Ask A Buddhist II

[Vouthon]

You got it right. That is the definition of true Metta, the desire for the happiness and well being of all people and creatures, regardless of who or what they are

That sounds sensible to me. The only difference is that prayer is directed at God, or some other entity, whereas the Metta meditation is simply giving words to an aspiration.

Amen brother Bakmoon.

It could be that the Catholic mystics experience, on some levels at least, experiences akin to the Buddhist jhanas but interpret them through a theistic mindset, or vis-a-versa.

The key difference is their orientation towards a Creator God, however negatively (apophatically) defined, although the experiences are similar on a basic level - its in the realm of ideas (interpretation) that one sees the doctrinal difference of theism/non-theism.

 

[Bakmoon]

Thanks for your detailed answer.

Why the lack of interest in metaphysics and the workings of the universe etc. What is the focus of living as a Buddhist? What is the meaning of life as a Buddhist?

The meaning of life for a Catholic is to imitate Christ so what is it for a Buddhist?

There is a lack of interest in metaphysics and such because there is a limit into how much such thinking can actually illuminate true wisdom, because ultimately such wisdom can only be gained through the practice of meditation. Metaphysics can be useful, but only up to a point, and there is a very real risk of just intellectualizing it and turning Buddhism into a system of philosophical postulates about the nature of reality instead of a contemplative system aimed at gaining true wisdom and happiness.

Insofar as philosophy supports this wisdom, it is encouraged. Almost all sects of Buddhism have sophisticated systems of philosophy, it is just that there is a need to keep it in its proper context.

The meaning of life for a Buddhist is to strive towards Nibbana.

 

[Vouthon]

we all have Buddha Nature as part of our essential make up, so saying this is merely saying that you wish to uncover your true nature.

I am very interested in learning more about “Buddha Nature”, my dear brother/sister Lodro How does it fit in with anatta (not-self)?

What would your definition of Buddha Nature be?

I have an exam coming up on Thursday but after this I would very much enjoy discussing this with you, and if you don’t mind, looking for comparisons between this Mahayana concept and Catholic mysticism.

We have a concept known by the Rhineland-Flemish school of mysticism as the “Ground” which I think could be rather similar to “Buddha Nature”.

 

[Vouthon]

So I guess that is similar, though my very limited understanding of Catholic tradition is that to say that you actually wanted to become Christ would be both absurd, because there is only one, and very suspicious, because it would imply taking on the attributes of God that a mortal being could not posses?

The very foundation stone of Catholic/Orthodox mysticism, is that we become by grace what God is by nature - God. This is known as “theosis”

St. Athanasius (295-373 A.D.)
God became man that we might become God

The Bible tells us that we possess the “mind of Christ”:

“…We have the mind of Christ…”

- 1 Corinthians 2:16

And that we are also to seek for the “mind of Christ”:

“…Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness, and being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross…”

- Philippians 2:5-11

We are indeed to become “another Christ” as the mystics explained:

"…We awaken in Christ’s body
as Christ awakens our bodies,
and my poor hand is Christ, He enters
my foot, and is infinitely me.

I move my hand, and wonderfully
my hand becomes Christ, becomes all of Him
(for God is indivisibly
whole, seamless in His Godhood).

I move my foot, and at once
He appears like a flash of lightning.
Do my words seem blasphemous? – Then
open your heart to Him

and let yourself receive the one
who is opening to you so deeply.
For if we genuinely love Him,
we wake up inside Christ’s body

where all our body, all over,
every most hidden part of it,
is realized in joy as Him,
and He makes us, utterly, real,

and everything that is hurt, everything
that seemed to us dark, harsh, shameful,
maimed, ugly, irreparably
damaged, is in Him transformed

and recognized as whole, as lovely,
and radiant in His light
he awakens as the Beloved
in every last part of our body…"

- Saint Symeon the New Theologian (949 - 1032), Catholic mystic

“…Christ has no body but yours,
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
Compassion on this world,
Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good,
Yours are the hands, with which he blesses all the world.
Yours are the hands, yours are the feet,
Yours are the eyes, you are his body.
Christ has no body now but yours,
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
compassion on this world.
Christ has no body now on earth but yours…”

***- Saint Teresa of Avila (1515-1582), Catholic mystic & Doctor of the Church ***

I look forward to Thursday, comparing the Catholic mystics with Mahayana and Tibetan concepts in more depth

 

[Bakmoon]

So anotherwards you guys believe that when you are reincarnated if you left evil, you come back and get another run, but are still evil then? So its just history repeating itself?

