Why I believe in God?

[ftil]

The three aspects of the path are not incompatible, but follow the Buddha's path. It's still the Middle way, but the emphasis of each differs. They are unlike Christianity in that the doctrines of each are not at odds. How does what I've said change according to the tradition?

Hm….I have been reading about Tantric Buddhism and I see many differences with Hinayana and Mahayana Buddhism. To be honest, I didn’t know about Tantric Buddhism as I read Hanayana and Mahayana teachings. Buddhist tantric practice is classified as secret practice and it influenced by Hindu teachings. Interestingly enough, study of Tantrayana on west are in early stages. Those who study that subject made it very clear that there is still lots of secrecy even though there is a large number of tantric scriptures.

So, we may simplify Buddhist teaching to one doctrine…but then we will talk about New Age or pop version of Buddhist teachings. Secondly, Christianity doctrines within protestant church, for example, are not at odds as you said but there are differences like in Buddhism.

My point was that if we want to talk about Buddhism, we need to be very specific and aware of the limitations of our knowledge.

Which part of these quotes did she get from Tibet? Tibet had been a Buddhist country for centuries then. It all reads like a re-interpretation of Christian doctrine and seems to have nothing to do with Buddhism.

Also, Madame Blavatsky has been associated with Spiritualists and the Spiritualist movement in the past. It is very different from Buddhist teachings.

It would answer your question.

According to biographers, H.P. Blavatsky’s path laid to Tashilunpo monastery (near Shigatse). A book "The Voice of the Silence", published for the request of Panchen Lama IX in 1927 by Chinese society for Buddhism study at Peking, reports that H. Blavatsky during several years was studied in Tashilunpo and knew well Panchen Lama VIII Tenpay Vangchug. Blavatsky also confirmed her living at Tashilunpo and Shigatse. In a letter, she depicted her correspondent a solitary temple of Tashi Lama near Shigatse.
S. Cranston asserts that, according to H.P. Blavatsky, it is not known would she was at Lhasa in that time, but V. Jelihovsky affirmed the follows: "It is reliably that she (Blavatsky) sometimes was at Lhasa, capital of Tibet, and also at Shigatse, main Tibetan religious centre … and at Karakoram mountains in Kunlun Shan. Her living stories about this proved that for me many times".

According to the biographers, last period of her living at Tibet H.P. Blavatsky has conducted in the home of her Teacher Koot Hoomi (K.H.). He helps Blavatsky to get to several lamaseries where any European was not before her. In the letter from October 2, 1991 she wrote to M. Hillis-Billing that the house of Teacher K.H. "is in the region of Karakoram mountains beyond Ladakh which is at minor Tibet and related now to Kashmir. This is a large wooden building in China style looking like to pagoda located between lake and a nice river".
Researchers believe that just at this time (during living in Tibet) Blavatsky began to study the texts which later will come to the book "The Voice of the Silence".

In 1927, one of the eminent explorers of Tibet and its philosophy W.Y. Evans-Wentz wrote in introduction to his translation of "The Tibetan Book of the Dead": "As concerning an esoteric meaning of forty ninth day of Bardo, please see about this in H.P. Blavatsky’s “The Secret Doctrine” (London, 1888, v.1, P.238, 411; v.2, p. 617,628). Late lama K.D. Samdup believed that in spite of malevolent critics of Blavatsky’s works, this author has undisputable proofs that she was well acquainted with the highest lamaist teaching, and for this she needs to get an initiation". Doctor Malalasekera, founder and President of the World Buddhist brotherhood, wrote about Blavatsky in a monumental "Buddhism Encyclopedia": "Her acquaintance with Tibetan Buddhism and also with esoteric Buddhism practices is indubitable". Thus, Japan philosopher and Buddhologist D. T. Suzuki supposes that


H.P. Blavatsky. 1876-1878
“ "undoubtedly Ms. Blavatsky somehow or other was initiated into deeper propositions of the Mahayana teaching".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_Blavatsky

She introduced the concept of Ascended Masters from whom she received her teachings.
The question that I ask who they really are and if they are so evolved why they need humans as a vehicle to transmit their knowledge.

