Vajradhara

Namaste perfectbite,

thank you for the post.

i suppose that we'll have to agree to disagree. i, personally, find the Sanskrit not too terribly difficult to understand.

i would tentatively agree that it may seem that way, however, that does not mean that it is, in fact, that way. i happen to be of the view that some beings are more prone to intellecutalization and some beings are more prone to practice. in my particular school, we place an equal emphasis on both, rather like Bodhidharma did when he brought Buddhism to China.

in the Pali canon, there are several places where Buddha explains that logical analysis is something to be cultivated. for instance:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon.../sn22-057.html

in this Sutta, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon.../sn25-005.html the Buddha explains how through reason one can become a Stream Enterer.


i don't understand, sorry. by "rote" do you mean to indicate intellectual assent and understanding? my English is ok, but i understand 'rote' to mean something like "memorization".

interesting. i don't suppose that i've heard the Dhammapada described as not intellectually challenging in any event, there are Suttas within the Pali canon that do explain the needs for intellectual assent to the teachings.

personally, i think that the difference lies quite starkly in the Vinya, more than anywhere else.

the colloray is that some Theravedans will be prideful that their canon is older. this seems to be more of a indivdual aspect than a systemized teaching.

Ch'an is Mahayana... ?

i agree that demonstrable knowledge of the Suttas is held in high esteem, by all three Vehicles of Buddhism, in my view, not just the Mahayana and Vajrayana, hence the respect accorded to Shariputra and Ananda in the canon.

it really depends on whom you ask. my school, for instance, emphasizes a correct cognition of the teachings of the Theravedans, for all the teachings are predicated on the same foundational structure, in our view.

it's because Pali is a Pankrit of Sanskrit, in my view. essentially, Sanskrit is the Latin equivilent in Indian writing... all the stuff is written in it, but nobody really speaks it.

KrishnadasaAnudasa

bhagavatam is one of the ancient puranas here is the total text with sankrit trasliteration and purport by his divine grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

Canto 1: Creation Chapter 3: Kṛṣṇa Is the Source of All Incarnations

Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Śrīmad Bh�?gavatam 1.3.24

tataḥ kalau sampravṛtte

sammoh�?ya sura-dviṣ�?m

buddho n�?mn�?ñjana-sutaḥ

kīkaṭeṣu bhaviṣyati

SYNONYMS

tataḥ — thereafter; kalau — the age of Kali; sampravṛtte — having ensued; sammoh�?ya — for the purpose of deluding; sura — the theists; dviṣ�?m — those who are envious; buddhaḥ — Lord Buddha; n�?mn�? — of the name; añjana-sutaḥ — whose mother was Añjan�?; kīkaṭeṣu — in the province of Gay�? (Bihar); bhaviṣyati — will take place.

TRANSLATION

Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Añjan�?, in the province of Gay�?, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist.

PURPORT

Lord Buddha, a powerful incarnation of the Personality of Godhead, appeared in the province of Gay�? (Bihar) as the son of Añjan�?, and he preached his own conception of nonviolence and deprecated even the animal sacrifices sanctioned in the Vedas. At the time when Lord Buddha appeared, the people in general were atheistic and preferred animal flesh to anything else. On the plea of Vedic sacrifice, every place was practically turned into a slaughterhouse, and animal-killing was indulged in unrestrictedly. Lord Buddha preached nonviolence, taking pity on the poor animals. He preached that he did not believe in the tenets of the Vedas and stressed the adverse psychological effects incurred by animal-killing. Less intelligent men of the age of Kali, who had no faith in God, followed his principle, and for the time being they were trained in moral discipline and nonviolence, the preliminary steps for proceeding further on the path of God realization. He deluded the atheists because such atheists who followed his principles did not believe in God, but they kept their absolute faith in Lord Buddha, who himself was the incarnation of God. Thus the faithless people were made to believe in God in the form of Lord Buddha. That was the mercy of Lord Buddha: he made the faithless faithful to him.