What happens is that when one dies, one is reborn into a place that corresponds to a very particular mental state that occurs as part of the process of dying, and this mental state is affected by one’s deeds in life. If they are born into a woeful destination (that is, as a hungry ghost, an animal. or as a being in hell) then you must wait there for a period of time before you die again. Then, your next birth will be determined in the same way, but will likely be based on actions from prior lifetimes. Eventually, the person may be reborn as a human being again. The person may have certain tenancies from previous lifetimes, but it is ultimately that person’s free will what to do. A person with evil inclinations can overcome them through a charitable and humble heart, and a person with good inclinations can be overcome with greed and selfishness as well.

 

[Vouthon]

Evelyn Underhill, an Anglo-Catholic mystic writing in 1910, describes as follows how Christ’s life is the “model” and “exemplar” for the mystical journey as experienced by Catholic mystics:

“…It is the ‘night of intellect’ into which we are plunged when we attain to a state of conciousness beyond thought; enter on a plane of spiritual experience with which the intellect cannot deal. This is the ‘Divine Darkness’ - the Cloud of Unknowing…This dimness and lostness of Mind is a paradoxical proof of attainment…These statements cannot be explained: they can only be proved in the experience of the individual soul…Further, these mystics see in the historic life of Christ an epitome—or if you will, an exhibition—of the essentials of all spiritual life. There they see dramatized not only the cosmic process of the Divine Wisdom, but also the inward experience of every soul on her way to union with that Absolute ‘to which the whole Creation moves.’ This is why the expressions which they use to describe the evolution of the mystical consciousness from the birth of the divine in the spark of the soul to its final unification with the Absolute Life are so constantly chosen from the Drama of Faith. In this drama they see described under the veils the necessary adventures of the spirit. Its obscure and humble birth, its education in poverty, its temptation, mortification and solitude, its ‘illuminated life‘ of service and contemplation, the desolation of that ‘dark night of the soul‘ in which it seems abandoned by the Divine: the painful death of the self, its resurrection to the glorified existence of the Unitive Way, its final re-absorption in its Source – all these, they say, were lived once in a supreme degree in the flesh. Moreover, the degree of closeness with which the individual experience adheres to this Pattern is always taken by them as a standard of the healthiness, ardor, and success of its transcendental activities…”

**- Evelyn Underhill (Anglo-Catholic mystic), 1910 **

 

[Lodro]

Hmm…methinks you sound a bit like Saint Catherine of Genoa and Richard Rolle

Yes, and Thomas Merton as well, and the Desert Fathers. I understand that there is a very strong non-theistic tradition even in historical Catholicism, and a number of Catholic (as well as of course Muslim and Jewish) scholars and mystics have discussed the issue of not using the label “God” because it allows us to make our own presumptions about what that is.

Karen Armstrong’s “The History of God” explores some fascinating history in this area. Worth a read if you haven’t.

In my own opinion sister Notself you “pray” in a very similar fashion to these Catholic mystics

Yes, it sounded that way to me as well.

I thought I’d share a bit of my own experience with “prayer” and meditation since I think there was an earlier question about that. (Just for reference, my own practice is currently an hour a day – with intensive retreats when I have the time which is rare right now – but has been at times more and often much less over the last dozen or so years.)