http://www.answers.com/topic/ascended-master
Ascended Masters are enlightened beings whom many in the esoteric field believe have evolved beyond the need to reincarnate on earth and now act from a higher plane of existence to assist humans in their movement toward enlightenment and guide the race in its destined evolution. The concept of ascended masters was popularly introduced by Madame Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, cofounder of the Theosophical Society, and described in some detail in her most important book, The Secret Doctrine. Blavatsky taught that both individuals and the human race were engaged in an upward evolutionary process. At the same time, she pictured a hierarchy of Masters headed by a being known as the Solar Logos. Those masters at the lowest level of the hierarchy regularly interacted with humanity. The Masters El Morya and Koot Hoomi have had a special role in the formation and guidance of the society. One of the early members of the society, A. P. Sinnett, also received regular communications from the masters that became the basis of two important theosophical texts, Esoteric Buddhism and the Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett.
Together, the masters constituted the Great White Brotherhood. A number of the spiritual leaders from past history were pictured as members of the hierarchy. For example, the person known as Jesus, revered as the fountainheadof Christianity, is believed to hold the office of Maitreya in the hierarchy. The work of the masters was championed by Blavatsky's successor Annie Besant and her colleague Charles W. Leadbeater, whose works further elaborated upon the nature and work of the masters.
Blavatsky also introduced the idea of ascension as a goal for humans, a concept made central of "I AM" Religious Activity, an organization founded by Guy W. Ballard, who further developed theosophical concepts. Ballard taught that it was possible through following the disciplines of the movement, including vegetarianism, to so purify the self that the individual need not die but could ascend to the next level of conscious existence. Ballard's own untimely death necessitated some revision of that ideal, and the natural process of death was integrated into the understanding of the process of ascension. Ballard is now believed to have assumed a position as an ascended master, as has Mark Prophet, the founder of the Summit Lighthouse (now the Church Universal and Triumphant), a group similar to the "I AM."

[mazHur]

Mazhur - I remember you saying things before about Buddhism and Ashoka that are patently untrue.

The Southern Buddhists of Sri Lanka, Burma and Vietnam claim that they preserve the original teachings in the Therevada in the books of the Tripitaka, whilst the Mahayana traditions claim that their teachings merely build upon the teachings of Gautama Buddha. The Therevada claims it is the original form, and there is no reason to say otherwise. the writings are even written in a form that suits the rendering of an oral tradition.

If Buddha hadn't believed in God, his most ardent convert the Great Ashoka and Grand Chandra Gupt Mauria wouldn't have given up bloodshed without feeling scruples of the fear of Almighty!

This is not in the Buddhist teachings. Ashoka stopped the campaign of his victorious armies after witnessing the suffering that was caused. He was moved by compassion and then became an iconic Buddhist practitioner, and created the Pillar of Ashoka, which was found by later archaeologists and proved that Buddhism was not a mere branch of Hinduism.

This should also be a food for thought for those who want to understand God!

What is food for thought is why you think it is ok to peddle this cod version of Buddhist history. I remember a post from last year you made claiming similar things. I don't see many Buddhists on here coming up with false histories of Islam, and I don't see why you should either.

Where did I 'compare' any religion with Buddhism??? False history of Islam??? When, where??

I live in the ancient Buddhist zone,,,,the Ghandara civilization, stupas all around but NOT a single Buddhist?? It is almost the same all over India! Buddhism been split into a myriad of sects or faces is no more the same as taught by the Great Buddha. It is favored, though in a different mode, more by the outsiders than those for whom it was meant--the Hindu's and Jains. And that is a fact.

It is irony of fate that two of the greatest Kings of India namely Mauriya and Asoka lost their empires and dynasty AFTER they converted to Buddhism....
it was not only 'suffering' they caused that made them realize to opt for a new religion but they kinda attained Nirvana...or unification with God!

Buddhism in its Original form is almost history...what we see today is modifications of Buddhism...and Buddha teachings except his Eight Paths.

Basic teachings of almost all religion lay emphasis on 'morals' and 'way of living' so does Buddhism and I don't have any disagreement on that. The only thing I pointed out inso far as Buddhism is concerned that it retards ACTION and REACTION ...and doesn't condemn self-infliction which is not considered legitimate in other religions including Islam. FYI it is HARAM in Islam to commit suicide or kill anyone-it says : the Killing of one person is the same as Killing humanity. Well, if people do not comply with the tenets of their religion that cannot be the fault of their religion, any religion for that sake.

This is completely untrue. The Buddha's Path is the Middle Way - neither cultivating suffering, nor over indulging oneself. A quick and cursory read of The Life of the Buddha will confirm this. I also remember you claiming to have studied Buddhism before settling on Islam. I distinctly remember thinking that it was a balanced way of deciding upon a spiritual path. Now this. Either you didn't study it, or you did, but have decided to write untruths to people you think will not know. So which is it?

