Prayer

[Natan]

We're clearly way out in left field la la land as it is when it comes to comparing "God" in Buddhism and Hindusim. Nothing definitive to cling to there, that is for sure.

Perhaps la-la land for you. For me, the meaning is clear: supplicating and surrendering to the "all-good non-thing" that my friend was taught to call "god" is precisely the practice that DPR claims will result in realization of the natural state.

He was in no way unclear when recommending that practice without modification.

Your statement was not "out of line," but it did put words in his mouth and I wanted to set the record straight on what he actually said.

And honestly, in the moment of recognition, "inside" and "outside" are meaningless.

If interdependence is God...

[dzogchungpa]

I'm a Vajrayana/Dzogchen practitioner and from my perspective there is no support for prayer in the Dharma. The word may be used by some Vajrayana Buddhists, but having been raised in a devoutly Christian home there is no question to me that what is called prayer by many Buddhists is not really what that word means. Pure Land Buddhism would be the exception I suppose. Anyway, my main concern when it comes to the use of the word is that gives the false impression of theism in Buddhism.

One can consider that the deity mantra is invoking a power within oneself.

Possibly of interest: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=13560

[Natan]

I'm a Vajrayana/Dzogchen practitioner and from my perspective there is no support for prayer in the Dharma. The word may be used by some Vajrayana Buddhists, but having been raised in a devoutly Christian home there is no question to me that what is called prayer by many Buddhists is not really what that word means. Pure Land Buddhism would be the exception I suppose. Anyway, my main concern when it comes to the use of the word is that gives the false impression of theism in Buddhism.

One can consider that the deity mantra is invoking a power within oneself.

Possibly of interest: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=13560

One has to be aware of the level of teaching the teacher is giving. At one level, i.e., the vajrayana level, particularly outer tantra, there is a real buddhaland where Vajrasattva presides. At another level, i.e., semde, Vajrasattva is the nature of mind and there is no buddhafield apart from one's own nature. At another level, i.e., mengagde, Vajrasattva is a symbolic name for bindu and also a form body which is one's own natural state. To my mind, it may be of interest to get very well acquainted with the nine yanas and their varying modalities so that one can come to grips with the claims of fact made by teachers.

Keep in mind, Buddha said everything is unreal. So when a teacher says there is a real Buddha, he is speaking provisionally as a training tool for you. Also, if you have that karmic connection and you have faith in this teacher, it would damage you to even read this post by me, because I just contradicted your teacher who you have faith in, and he/she is speaking to your capacity out of love and compassion. If you have your own ideas about your capacity, then the previous paragraph would help you.

[Malcolm]

One has to be aware of the level of teaching the teacher is giving. At one level, i.e., the vajrayana level, particularly outer tantra, there is a real buddhaland where Vajrasattva presides.

This is also part of men ngag sde

[Natan]

One has to be aware of the level of teaching the teacher is giving. At one level, i.e., the vajrayana level, particularly outer tantra, there is a real buddhaland where Vajrasattva presides.

This is also part of men ngag sde

Explained in a nondualistic way for the foremost disciples. Take rebirth in a Pure land is not mengagde proper, IMHO.

[Malcolm]

Take rebirth in a Pure land is not mengagde proper, IMHO.

Sure it is. It is the result that the most average practitioners will experience. After 500 years of training in each of nirmanakāya buddhafields, they will attain buddhahood. This is very precisely described in the 17 tantras as well as the unsurpassed secret cycle, by Longchenpa and many others.

[Natan]

Take rebirth in a Pure land is not mengagde proper, IMHO.

Sure it is. It is the result that the most average practitioners will experience. After 500 years of training in each of nirmanakāya buddhafields, they will attain buddhahood. This is very precisely described in the 17 tantras as well as the unsurpassed secret cycle, by Longchenpa and many others.

A one-returner on the Arahant's marga-phala will take rebirth in a pure land, too. Common with Pure Land sutras..., but okay. The point I'm making is the explanation of the nature of the three kayas that is unique to mengagde relates to the manner in which a realized being emanates as one of the form kayas.

[Malcolm]

A one-returner on the Arahant's marga-phala will take rebirth in a pure land, too. Common with Pure Land sutras..., but okay. The point I'm making is the explanation of the nature of the three kayas that is unique to mengagde relates to the manner in which a realized being emanates as one of the form kayas.

A never returner, you mean, and the five pure abodes, at the summit of the form realm, are not pure lands.

A Dzogchen practitioner who does not wake up in the bardo will take rebirth in buddhafield of Vajrasattva, Ratnasambhava, etc., for 125 years year each. At the end of 500 years, they will attain full buddhahood. This does not occur for pure land practitioners, arhats, etc.

M

[Natan]

A one-returner on the Arahant's marga-phala will take rebirth in a pure land, too. Common with Pure Land sutras..., but okay. The point I'm making is the explanation of the nature of the three kayas that is unique to mengagde relates to the manner in which a realized being emanates as one of the form kayas.

A never returner, you mean, and the five pure abodes, at the summit of the form realm, are not pure lands.

It amounts to a distinction without a difference, brother Malcolm.

These are resting places, White Lotus of Sublime Dharma Sutra. Buddha wakes up the hearer sangha with his light.

A Dzogchen practitioner who does not wake up in the bardo will take rebirth in buddhafield of Vajrasattva, Ratnasambhava, etc., for 125 years year each. At the end of 500 years, they will attain full buddhahood. This does not occur for pure land practitioners, arhats, etc.

Dzogchen is taught in these places.

[Malcolm]

It amounts to a distinction without a difference, brother Malcolm.

It is an important distinction, actually.

Buddha wakes up the hearer sangha with his light.

Yes, and then they have to begin on the bodhisattva path at the beginning.

[Natan]

It amounts to a distinction without a difference, brother Malcolm.