People tend to think of meditation as a very “empty” experience, and indeed it can be that way. That sort of “what am I doing here? Why am I bothering?” feeling. But clarity-emptiness-compassion is very different from some kind of zoned-out un-caring state. It takes a great deal of practice and commitment, and yes, mostly trust and faith, to even have an inkling about how this works, let alone to experience it with any kind of certainty or stability. I have had only the slightest glimpses of that, most of the time it is fleeting, ephemeral and involves a kind of constant struggling with one’s own confusion and doubt. This is not to be discouraging, not at all! But just to point out that all serious engagement with spiritual matters requires some kind of effort, resolve and renunciation.

On the other hand, sometimes even in every day experience, we do meet with an experience of sudden grace. And as Rinnie posted, we can find ways to work very directly and immediately to generate selflessness and compassion:

And it has never failed me. Within moments the anxiety, fear, anger leaves me.

Reading about the Christian experience of struggle and redemption, I think that both of these aspects of prayer are a common, shared experience!

Most of the meditation I have done has been the kind of thing that most people associate with Buddhist practice – sitting still and working with letting thoughts and conceptions go. But as I began to get more and more into the more esoteric aspects of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, I find myself in a position that is even more like what a traditional concept of prayer would look like – much to my chagrin and surprise! (While these involve “secret” or “hidden” teachings, there are many public sources where you can read about them, so I feel okay about sharing that aspect of my practice here.)

For example, the practice of Guru Yoga involves directing one’s mind at a particular deity that is seen as a manifestation of Buddha. I’ll never forget when my practice instructor gave me these instructions, and she said, “then you pray for these things” [that I be relieved of ego-clinging, see the world as it is, and so on.] I remember asking…

“Really? Like actually, you know, pray?”
“Yes, like you’re really asking a divine being that really has the power to give you these things to give them to you.”

That has been a real challenge for me as a very western, “rational”, “scientific” person. It has involved giving up a lot of what I thought about myself and even what I thought Buddhism was really about…

People will say that the difference between this kind of prayer and judeo-christian forms is that we “know” that the deity is actually imaginary, and that we’re really praying to nothing but our own awakened set of mind. But I sometimes wonder if that isn’t sort of a distinction without a real difference.

 

[Vouthon]

Yes, and Thomas Merton as well, and the Desert Fathers. I understand that there is a very strong non-theistic tradition even in historical Catholicism, and a number of Catholic (as well as of course Muslim and Jewish) scholars and mystics have discussed the issue of not using the label “God” because it allows us to make our own presumptions about what that is.

Karen Armstrong’s “The History of God” explores some fascinating history in this area. Worth a read if you haven’t.

I have never read Karen Armstrong’s book but it will now be on my reading list for Autumn

Thomas Merton is fascinating. He went from atheist/agnostic playboy, to traditional Catholic monk in a Trappist monastery, to interfaith dialoguer par-excellence who tried to find common ground between Catholicism and Buddhism (as well as Sufism). Thomas said that he wanted “to become as good a Buddhist as I can.” A little syncretic for me but he was an incredible modern mystic so I respect his insights.

The Desert Fathers, as explained by John Cassian, also had a “manthra” form of prayer where they focused upon a sacred phrase from the Bible, in quietude and stillness which is very interesting. Evagrius Ponticus is interesting in this respect.

Meister Eckhart spoke of the “God beyond God” which some interpret in a non-theistic sense. Suzuki, the great Zen master, believed that Eckhart was a Buddhist in Christian garb!

The 19th century philosopher Schopenhauer compared Eckhart’s views to the teachings of Indian mystics:

If we turn from the forms, produced by external circumstances, and go to the root of things, we shall find that Sakyamuni Buddha and Meister Eckhart teach the same thing; only that the former dared to express his ideas plainly and positively, whereas Eckhart is obliged to clothe them in the garment of the Christian myth, and to adapt his expressions thereto.

— Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, Vol. II, Ch. XLVIII

A little deprecating towards Christianity but I suppose that was to be expected

Eckhart meant, of course, that God in his undifferentiated, unconditioned Godhead beyond the distinction of the three persons, is a bottomless abyss beyond all forms, knowing, unknowing, being, non-being, existence, non-existence and so cannot be properly called “God” or by another name and indeed only “it” in a very impersonal sense. The silent desert of the Godhead, according to Ruysbroeck and other mystics, is free of all activity and is perfect stillness beyond time and place. “It” cannot be defined or imagined except through faint, deceiving analogies.