Killing of animals before the advent of Lord Buddha was the most prominent feature of the society. People claimed that these were Vedic sacrifices. When the Vedas are not accepted through the authoritative disciplic succession, the casual readers of the Vedas are misled by the flowery language of that system of knowledge. In the Bhagavad-gīt�? a comment has been made on such foolish scholars (avipaścitaḥ). The foolish scholars of Vedic literature who do not care to receive the transcendental message through the transcendental realized sources of disciplic succession are sure to be bewildered. To them, the ritualistic ceremonies are considered to be all in all. They have no depth of knowledge. According to the Bhagavad-gīt�? (15.15), vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyaḥ: the whole system of the Vedas is to lead one gradually to the path of the Supreme Lord. The whole theme of Vedic literature is to know the Supreme Lord, the individual soul, the cosmic situation and the relation between all these items. When the relation is known, the relative function begins, and as a result of such a function the ultimate goal of life or going back to Godhead takes place in the easiest manner. Unfortunately, unauthorized scholars of the Vedas become captivated by the purificatory ceremonies only, and natural progress is thereby checked.

To such bewildered persons of atheistic propensity, Lord Buddha is the emblem of theism. He therefore first of all wanted to check the habit of animal-killing. The animal-killers are dangerous elements on the path going back to Godhead. There are two types of animal-killers. The soul is also sometimes called the "animal" or the living being. Therefore, both the slaughterer of animals and those who have lost their identity of soul are animal-killers.

Mah�?r�?ja Parīkṣit said that only the animal-killer cannot relish the transcendental message of the Supreme Lord. Therefore if people are to be educated to the path of Godhead, they must be taught first and foremost to stop the process of animal-killing as above mentioned. It is nonsensical to say that animal-killing has nothing to do with spiritual realization. By this dangerous theory many so-called sanny�?sīs have sprung up by the grace of Kali-yuga who preach animal-killing under the garb of the Vedas. The subject matter has already been discussed in the conversation between Lord Caitanya and Maulana Chand Kazi Shaheb. The animal sacrifice as stated in the Vedas is different from the unrestricted animal-killing in the slaughterhouse. Because the asuras or the so-called scholars of Vedic literatures put forward the evidence of animal-killing in the Vedas, Lord Buddha superficially denied the authority of the Vedas. This rejection of the Vedas by Lord Buddha was adopted in order to save people from the vice of animal-killing as well as to save the poor animals from the slaughtering process of their big brothers who clamor for universal brotherhood, peace, justice and equity. There is no justice when there is animal-killing. Lord Buddha wanted to stop it completely, and therefore his cult of ahim�?s�? was propagated not only in India but also outside the country.

Technically Lord Buddha's philosophy is called atheistic because there is no acceptance of the Supreme Lord and because that system of philosophy denied the authority of the Vedas. But that is an act of camouflage by the Lord. Lord Buddha is the incarnation of Godhead. As such, he is the original propounder of Vedic knowledge. He therefore cannot reject Vedic philosophy. But he rejected it outwardly because the sura-dviṣa, or the demons who are always envious of the devotees of Godhead, try to support cow-killing or animal-killing from the pages of the Vedas, and this is now being done by the modernized sanny�?sīs. Lord Buddha had to reject the authority of the Vedas altogether. This is simply technical, and had it not been so he would not have been so accepted as the incarnation of Godhead. Nor would he have been worshiped in the transcendental songs of the poet Jayadeva, who is a Vaiṣṇava �?c�?rya. Lord Buddha preached the preliminary principles of the Vedas in a manner suitable for the time being (and so also did Śańkar�?c�?rya) to establish the authority of the Vedas. Therefore both Lord Buddha and Āc�?rya Śańkara paved the path of theism, and Vaiṣṇava �?c�?ryas, specifically Lord Śrī Caitanya Mah�?prabhu, led the people on the path towards a realization of going back to Godhead.

We are glad that people are taking interest in the nonviolent movement of Lord Buddha. But will they take the matter very seriously and close the animal slaughterhouses altogether? If not, there is no meaning to the ahim�?s�? cult.

Śrīmad-Bh�?gavatam was composed just prior to the beginning of the age of Kali (about five thousand years ago), and Lord Buddha appeared about twenty-six hundred years ago. Therefore in the Śrīmad-Bh�?gavatam Lord Buddha is foretold. Such is the authority of this clear scripture. There are many such prophecies, and they are being fulfilled one after another. They will indicate the positive standing of Śrīmad-Bh�?gavatam, which is without trace of mistake, illusion, cheating and imperfection, which are the four flaws of all conditioned souls. The liberated souls are above these flaws; therefore they can see and foretell things which are to take place on distant future dates.

perfectbite

Namaste Vajradhara,

I have said (written) a lot in the last few weeks all of which I stand by but sometimes I have used shorthand. For instance; my use of the term 'rote'. By 'rote' I meant two things 1. the accepted, sometimes seemingly parroted but more often just (it seems to me) mimicked, clever intellectual view of Buddhist enlightenment and Buddhist thought and 2. the encouragement of that view 'the intellectual appreciation of enlightenment being the equivalent of enlightenment' which galls me because the Buddha says that enlightenment (that is: true enlightenment and realization of one's true nature) is not within the grasp of any human intellect.

