, predate sanskrit. So, OM is OM, AH is AH, etc.

Oh but they can , ....this is the beautifull part of learning juat a little basic Sanskrit , ....



so insread of this Noncence joking around let us discuss Mantra , ...or Buddhism after Death , .....

 

[Aupmanyav]

Ratiben, why are you sparring with Osal? This is not your way. Your way is kindness and forgiveness. Of course, you are trying to defend me, but there is no need for that. We can all be friends.

 

[Osal]

Ratiben, why are you sparring with Osal?

Because Ratikala needs to be right. This goes back to a recent discussion on the precepts where I refused to yield a liberal view to a conservative one. Ratikala doesnt like me, and doesnt hide contempt for my view point. I find the raw unadulterated dislike quite refreshing as opposed to the the feigned equanimity one always finds on boards like thi. I'm especialy keen on the undisguised ethnocentrism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Just for your information, Ratiben (Sister Ratikala) is one of the kindest persons in the Dharmic Religions forum. She has atrocious spelling abilities, so I correct spellings when I quote her. She is a Buddhist as well as a Hindu, rides two boats.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Since I began studying Buddhism I have frequently struggled with the ideas and opinions re death, that I have found both in books and the internet. This has been made more complicated by contradictions and different schools of thought.

I found this article Buddhism and the No-soul Doctrine (v4) | BRISBANE GOODWILL unit of service. to be very interesting but if anything it has added to my confusion.

All ideas welcome.

It's not a very good article. As typical of occultists trying to cram Buddhist thought into their worldview, it doesn't make any particular effort to understand Buddhist doctrine or the kind of language used in Buddhist teachings and why. It's much more interested in pushing the author's own views by using a few Buddhist scriptural quotes as a kind of support.

The doctrine of selflessness isn't fundamentally different between Buddhist sects. No orthodox Buddhist school posits the existence of an essential self. Those who argue that not-self and no-self are different haven't actually understood what they've read and are projecting their desired meaning onto things, and that meaning is based in strong self-attachment. It also has to do with missing the point of ancient Indian philosophical ontologies: when the Buddha posits a list of things and then negates them all, he's not suggesting that the truth is some other things that somehow didn't make it on the list; the point is that the list represents all things that could possibly be conceived of, and their negation is effectively the negation of all things.

Why, then, the apparent disowning of the no-self doctrine in another scripture? The fault here is a failure to appreciate how Buddhist teachings actually work. It's not positing a self; it's warning students not to effectively fall victim to self-attachment by essentializing and reifying the doctrine of no-self, which ironically ends up filling the void of self with something that might as well be another concept of self. True selflessness isn't a concept of self. It's not a self-shaped hole in your worldview. It's a radically different sort of view altogether, one that people who are still attached to self as a concept are blind to, so they use sophistry to try to talk around it.

Occultists and New-Agers have been using and abusing bits of Buddhadharma for at least a century and a half, but they're a very poor source of information about what actual Buddhists are actually about. Tell our Chan teacher that you're seeking your "higher self" and see what he says.

As for what orthodox Buddhadharma actually has to say about death... it's far less than you'd think. Mostly that's because it doesn't privilege what we usually mean by "death" in the conventional sense. In Buddhist language "birth and death" refers to the ceaseless arising and passing away of phenomena. You have been born and died numerous times since you started reading this. It's just that we fear the "big" death because of our self-attachment, since we see that (incorrectly, as Buddhism claims) as the point at which "we" will cease to exist. And in fact it is a rather noticeably bigger change than many other ones, but it's not strictly true that we cease to exist, since it's not strictly true that there is an existence there that is capable of ceasing. Death itself is not a problem in Buddhism, but the fear of death is a big problem and the root of many vexations.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You have been born and died numerous times since you started reading this.

So have you personally experienced this moment-to-moment rebirth thing? I'd be interested to hear what it's like, practically speaking.

 

[Osal]

So have you personally experienced this moment-to-moment rebirth thing? I'd be interested to hear what it's like, practically speaking.

Everyone experiences it, they just don't recognize what's going on. What is it like? You'll see

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Osal ji , ....

Because Ratikala needs to be right. This goes back to a recent discussion on the precepts where I refused to yield a liberal view to a conservative one. Ratikala doesnt like me, and doesnt hide contempt for my view point.

Sorry , ... did not see your post untill now , or I would have replied earlier , ....

Prabuu ji , ....I disslike no one , .....and I do not in the least disslike you , ...I hate very little except injustice , cruelty and false speech , .....even then it is the ignorance and the harm it can do that I disslike , not the person , ...

even one acting in ignorance should not be hated , only woken from their sleep , ....

only dilliberate acts of ignorance are to be abhored , ....even still abhorance is not quite hatred , ....not in the personal sence of dissliking the individual .

I find the raw unadulterated dislike quite refreshing as opposed to the the feigned equanimity one always finds on boards like thi. I'm especialy keen on the undisguised ethnocentrism.

you may have received the sharp side of my tongue that is merely a momentary responce to something particularly coarse or stupid that you might have said at any particular moment , but I assure you there is no hatred behind those sharp words, ... nor anger , ....nor do I bear or carry grudges over past differnces of opinion . ....

life is too precious to waste bearing grudges when one could be concentrating on something worthwhile instead , ...

I am actualy here to celebrate the beauty and profundity of Buddhist and Hindu Wisdom and Culture , ..I just find all the chalenging , arguing and one upmanship very tedious , .....thus I seldom post anymore , ....dosent mean I dont look in occasionaly just in case a nice topic comes up , ....

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Everyone experiences it, they just don't recognize what's going on. What is it like? You'll see

OK, then please tell me how you have experienced it. I experience fluctuations in the strength of self-view, but not "rebirth", so I am curious as to how others experience this.

People talk a lot in general terms about moment-to-moment rebirth ( whatever ) but rarely describe their own experience.

 

[Twilight Hue]

OK, then please tell me how you have experienced it. I experience fluctuations in the strength of self-view, but not "rebirth", so I am curious as to how others experience this.

People talk a lot in general terms about moment-to-moment rebirth ( whatever ) but rarely describe their own experience.

I'll share my experience.

A good way of approaching rebirth firsthand is noting the ongoing and continual life/death transition that occurs in your body itself, noting how our original biology, or biological composition, has been completely replaced and reworked through the life and death of our own cells.

That infant baby you once were is now completely and biologically dead for all intents and purposes, never to be seen again, as you now stand in comparison an entirely new and different being.

It is in essence what rebirth entails, hence a seamless interrelated transition from death to life, life to death.

Arguably, this falls in hand with atoms generally arranging to make life and the properties of consciousness possible, and it's subsequent dissoultion and future rearrangement giving rise to life once again as we live and die in a larger sense and scale, through a complex series comparable to what's going on already inside our bodies right now.

 

[Banjankri]

A good way of approaching rebirth firsthand is noting the ongoing and continual life/death transition that occurs in your body itself, noting how our original biology, or biological composition, has been completely replaced through the life and death of our own cells.

This looks like an idea, not an experience.