 

[Lodro]

What would your definition of Buddha Nature be?

I think we should leave that for another day as you suggest. As you can imagine, there are volumes and volumes on the subject. It’s at the heart of one of the most interesting distinctions and dialogs in the Indian and Tibetan scholastic traditions. I would be delighted to hear whether there are analogs in the Catholic mystical tradition.

It is also interesting to me that I was so confused on the subject of whether it was “ok” to want to “become god/christ”. I had thought that there was a hard (theological, not semantic) distinction between wanting to be “like” god, and actually wanting to “be god”.

I look forward to continuing the discussion, but should return to work now…

 

[rossum]

It is mentioned in the ancient commentaries that the universe undergoes an infinite series of expansions and contractions, and is boundless in the past and in the future. The Buddha is (to my knowledge, I don’t have a hard copy of the scriptures to look it up) to have said that the past of the universe is indeed boundless as well. There is also no logical reason why the universe needs an ultimate beginning (one that I have seen, anyways), either, so I don’t see the big deal.

The infinite past is mentioned in a number of places. The one I have to hand is the Assu sutta:

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating and wandering on.

• Assu sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 15.3

The arguments about infinity usually have a hidden assumption. It is easy to reach now if you start at (now minus ten): it just takes ten steps. The arguments assume that you are starting at one. If there are an infinite number of steps, then you cannot start at one. You always start in the middle. It is as difficult to start at one as it is to start at infinity and work back.

Consider the problem of finding the first page or the last page of Borges’ “Book of Sand”.

He suggested I try to find the first page.
I took the cover in my left hand and opened the book,
my thumb and forefinger almost touching.
It was impossible:
several pages always lay between the cover and my hand.
It was as though they grew from the very book.
“Now try to find the end.”
I failed there as well.
“This can’t be,” I stammered,
my voice hardly recognizable as my own.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I have never read Karen Armstrong’s book but it will now be on my reading list for Autumn.

Her “Buddha” is also well worth reading.

Thomas Merton is fascinating. He went from atheist/agnostic playboy, to traditional Catholic monk in a Trappist monastery, to interfaith dialoguer par-excellence who tried to find common ground between Catholicism and Buddhism (as well as Sufism). Thomas said that he wanted “to become as good a Buddhist as I can.” A little syncretic for me but he was an incredible modern mystic so I respect his insights.

[At Polonnaruwa] I am able to approach the Buddhas barefoot and undisturbed, my feet in wet grass, wet sand. Then the silence of the extraordinary faces. The great smiles. Huge and yet subtle. Filled with every possibility, questioning nothing, knowing everything, rejecting nothing, the peace not of emotional resignation but of sunyata, that has seen through every question without trying to discredit anyone or anything - without refutation – without establishing some argument. For the doctrinaire, the mind that needs well established positions, such peace, such silence, can be frightening.

I was knocked over with a rush of relief and thankfulness at the obvious clarity of the figures, the clarity and fluidity of shape and line, the design of the monumental bodies composed into the rock shape and landscape, figure rock and tree. And the sweep of bare rock slopping away on the other side of the hollow, where you can go back and see different aspects of the figures. Looking at these figures I was suddenly, almost forcibly, jerked clean out of the habitual, half-tied vision of things, and an inner clearness, clarity, as if exploding from the rocks themselves, became evident and obvious. The queer evidence of the reclining figure, the smile, the sad smile of Ananda standing with arms folded (much more “imperative” than Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa because completely simple and straightforward).

