alchemicalwizard

I have studied Sanskrit and Tibetan for 20+ years lol I don't have to depend on translations. Like I stated earlier, I find it very difficult to communicate with someone with an IQ level as yours. Very very difficult. Are you the same guy who wanted to perform Magick with Yoga? http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6859 And your posts here are doing just that magic? Produce sense out of nonsense? I assume communication and language are not a part of your curriculum? I would have included common sense in that list but well...So what next? I know you have read some books on Khechari (which hindus copied from Buddha of course! lol) and have access to google. What else?

You are missing my whole point here. The question is not about the usefulness or the lack of it with respect to what you term as "skillful" means. Anything can be skillful and for someone and nothing can be for someone else. I mention Tibetan Buddhism specially because it is composed mostly of various other cultures and religions with the coating of Buddhist philosophy. But the Buddhists claim everything including their means is original and fail to accept the influences from Brahminism, Shaivism or Bon. I already pointed out that the excuse form Buddhists to explain their borrowings in on the metaphysical lines, just like yours above. If you had read that, it would have saved you some time in repeating the same again. Ok, ok, right view, different view, copied/evolved techniques, different results. I get it. Now are you going to tell me you will ignore the historical evolution of the emergence of these myriad deities and attribute all these supposedly esoteric material to the original Buddha? The following is not my own writing but reproduced with permission from a friend who has studied Buddhist and Hindu tantras through and through. Quote - I have no issues with Heruka, his being a ghoul or how his ghoulish is of great metaphysical significance. Again, my point is missed. Heruka, described as an emanation of Vajrapani and identified sometimes in Sadhanamala directly with Vajrapani was initially a single deity who was staged to counter the popular Hindu tribal god Bhairava. Shubhakarasimha who is dated older to Chakrasamvara writes of a ghoul named Heruka who protects a cemetery. In fact, in Assam there is still a cemetery for Heruka that is now maintained by local villagers mentioned in Guhyasamaja as well. Like the shaivas adopted a local tribal deity bhairava, Buddhists adopted Heruka, elevating the cemetery ghoul of the local tribals, associating him Vajrapani and sometimes even appropriating and then rituals, chants and other stuff began around him. The Chakrasamvara is all about Buddhist Heruka emanating from Vajrapani to destroy the Hindu Bhairava and subjugate the Hindu gods and godesses. You can again argue and tell me that it is all about symbols and about the subjugation of anatta over atmavada etc. but who will you be kidding? It was clearly a social battle for assertion and both groups kept churning deity after deity, mantra after mantra and loads of tantras as the medieval people needed just that! And they backed it up with explanation, metaphysics, how they can serve as skillful means etc. Bhariavas then multiplied into a class of deities and so did the corresponding Herukas. Sarvabuddhasamayoga dakinijala samvara, which is much older to Laghusamvara, clearly describes Heruka as a single deity and a ghoulish spirit whose only work was to guard the cemetery and this changed with time with Chakrasamvara escalating the status of this ghoul to an emanation of Vajrapani and finally to a category of deities. Chakrasamvara even talks of Heruka adopting Bhairava's costume to attract his followers to Buddha Dharma. The social and cultural overtones here are too many to ignore and stick to metaphysical explanations just because we want to! Several scholars like Robert Davidson trace the name samvara to Shambara, again a local deity of the tribals modeled after the Rigvedic shambara, an enemy of the vedic fire god and Indra. Shiva, the Hindu god was long known as situated on Mount Kailash and as his competitor, Shambara or Samvara is interestingly placed on Mount Meru with a similar retinue or Mandala. In the era (7 - 8 century) described as the Tantric Age in India by academicians, both Hindus and Buddhists churned deity after deity, to compete with each other, to attract more following as the cultural pulse of the region was ritualistic filled with magic, sorcery and immense faith in supernatural means to attain desire. Though Buddhists in the Pali Sutta period somewhat ignored this pulse (there are still references to Buddha showing magic tricks), during the Vajrayanic period, Buddhism had to incorporate all those elements into its own fold. If one sees the Sadhanas in Sadhanamala or original Sanskrit text of Guhyasamaja, there is no metaphysics unless one would want to force it. The early class of Yogini Tantras (though eighteen, no one has even all the names) deal mainly with subjugation of women, kings, foes, curing diseases, unleashing wrath on the family, village, cattle of the enemy etc. This model did change slowly but much later after much debate with the Theras and the hardcore Sutta following Mahayanists. I would expect Buddhists of all the people to examine the source and evolution of what they hold as teaching and not doing that defeats the very spirit of the original Siddhartha Gautama.Unquote As for alwaysone, I would rather take a fart than waste my time in indulging with him. He makes some of the Republicans seen sensible in comparison.