It is an important distinction, actually.

Buddha wakes up the hearer sangha with his light.

Yes, and then they have to begin on the bodhisattva path at the beginning.

And tantra and dzogchen is taught there so it can be a short path.

In any case, Vajrasattva is the primordial nature of oneself. Mengagde doesn't contradict this. A dualistic experience of a Pure land is not the main point.

[Alfredo]

And now, your moment of Zen:

http://www.wikihow.com/Say-a-Buddhist-Prayer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[monktastic]

'all-good non-thing'

I like that phrase. It is new to me.

That's probably because I just made it up

Could it really be that surrendering completely to this AGNT (hmm that's too many letters... I wonder if I could find a three-letter word that does the trick for me) is enough? Could it fulfill the role of merging my mind with the guru's (who happens to also be Buddha)? Could it take the place of surrendering to Guru Rinpoche without hesitation? Could that be the love talked about when Rangjung Dorje said (and TUR emphasized) "In the moment of love, the empty essence dawns nakedly"? Might it, in that moment, be revealed as inseparable from my own mind?

I dunno. It sounds too simple. Probably best to ask my guru .

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

'all-good non-thing'

I like that phrase. It is new to me.

..to this AGNT (hmm that's too many letters... I wonder if I could find a three-letter word that does the trick for me)

How about the acronym "A.G.E.N.T."?

Or how about "All-Right Non-Thing"="A.R.E.N.T." since it is beyond good and bad?

[Alfredo]

In Indonesia, Buddhism is one of six officially-recognized religions. All of these religions are legally obliged to adhere the national ideology of pancasila, the first article of which is Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa, or "belief in one supreme God." The word for "God" is Tuhan, which is thought to be more inclusive than "Allah" but means more or less the same thing. The Buddhist concept is said to be Adi-Buddha. (The Hindus had to borrow a term for this monotheistic deity from the Christians, whose Bible translation was in turn borrowed from a gambler's term meaning "luck" or "fate.")

Meanwhile in Malaysia, the equivalent of Indonesia's pancasila would be the rukunegara ("national principles") which also mentions "belief in God" (Tuhan). The Chinese is 信奉上苍; perhaps someone more knowledgable than me can parse this. Since the ideology was formulated for the sake of national unity, one must assume anyone questioning it to be attempting to foment communal discord.

So...shall we bow our heads?

[steveb1]

alfredo, that is absolutely fascinating information with which I am/was completely unfamiliar - thanks for sharing it in this thread. Adi-Buddha has always interested me as a concept and it's fascinating to see its "political" usage...

[Wayfarer]

That is indeed interesting, Alfredo.

It is also interesting to note that the Indonesian archipelago was an early centre of Mahayana and Prajñāpāramitā. I have visited the (Buddhist) Elephant Caves in Bali, and I felt they were Mahayana, based on the style of the sculptures, although nobody said it at the time. I have not really delved into why it is that Java was Mahayana, but as they're sorrounded by Theravada cultures, I find it interesting. Might make an interesting topic for a thread if anyone has information on it.

[Aemilius]

In Indonesia, Buddhism is one of six officially-recognized religions. All of these religions are legally obliged to adhere the national ideology of pancasila, the first article of which is Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa, or "belief in one supreme God." The word for "God" is Tuhan, which is thought to be more inclusive than "Allah" but means more or less the same thing. The Buddhist concept is said to be Adi-Buddha. (The Hindus had to borrow a term for this monotheistic deity from the Christians, whose Bible translation was in turn borrowed from a gambler's term meaning "luck" or "fate.")

Meanwhile in Malaysia, the equivalent of Indonesia's pancasila would be the rukunegara ("national principles") which also mentions "belief in God" (Tuhan). The Chinese is 信奉上苍; perhaps someone more knowledgable than me can parse this. Since the ideology was formulated for the sake of national unity, one must assume anyone questioning it to be attempting to foment communal discord.

So...shall we bow our heads?

Where did you get this explanation from???
Before it was explained differently, I have heard that the last two words Maha Esa, meaning literally "Great He" (as borrowed sanskrit words), are understood to mean Nirvana and the impersonal or personal God. In this manner the expression (maha esa) fulfills the indonesian religio-political need for unity.

Seems that the interpretation of Indonesian constitution has changed form 1980's. Buddhism has lost some ground. Atheism is illegal in Indonesia.
The expression Maha Esa still exists in a list of Indonesian loan words, in words from sanskrit :
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o ... Indonesian

[Mkoll]

'all-good non-thing'

I like that phrase. It is new to me.

That's probably because I just made it up

Could it really be that surrendering completely to this AGNT (hmm that's too many letters... I wonder if I could find a three-letter word that does the trick for me) is enough? Could it fulfill the role of merging my mind with the guru's (who happens to also be Buddha)? Could it take the place of surrendering to Guru Rinpoche without hesitation? Could that be the love talked about when Rangjung Dorje said (and TUR emphasized) "In the moment of love, the empty essence dawns nakedly"? Might it, in that moment, be revealed as inseparable from my own mind?

I dunno. It sounds too simple. Probably best to ask my guru .

A lot of that reminds me of Rumi.

[Alfredo]

Let us not forget that "meditation" is also a Christian term!

A long time ago, when I was new to Buddhism, I asked a Tibetan monk if he prayed. He said yes--to his guru.

Aemilius, I don't actually speak Bahasa Indonesia. From what you wrote, though, it seems that Esa is their version of the Sanskrit Eka. So, a generalized monotheism--a "Supreme Being," if you will. (I often see this glossed as "Almighty God.") As for what the Buddhist name for the Supreme Being is, at least in Indonesia, I admit to allowing myself to be guided by Wikipedia on this point. Perhaps the theology has become more polyvalent than I thought!