The thing about all this is that there is no puzzle, no problem and really no “mystery.” All problems are resolved and everything is clear, simply because what matters is clear. The rock, all matter, all life is charged with dharmakaya… everything is emptiness and everything is compassion. I don’t know when in my life I have ever had such a sense of beauty and spiritual validity running together in one aesthetic illumination. … I mean, I know and have seen what I was obscurely looking for. I don’t know what else remains, but I have now seen and have pierced through the surface and have got beyond the shadow and the disguise. …

It says everything, it needs nothing. And because it needs nothing it can afford to be silent, unnoticed, undiscovered. It does not need to be discovered. It is we who need to discover it.

From: The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton

rossum

 

[Vouthon]

I think we should leave that for another day as you suggest. As you can imagine, there are volumes and volumes on the subject. It’s at the heart of one of the most interesting distinctions and dialogs in the Indian and Tibetan scholastic traditions. I would be delighted to hear whether there are analogs in the Catholic mystical tradition.

It is also interesting to me that I was so confused on the subject of whether it was “ok” to want to “become god/christ”. I had thought that there was a hard (theological, not semantic) distinction between wanting to be “like” god, and actually wanting to “be god”.

I look forward to continuing the discussion, but should return to work now…

Ah, well perhaps you are thinking of the fact that while we can and do become God by grace, we do not become God in his unknowable Essence.

To become the Essence of God would be heresy, since we would lose our created nature and personhood and experience a pantheistic type “annihilation” of all conciousness/being.

But to become “God” is orthodox Catholic doctrine.

 

[Vouthon]

My dear brother/sister Rossum

Wow - an incredible quote from Merton, thank you so much for sharing!

He is a “modern” (20th century) Catholic mystic, along with the likes of Karl Rahner.

He was an expert on other religions, so his views of Buddhism from a (well informed, respectful) Catholic perspective are priceless.

 

[patrick457]

What is the hungry ghosts?

In Buddhist cosmology there are six planes of existence: the devas (‘gods’) are at the topmost tier, followed by the asuras, followed by human beings, followed by animals, followed by pretas (aka ‘hungry ghosts’). People in Naraka (the Buddhist Hell) are at the bottom. Depending on one’s karma you are reborn into any of these realms over and over again.

 

[patrick457]

Just a quick recap:

There are a number of theories as to how the Indo-Aryans arrived in thd Indian subcontinent (or even whether they came from someplace else at all), but the currently favored model is that the Indo-Aryans, aka the Vedic people, share a common origin with the Iranian, Dardic and Nuristani peoples: the Indo-Iranian culture. The Indo-Iranians, sometimes postulated to be the descendants of the Bronze Age Andronovo culture which had its homeland in the Eurasian steppe that borders the Ural River on the west and the Tian Shan on the east, expanded southwards from their original habitat to the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Iranian plateau, Northern India, as well as Mesopotamia and Syria. The separation of Indo-Aryans proper from Indo-Iranians is commonly dated, on linguistic grounds, to roughly 1800 BC. By the mid-2nd millennium BC early Indo-Aryans had reached Assyria in the west, where they imposed themselves over the local Hurrian population and founded the state of Mitanni, while various tribes (the Rigvedic tribes) had reached the northern Punjab in the east contemporary to the Late Harappan phase (ca. 1700 to 1300 BC), when the civilization that once existed in the Indus Valley was experiencing a sharp decline.

The Indo-Aryans have brought with them a belief system descended from the Indo-Iranian religion, which in turn is of proto-Indo-European origin. The Indo-Aryans of Mitanni are known to have worshipped deities known as Mitrasil, Uruvanassil, Indara and the Nasatianna, which corresponds with Mitra, Varuna, Indra and the Nasatyas of the Rigveda.

When the Indo-Aryans entered India, they brought with them a religion in which the gods were chiefly personified powers of Nature, a few of them, such as Dyaus, going back to the Indo-European, others, such as Mitra, Varuna, Indra, to the Indo-Iranian period. They also brought with them the cult of fire and of Soma, besides a knowledge of the art of composing religious poems in several metres, as a comparison of the Rigveda and the Avesta shows. The purpose of these ancient hymns was to propitiate the gods by praises accompanying the offering of malted butter poured on the fire and of the juice of the Soma plant placed on the sacrificial grass.