I found our previous conversation on the thread "Is God a projection of our thoughts" - page 9.

BTW which religion doesn't teach the middle way??? What if the adherents of a religion do not obey its tenets?? What if the teachings of a religion are adulterated and obliterated by human hands??

I am not a religious man...I talk from experience and practical observation.
Buddhism was a shift from Hinduism....It teaches peace to the extent of death which is NOT moderation. It was this moderation that brought the downfall of novo-impressed great kings and dynasties in as much as that only their stones and pillars remain to remind of them!

Staying hungry and almost 'killing' yourself is not a pride in itself so is committing Suicide or killing others. Bringing yerself pain and suffering is not a way to eradicate or mitigate sufferings of others or oneself. Dividing religious norms and scriptures into 'open' and 'secret' sections too isn't good...for it was for this reason that Martin Luther revolted.

In my humble opinion any religion which does not teach ACTION is not my cuppa tea!

[Paulclem]

Hm….I have been reading about Tantric Buddhism and I see many differences with Hinayana and Mahayana Buddhism. To be honest, I didn’t know about Tantric Buddhism as I read Hanayana and Mahayana teachings. Buddhist tantric practice is classified as secret practice and it influenced by Hindu teachings. Interestingly enough, study of Tantrayana on west are in early stages. Those who study that subject made it very clear that there is still lots of secrecy even though there is a large number of tantric scriptures.

So, we may simplify Buddhist teaching to one doctrine…but then we will talk about New Age or pop version of Buddhist teachings. Secondly, Christianity doctrines within protestant church, for example, are not at odds as you said but there are differences like in Buddhism.

My point was that if we want to talk about Buddhism, we need to be very specific and aware of the limitations of our knowledge.

Tantric Buddhism is not a seperate form of Buddhism, but grows from the Mahayana. As such it follows the Buddha's path and extends it into practices such as medicine Buddha Practice. You therefore need a grounding in the teachings of The Buddha.

This practice is not necessarily secret, such as Vajrasattva practice. The secret practices include wrathful forms of the Buddhas such as Vajrayogina and Mahakala. They are secret because these practices utilise wrathful energy and sexual energy for the path. I must stress that the practices do not involve sexual acts, but are practiced by Monks and Nuns who are abstinent and must maintain their vows. They are secret because of misinterpretation and literalism. This has been a problem in the past.

I wasn't trying to simplify Buddhism. It isn't simple, and the accretion of cultures uponthe different forms add a lot of variety. But the core beliefs and principles remain the same throughout.

My point was to address Mazhur's false claims about Buddhism. Nowhere does it say that Buddhists seek Enlightenment through suffering.

It would answer your question.




She introduced the concept of Ascended Masters from whom she received her teachings.
The question that I ask who they really are and if they are so evolved why they need humans as a vehicle to transmit their knowledge.

It doesn't answer my question. Where in that is there any sniff of Buddhism. There is a lot of name dropping of places, but I don't recall Madame Blavatsky being credited with any teachings that are anything like Buddhism or Tibetan Buddhism.

Where did I 'compare' any religion with Buddhism??? False history of Islam??? When, where??

I live in the ancient Buddhist zone,,,,the Ghandara civilization, stupas all around but NOT a single Buddhist?? It is almost the same all over India! Buddhism been split into a myriad of sects or faces is no more the same as taught by the Great Buddha. It is favored, though in a different mode, more by the outsiders than those for whom it was meant--the Hindu's and Jains. And that is a fact.

It is irony of fate that two of the greatest Kings of India namely Mauriya and Asoka lost their empires and dynasty AFTER they converted to Buddhism....
it was not only 'suffering' they caused that made them realize to opt for a new religion but they kinda attained Nirvana...or unification with God!

Buddhism in its Original form is almost history...what we see today is modifications of Buddhism...and Buddha teachings except his Eight Paths.

Basic teachings of almost all religion lay emphasis on 'morals' and 'way of living' so does Buddhism and I don't have any disagreement on that. The only thing I pointed out inso far as Buddhism is concerned that it retards ACTION and REACTION ...and doesn't condemn self-infliction which is not considered legitimate in other religions including Islam. FYI it is HARAM in Islam to commit suicide or kill anyone-it says : the Killing of one person is the same as Killing humanity. Well, if people do not comply with the tenets of their religion that cannot be the fault of their religion, any religion for that sake.