And Mahayana/Vajrayana came from emptiness out of nowhere without deriving from anything? Lol, are you in high school? You seem to have a personal bias against Hinduism leading to repetitive arguments marked with a stark lack of skillful means. I have meant to reply to some of your lack lustre postings before but remained silent on account of a missing common ground - objective study. I don't even know what you mean by Hinduism. Hinduism today is more of a culture and not a religion. Though majorly derived from Vedic Brahminism, it has elements of Pancharatra, Shaiva, Shakta, Vaishnava-Bhagavata, Jaina, Buddhist, Persian-Islamic, various local tribal influences which fit into none of the other mainstream thoughts etc. Buddhism is one of the many influences on Hinduism as we see today and possibly the least influential amongst others. On the contrary, Buddhism derives much from older Indic philosophies no matter how much the Buddhists like to claim Buddhism to be totally unique. Most Buddhist scholars in the Mahayanic Sanskrit era i.e. post Pali Sutta period were Brahmins by birth and upbringing and consciously or not, they implanted their ideas all across Mahayana and Vajrayana. So you need to be more specific when you say "Hinduism" was derived from Mahayana. Which exact element was derived from Buddhism? What is your proof for that statement. And whatever you claimed was derived from Buddhism, was it originally Buddhist to begin with or where did Buddhism derive it from - Shaivism, Brahminism, Bon, Tribal cultures? So change your track for once, stop harping on Buddhism being the original form of everything on earth including Obama's butt and talk with some level of maturity.

Can any of the Buddhists or more specifically Tibetan Buddhists here explain about the mantras and deity practices which are key to Vajrayana? Every modern scholar accepts that most of the current Tibetan Buddhist deities are derived from Vedic or Brahminical gods, local tribal gods, Persian influences and Bon remnants. The oldest tantra deity Heruka is the Buddhist elevation of a local Indian Tribal ghoul said to guard cemeteries. He later became Vajrapani. Similar tribal origins of Manjushri, Vajrasattva etc. are well documented. But Tibetan Buddhists chose to comfortably ignore such study and stick to metaphysical explanations for these practical aspects of current Vajrayana. There are also Taoist and Confucian elements absorbed into Buddhist tantra. And there is also the innovation and imagination of Buddhists. So, you design a bunch of practices based on mantras and deities picked from various local tribes and cultures, coat it with the philosophy of Mahayanic Sutras and claim that to be a higher teaching. How is that that people but the so-called atiyoga and anuttara yoga teachings of mandala, mantra and rituals when the path of evolution of vajrayana has been so clearly traced by scholars? So do the Tibetan Buddhists still literally believe that these are actual divinities or deities, that their concorted mantras have magical effects etc.? Or their multi-cultural origin is understood and studied?

Hi All, I have been on Tao Bums for a while but have never posted. I am considering taking a Vipassana/Bruce Frantzis retreat and have a few questions. The following is my understanding and I could be wrong: - Shamatha is to induce calm and concentration/attention. It brings about the Jhana states and Samadhi and helps Vipassana practice. Practically, Anapanasati, Zazen or watching breath practices are popular forms of Shamatha. Mantras, Mandala and Deity Visualizations etc. are also Shamatha kind of practices Shamatha in itself can cleanse the energy body, open all channels and in some way can replace all of the explicit energy manipulation techniques - Qigong, Kundalini, Tummo, Trul Khor etc. These other explicit energy manipulation methods are added for the sake of accelerating progress. (?) Now coming to Vipassana, rather than go by Suttas and polemic definitions, I would like to seek some practical guidance here. No Sutta-throwing please! I see there are two popular groups: 1. Goenka - teaches anapanasati for a bit, and then body scanning (like Jack Kornfield) - which are respectively his Shamatha and Vipassana techniques. 2. Mahasi tradition - teaches anapanasati with concentration on the rising and falling of the abdomen and teaches labeling the breath. His Vipassana is basically mindfulness with noting/labeling every activity as against simply observing body sensations in the case of Goenka. Goenka writes against the noting/labeling practice which is what Davind Ingram also teaches (he is from Mahasi group?) Lately, I have been reading Bruce Frantzis stuff and I admit I have not got a hang of it completely. Here is what I think he says: 1. Outer dissolving - stand in horse stance, scan the body for tension or blockages, breathe into the blockage, be aware and dissolve it. So being mindful of the tension/blockage seems to be the same as Goenka's case. But here one breathes into the area and intends to dissolve the blockage. That is one difference I can see. 2. Inner dissolving - this seems pretty similar to Mahasi tradition but minus the labeling. You note the feelings that arise and simply be aware of them (I also thinks he says let go of them? Not sure if that differentiates Water method from Vipassana as there is nothing else there but for mindfulness, not even an effort to let go)? So Water method is simply rehashed Shamatha-Vipassana with some additions - which seem to defeat the purpose of Vipassana? Especially considering Bruce's teacher's Buddhist background? Or is there more to the Water Method? Also, are there other Vipassana approaches - I only know Mahasi and Goenka. What do Tao Bums like better? Goenka style of body scanning or Mahasi style mindfulness with noting/labeling every activity/thought? Sorry for the long rambling but thanks in advance to all and any helpful input.

Hello All, I come from a Western Alchemical background and find eastern alchemy fascinating. Here to learn more about Taoism and Buddhism. Thanks.