…]

This is concerned with the worship of gods that are largely personifications of the powers of nature. The hymns [of the Rigveda] are mainly invocations of these gods, and are meant to accompany the oblation of Soma juice and the fire sacrifice of melted butter. It is thus essentially a polytheistic religion, which assumes a pantheistic colouring only in a few of its latest hymns. The gods are usually stated in the RV. to be thirty-three in number, being divided into three groups of eleven distributed in earth, air, and heaven, the three divisions of the Universe. Troops of deities, such as the Maruts, are of course not included in this number. The gods were believed to have had a beginning. But they were not thought to have all come into being at the same time; for the RV. occasionally refers to earlier gods, and certain deities are described as the offspring of others. That they were considered to have been originally mortal is implied in the statement that they acquired immortality by drinking Soma or by receiving it as a gift from Agni and Savitr.

The gods were conceived as human in appearance. Their bodily parts which are frequently mentioned, are in many instances simply figurative illustrations of the phenomena of nature represented by them. Thus the arms of the Sun are nothing more than his rays; and the tongue and limbs of Agni merely denote his flames. Some of the gods appear equipped as warriors, especially Indra, others are described as priests, especially Agni and Brhaspati. All of them drive through the air in cars, drawn chiefly by steeds, but sometimes by other animals. The favourite food of men is also that of the gods, consisting in milk, butter, grain, and the flesh of sheep, goats, and cattle. It is offered to them in the sacrifice, which is either conveyed to them in heaven by the god of fire, or which they come in their cars to partake of on the strew of grass prepared for their reception. Their favourite drink is the exhilarating juice of the Soma plant. The home of the gods is heaven, the third heaven, or the highest step of Visnu, where cheered by draughts of Soma they live a life of bliss.

• A.A. Donnell, A Vedic Reader for Students

 

[patrick457]

To continue with the Vedic stuff:

One of the main deities (devas, asuras) of the Vedic pantheon is Indra, the national god of the Indo-Aryans, king of gods and deity of thunderstorms - in other words the Indo-Aryan analogue to Zeus (both of them share a common origin anyway). Perhaps the one with the most developed personality out of all Vedic deities, he is cocky, boisterous, and likes soma, the divine beverage so much that he gets drunk on it (in fact, it is what vitalizes him). Indra’s main claim to fame was waging war against and ultimately slaying the serpent Vritra, who hogged all the waters to himself, using his vajra (thunderbolt).

I will declare the manly deeds of Indra, the first that he achieved, the Thunder-wielder.
He slew the Dragon, then disclosed the waters, and cleft the channels of the mountain torrents.
He slew the Dragon lying on the mountain: his heavenly bolt of thunder Tvastar fashioned.
Like lowing kine in rapid flow descending the waters glided downward to the ocean.
Impetuous as a bull, he chose the Soma and in three sacred beakers drank the juices.
Maghavan = Indra] grasped the thunder for his weapon, and smote to death this firstborn of the dragons.
When, Indra, thou hadst slain the dragon’s firstborn, and overcome the charms of the enchanters,
Then, giving life to Sun and Dawn and Heaven, thou foundest not one foe to stand against thee.
Indra with his own great and deadly thunder smote into pieces Vrtra, worst of Vrtras.
As trunks of trees, what time the axe hath felled them, low on the earth so lies the prostrate Dragon.
He, like a mad weak warrior, challenged Indra, the great impetuous many-slaying Hero.
He, brooking not the clashing of the weapons, crushed - Indra’s foe - the shattered forts in falling.
Footless and handless still he challenged Indra, who smote him with his bolt between the shoulders.
Emasculate yet claiming manly vigour, thus Vrtra lay with scattered limbs dissevered.
There as he lies like a bank-bursting river, the waters taking courage flow above him.
The Dragon lies beneath the feet of torrents which Vrtra with his greatness had encompassed.
Then humbled was the strength of Vrtra’s mother: Indra hath cast his deadly bolt against her.
The mother was above, the son was under and like a cow beside her calf lay Danu [the primeval waters].
Rolled in the midst of never-ceasing currents flowing without a rest for ever onward.
The waters bear off Vrtra’s nameless body: the foe of Indra sank to during darkness.
Guarded by Ahi stood the thralls of Dasas, the waters stayed like kine held by the robber.
But he, when he had smitten Vrtra, opened the cave wherein the floods had been imprisoned.
A horse’s tail wast thou when he, O Indra, smote on thy bolt; thou, God without a second,
Thou hast won back the kine, hast won the Soma; thou hast let loose to flow the Seven Rivers.
Nothing availed him lightning, nothing thunder, hailstorm or mist which had spread around him:
When Indra and the Dragon strove in battle, Maghavan gained the victory for ever.
Whom sawest thou to avenge the Dragon, Indra, that fear possessed thy heart when thou hadst slain him;
That, like a hawk affrighted through the regions, thou crossedst nine-and-ninety flowing rivers?
Indra is King of all that moves and moves not, of creatures tame and horned, the Thunder-wielder.
Over all living men he rules as Sovran, containing all as spokes within the felly.