I specifically addressed your assertion that Buddhists seek Enlightenment through suffering. They do not. The Middle Way was developed by The Buddha to counter the extremes of asceticism, and also the extremes of over indulgence. The Middle way is a specific path and not a generalisation that you can apply to general ethics practiced in other religions. It involves following the 8 Fold Path which is a Buddhist construct.

The only thing I pointed out inso far as Buddhism is concerned that it retards ACTION and REACTION

This is not what I was taking issue with, but since you bring it up, Buddhism teaches that you should act in the right way. If that include action - then act. If it requires inaction. Don't act.

Buddhism's view of suicide is that it is wrong. But the view of a person who does this is one of compassion.

Your assertion that Buddhism isn't practiced as it was originally intended is refuted by modern Buddhists in the Therevada tradition.

I'm also not impressed that you claim to come from that region. What has that got to do with anything? I also take issue that Buddhism was intended for any particular people - more by the outsiders than those for whom it was meant- in your words. It is intended for anyone who wishes to practice it, and it is very clear on that - including Hindu untouchables and anyone else.

.

BTW which religion doesn't teach the middle way??? What if the adherents of a religion do not obey its tenets?? What if the teachings of a religion are adulterated and obliterated by human hands??

I am not a religious man...I talk from experience and practical observation.
Buddhism was a shift from Hinduism....It teaches peace to the extent of death which is NOT moderation. It was this moderation that brought the downfall of novo-impressed great kings and dynasties in as much as that only their stones and pillars remain to remind of them!

Staying hungry and almost 'killing' yourself is not a pride in itself so is committing Suicide or killing others. Bringing yerself pain and suffering is not a way to eradicate or mitigate sufferings of others or oneself. Dividing religious norms and scriptures into 'open' and 'secret' sections too isn't good...for it was for this reason that Martin Luther revolted.

In my humble opinion any religion which does not teach ACTION is not my cuppa tea!

Buddhism is not a shift from Hinduism if you mean that it is a branch of it. I have no idea what you mean by peace to the extent of death. Perhaps you mean that it is better to die than to kill another person in anger. If you mean that then yes. it has high ideals.

It was this moderation that brought the downfall of novo-impressed great kings and dynasties in as much as that only their stones and pillars remain to remind of them!

You could look at this and say it was the greed and violence of the victorious.

Staying hungry and almost 'killing' yourself is not a pride in itself so is committing Suicide or killing others. Bringing yerself pain and suffering is not a way to eradicate or mitigate sufferings of others or oneself.

This is not a part of the Buddhist teachings. The Middle Way is.

In my humble opinion any religion which does not teach ACTION is not my cuppa tea

Ok, but in my humble opinion, you should inform yourself about the basic tenets of a religion before you go pronouncing on it.

[MarkBastable]

in my humble opinion, you should inform yourself about the basic tenets of a religion before you go pronouncing on it.

That's his humble opinion too...

Originally Posted by mazHur
it is not fair to talk ill of other's beliefs without really understanding the Truth.


...apparently.

[BlackCat]

this might come off a tad bit stupid and lazy, but what are y'all talking bout Buddhism?

[usman.khawar]

I believe in God because of the equilibrium that He brought to my life. I also believes in God because it was God who inspired me to learn all things possible. It was God who inspired me to study beauties of the world, to see the universe as a united singularity. I also believe in God because I study, and as subjective as it is because I can hear Him speak to my heart (no Schizophrenia )

quite true but ur argument in favor of God may be express on wider canvas like this " its a supper beauty that this universe and all in btw is in perfect equlibrium"

isnt it ?

[Paulclem]

this might come off a tad bit stupid and lazy, but what are y'all talking bout Buddhism?

Yes. No harm in asking.

[BlackCat]

quite true but ur argument in favor of God may be express on wider canvas like this " its a supper beauty that this universe and all in btw is in perfect equlibrium"

isnt it ?

I'm not making an argument, that was just a reason why I believe in God. That would be why I present a subjective proof.

[Paulclem]

That's his humble opinion too...

Originally Posted by mazHur
it is not fair to talk ill of other's beliefs without really understanding the Truth.


...apparently.

Yes. I've referred to a previous conversation with Mazhur too. We've been here before, which makes me wonder why he's persisting in this.