I have to be careful that I don't make blanket statements here because I have come to delineate between ordinary Buddha mind and awakened Buddha mind and find myself constantly having to make the distinction between the statements of ordinary Buddha mind and the statements of awakened Buddha mind and have to amend my previous statement 'not within the grasp of any human intellect' to say that enlightenment is not within the intellectual understanding of those of ordinary Buddha mind but is within the reach of those of ordinary Buddha mind and so is within the grasp of the human intellect.

As far as the Buddhist Pali and Sanskrit texts go they seem to be addressed to different audiences and again ordinary Buddha mind and awakened Buddha mind come into the picture.

"A monk who is skilled in seven bases and has three modes of investigation is fulfilled and fully accomplished in this doctrine & discipline -- the ultimate person."

Samyutta Nikaya XXII.57

Sattatthana Sutta

Seven Bases
Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
For free distribution only.

I agree that the Theravedan Pali canon does indeed address the rational minded pursuit of awakened Buddha mind (why does that not surprise me) but the Mahayana addresses seekers and not monks and that may have been and still may be a decisive factor in its 'popularity'.

Did you ever hear of the layman who thought he was a monk and the monk who thought he was a layman? I am sure Theravada and Mahayana have examples of both.

I am getting tired but I did want to say that the proper capitalization of everything else except the personal pronoun is laudable but a sense of self with its responsibilities and everything such responsibility entails should not be abandoned but of course (Buddhism is so full of qualifications) such sense of self and its indication should not be an object of attachment.

Vajradhara

Namaste Perfectbite,

thank you for the post.

i agree that the intellectual understanding and grasping of the teachings does not lead to Anuttara Samyak Sambodhi, however, without the relative teachings, it is usually quite difficult for normal beings to engage in the praxis.

all of the Buddhas teachings are rafts... to be left at the shore once we've crossed over.

there are some beings, it would seem, that like to carry rafts on their backs... i, for one, have a bad back, so i'm going to leave my raft at the shore.

indeed... nevertheless, humans communicate through words quite a bit. of course... we know that the Buddha gave direct mind to mind transmission of the True Dharma Seal during the First Turning of the Wheel. so there is another means of communication, i tend to think that for most beings, it is a bit impracticle.

to a certain extent, this is absolutely correct. this is one of the differences in the Vinya. it is a bit unfortunate, for the leagleistic amongst us, that the Buddha was not asked which of the minor rules could be dispensed with. as such, all we have is him saying that after his Parinibbana, some of the minor rules could be removed.

this, in my view, lies at the heart of the schism within the sangha.

quite true. the Maha part of the Yana is meant to indicate that the teachings were for all beings, monastics or otherwise. of course, in the Mahayana monastic organizations, they operate much differently than typically lay people... which may go without saying...

off hand... i do not recall that... but it sounds interesting.

are you referring to my grammer structures? like not capitolizing beginning of sentences and so forth?

it's true.. i don't do that... i have taken my cue from a poet named e.e. cummings, have you heard of him? http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poe...s/cummings.htm

i rather agree that using unfamilar gramatical structures tends to focus the reader on the content of the message, since they have to actually read the words

perfectbite

Quote:
(I thought Metta was loving kindness or perhaps that is Pali. My question then is why does Sanskrit have to have a compound word to describe loving kindness and why also does that word have reference to bodhi?)

"it's because Pali is a Pankrit of Sanskrit, in my view. essentially, Sanskrit is the Latin equivilent in Indian writing... all the stuff is written in it, but nobody really speaks it."

I realize that Pali is a 'deader' language than Sanskrit but my question was that even in translation the Pali language itself has a directness that seems not part of Sanskrit although Sanskrit is eminently capable of corresponding to Pali it seems that it is only able to do so through the use of many conjoined terms. (interestingly enough apparently Latin had no philosophical term for 'quality' (from a foreword to Cicero's writings) but Greek did.)

Is it that Sanskrit is a much more comprehensive language and although it can encompass Pali terms it has to assemble 'bits' of itself in order to be able to do so whereas Pali's 'bits' seem to be already wholly defined 'spiritual' units?