• Rigveda 1.36

 

[patrick457]

I’m now feeling very sorry for doing my own thing here while some good discussions are going on. But to continue:

Agni is another important deity in the Vedic pantheon, second only to Indra. He is the god of fire and a personification of the sacrificial fire itself. As such Agni is considered to be the accepter of sacrifices (men offer sacrifice by fire and the gods receive partake of the sacrifice by fire) and thus, the bridge between men and the gods. Hence out of all the gods he has the most connection with human beings.

Varuna is the supreme keeper of the cosmic law and order (rita). Like Indra he is also a king (they are sometimes paired together as Indra-Varuna), but while Indra is a ‘brawns over brains’ type of god: boisterous, reckless and easily manipulated by ritual and soma, Varuna is more ethical, considerate and just. He is a strict moral governor, punishing the wicked who breaks his laws but also rewarding the righteous and showing mercy to the penitent. He seems to have been at an early stage a sky god (with some solar traits; see below) although this aspect of his has been neglected in favor of abstract concepts.

Mitra (related to the Zoroastrian Mithra, who became the inspiration for the Greco-Roman Mithras) is the god of honesty, friendship, contracts and meetings. He is so often paired with Varuna as a guardian of natural, social and moral order (Mitra-Varuna) that he really has little character of his own. Both gods have solar aspects (making them two out of the many Vedic solar gods), although when paired Varuna is often associated with the night, and Mitra with the daylight.

The Ashvins, aka the Nasatyas (the ‘true’) are the Indo-Aryan divine horse twins (cf. the Greco-Roman Dioskouroi/Dioscuri and the Baltic Asveniai). They symbolize the shining of sunrise and sunset, appearing in the sky before the dawn in a golden chariot (most Vedic gods ride on one). Serving as physicians to gods and men, they bring treasures and avert misfortune and sickness.

Soma, the god of the eponymous favorite beverage of the gods and the eponymous plant it was made of (cf. the Avestan haoma). Highly intoxicating, drinking soma was what made the gods immortal (cf. the Greek ambrosia): out of all the lot Agni and Indra are heavy soma drinkers. In fact, the drink was reputed to not just confer immortality, but other miraculous effects. Unfortunately for the Indo-Aryans and later generations, true soma soon became unavailable and knowledge of the exact identity of the plant was lost altogether.

Rudra, god of the storm (especially its destructive aspects), a fierce hunter with braided hair armed often with bow and arrow but sometimes with a thunderbolt. He is so feared because of his tendency to smite man and beast with disease (though he also has the power to heal them) that he is sometimes like Voldemort never referred to by his name but are given euphemistic epithets (Indians sure like multiple names ) like ghora (‘terrible’; later shifting to aghora ‘not-terrible’), asau devam (‘that god’), or shiva (‘auspicious’).