[BlackCat]

Yes. No harm in asking.

sorry, just too long though, just wondering what aspects of Buddhism you folks are on

[Paulclem]

I was contradicting a posting that claimed that Buddhism advocated Enlightenment through suffering, which is at odds with the teachings.

[BlackCat]

I was contradicting a posting that claimed that Buddhism advocated Enlightenment through suffering, which is at odds with the teachings.

which was why Buddha set out to seek a new path in the first place. However I kinda disagree with him

[mazHur]

I was contradicting a posting that claimed that Buddhism advocated Enlightenment through suffering, which is at odds with the teachings.

maybe I've become old to get past discussion out of my mind
Will you please enlighten me about how Buddhism teaches us to get over our sufferings which other religions don't?

[BlackCat]

maybe I've become old to get past discussion out of my mind
Will you please enlighten me about how Buddhism teaches us to get over our sufferings which other religions don't?

Can I offer my insight to this? I don't know every religions, but I can at least compare Buddhism to mine, Christianity.

In both religions, the founder (Jesus and Gautama Buddha) were tempted by demons. In Buddhism, upon tempted by the mara and his daughters, the Buddha did nothing to be distracted. Instead it was earth and heaven that instantaneously recognized the Buddha's sovereignty. Upon being tempted with the pleasures of the flesh, the Buddha simply ignored the daughters of Mara. This relfect a great aspect of Buddhism, which sees all things that take man out of his focus to Nirvana and enlightenment as illusions, and all efforts must be taken to ignore them altogether, to meditate, to take ascendence over your own body and mind.

In Christianity however is a different story. Jesus not only not ignore the Devil, he had an actual dialogue with him and rebuked the Devil with the Word of God. Jesus was not meditating, he was fasting, he experienced suffering in its rawest forms. There were no wipping and kneeling for hours, those were just the simplest forms of human weakness: hunger, fear, greed... Unlike the Buddha who ignored everything, Jesus gone through everything. This reflects the whole aspect of Christianity, which peach that the only way one can rise gloriously with Christ is to suffer like Christ.

Both faiths have great aspects and great truths, but to me simply to be like the Buddha is almost impossible. I am a Christian because to me Christianity and Jesus is more realistic, because I believe that man must evolve only through understanding the natures of his struggles.

[ftil]

Tantric Buddhism is not a seperate form of Buddhism, but grows from the Mahayana. As such it follows the Buddha's path and extends it into practices such as medicine Buddha Practice. You therefore need a grounding in the teachings of The Buddha.

This practice is not necessarily secret, such as Vajrasattva practice. The secret practices include wrathful forms of the Buddhas such as Vajrayogina and Mahakala. They are secret because these practices utilise wrathful energy and sexual energy for the path. I must stress that the practices do not involve sexual acts, but are practiced by Monks and Nuns who are abstinent and must maintain their vows. They are secret because of misinterpretation and literalism. This has been a problem in the past.

I wasn't trying to simplify Buddhism. It isn't simple, and the accretion of cultures uponthe different forms add a lot of variety. But the core beliefs and principles remain the same throughout.

My point was to address Mazhur's false claims about Buddhism. Nowhere does it say that Buddhists seek Enlightenment through suffering.

I know enough about Buddhism to know how complex and multifaceted system it is. Please don’t forget that Buddhism like every other religions has evolved over time. I have read that the first tantric Buddhist texts appeared in India in the 3rd century and continued to appear until the 12th century.

Historians have identified an early stage of Mantrayana beginning in the 4th century, and argue that assigning the teachings to the historical Buddha is "patently absurd".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajrayana

I have read that there is a lot of secrecy. I guess we read different scholars.

Secondly, don’t forget that Tantric Buddhism came from India. It is sexual in nature.You may create your own explanations why Tantric Buddhism is secret but I would rather stay with scholars who are committed to scientific study. Well, they have many questions......you have all the answers.

Finally, you may do some research about the abstinence of monks. I have posted on your tread a documentary video about sexual scandal of Soygal Rinpoche. You may say it that women who were sexually used by Rinpoche didn’t tell the truth. Well, my friend’s mother spent 3 years in Buddhist center in France. I remember saying her that it was a common knowledge that he was promiscuous. I didn’t know that he used his power of authority to do so……I thought that he was simply handsome and charming and women couldn’t resist. Unfortunately, it is not true at all.

So, we may ask many questions. For example, why Blavatsky who was initiated into mahayana esoteric teachings wrote that Satan or Lucifer was the only god.