Aside from these there also other gods like Dyava-prithvi, in other words Heaven (Dyaus, the Indo-Aryan sky father) and his consort the Earth (Prithvi); Ushas, goddess of the dawn; Parjanya, god of rain and the raincloud; a water deity named Apam Napat (cf. the Avestan god of the same name); Brihaspati, the ‘lord of prayer’; Vata and Vayu, gods of wind; Ratri, goddess of night; Yama, the first mortal and ruler of the dead; Bhaga, god of wealth and marriage; the Maruts, sons of Rudra and the bodyguards of Indra; Aditi, mother of the Adityas (which are seven, eight, eleven or twelve in number); other solar deities like Savitar, Surya (the solar orb), Vishnu (who traversed the entire universe in just three strides and assisted Indra against Vritra), Pushan (god of meeting, a psychopomp and a supportive guide, leading towards rich pastures and wealth), or Aryaman. And so on and so forth.

 

[notself]

patrick457,

Was soma used other than as a sacrificial wine? Did laypeople use it as an intoxicant?

How did Rudra become Indra. Are they both worshipped today or does only Indra remain?

What sacrificial “wine” is used today in ceremonies?

 

[patrick457]

Now, Vedic mythology is not very organized (then again, we could say the same thing for other mythologies): some gods have more distinctive personalities than others (cf. Indra compared to Dyaus or Apam Napat), two different gods could have blatantly similar characteristics (cf. Savitar and Surya) and so on and so forth.

There are also often contradictions in detail between different legends. For example, in one story Indra, Agni, and Ushas are the offspring of Dyaus and Prithvi, but Indra (along with Varuna and Mitra) is also said to be one of the Adityas, and thus a son of the goddess Aditi. In yet another, Indra and Agni are supposed to have sprung into existence along with everything in the universe when the elder gods sacrificed the primeval man Purusha (more on this later). At the same time Agni, being fire, is also described to be immortal - being reborn day after day - and yet is also said to be an offspring of either the waters (Apam Napat, the ‘grandson of waters’, also sometimes described as a fire god - in fact, Agni and Apam Napat are sometimes also conflated with one another) or two kindling sticks.

Whilst as earlier mentioned they are the children of Dyaus and Prithvi and thus brother and sister in one place, Ushas and Agni are at times described as lovers (since the sacrificial fire is kindled during dawn) in another. Now, Ushas is also said to be the wife of Surya (whose path she opens) but is also called his mother. Now Surya is mostly conceived of as male, but in some other places the Ashvins are married to a female Surya (who incidentally, was also presented as a bride to Pushan in yet another instance - who is also a somewhat incestous lover of his mother/sister Ushas, Surya’s messenger, or the Ashvins’ son, depending on the story); in still others the difficulty is somewhat resolved by having them marry Surya’s daughter.

Finally, the story of Indra’s slaying of Vritra: while in most accounts it is Indra who performs it, in one instance the Maruts (Indra’s armed companions) are the ones who actually do the deed, and in another instance the goddess Sarasvati (the personification of the river of the same name) is applied the title Vritrahan (Vritra-slayer). Indra is said to have been aided at this time by the Maruts, Agni, Soma (he drank three lakes of the beverage after all in the god Tvashtri’s house - who also made the thunderbolt for him) and Vishnu, although in one story Varuna, Agni and Soma were Vritra’s allies (calling him ‘Father’) before Indra coaxed them into switching sides. Vritra’s fortresses which Indra smashes vary in number (90, 99 or even 100) and even the location of the battle differs (the earth, the clouds), as does the nature of the imprisoned waters (terrestrial, atmospheric or celestial). The owner of the hundred fortresses themselves differ: while here it is Vritra’s, in another they are owned by a demon named Sambara - who is killed when Indra laid waste to the hundredth.

 

[JoeBowen7]

… The rock, all matter, all life is charged with dharmakaya… everything is emptiness and everything is compassion.

I would disagree that everything is emptiness. God, for example, is overflowing with mercy and forgiveness, and that is why Catholics celebrate Divine Mercy Sunday. And there are thousands of people who show charity, mercy and understanding toward their neighbor.