Ask A Buddhist

[notself]

That said, I don’t think your ethics on a practical level are probably any worse or better than anyone else’s in here. I"m a Catholic convert and I’ve worked with many Buddhists too, and I haven’t seen any concretely outstanding models of morality in either place, to be honest.

[Yes, I know both systems have their idealized moral people (saints and gurus and whatnot), but most of the everyday proponents of both systems you better not turn your back on. JMHO.]

Religion does not make people good. Practice of the teaching of the religion leads people to goodness. Most people don’t practice. The following is from the Dhammapada

1. Much though he recites the sacred texts, but acts not accordingly, that heedless man is like a cowherd who only counts the cows of others — he does not partake of the blessings of the holy life.
2. Little though he recites the sacred texts, but puts the Teaching into practice, forsaking lust, hatred, and delusion, with true wisdom and emancipated mind, clinging to nothing of this or any other world — he indeed partakes of the blessings of a holy life

.

 

[patrick457]

I have no idea what Buddhists are doing in the Catholic Answers Forums. Yeah, I know there’s a non-Catholic section. I have no idea why they have that either. Weirdness.

That said, I don’t think your ethics on a practical level are probably any worse or better than anyone else’s in here. I"m a Catholic convert and I’ve worked with many Buddhists too, and I haven’t seen any concretely outstanding models of morality in either place, to be honest.

[Yes, I know both systems have their idealized moral people (saints and gurus and whatnot), but most of the everyday proponents of both systems you better not turn your back on. JMHO.]

Because not everybody in the world is a Catholic, and frankly, I don’t think turning the forums into some sort of secluded, exclusive ‘Catholics-only’ country club is going to benefit anyone in the long run.

 

[Vouthon]

Earlier on in this thread (I’ve been reading back through it ) brother Bakmoon said:

“…Nirvana is the cessation of suffering. It is a state of total and perfect contentment and satisfaction. It is a totally perfect and eternal happiness. It isn’t really bliss in terms of an emotion, but as a state of attachment…It is the supreme happiness and it is eternal, beyond both space and time…”

I am very interested to try and learn more about Nirvana, although I understand that trying to explain Nirvana is probably impossible, since it is ineffable and beyond all human understanding.

Not having much knowledge of Buddhism other than the Dhammapada and the fantastic Suttas which brother/sister Notself has been posting in this thread (such as the one above), I can only rely on what I have read and heard other Buddhists say about this supreme state:

I have it heard it explained as being akin to a candle flame blown out. In other words, its the extinction of all cravings and the suffering caused as a result. I know that it leads one beyond the cycle of death and rebirth such that it can be called “liberation”.

Because it is unconditioned, it is not transitory but infinite and eternal.

Nonetheless is it “existence” on some level? Or is it non-existence? When the flame of craving, suffering and the illusionary self is blown out - is there anything left once that enlightened being dies? If there is no more rebirth, does something continue to exist in this supreme, unbounded state of sheer bliss beyond space and time? Or is it complete non-being?

I have been thinking about the experiences of Christian mystics - mostly either Western or Eastern Catholic but the odd Protestant as well such as the Lutheran Jacob Boehme - who have claimed to have attained the supreme state of union with God, the “union without distinction” as it was called by Blessed Jan Van Ruysbroeck, and I’m trying to ascertain whether there is a common mystical experience within our two traditions which the Catholic mystics have expressed and understood in a theistic way and expressed using Christian terminology but which could in its kernel be akin to the Buddhist experience of Nirvana.

At random, largely, I have trawled through my various books and selected, as an example, the Catholic mystic Blessed Jacopone da Todi, one of my favourites. He was a member of the Franciscan order in the thirteenth century. Jacopone calls this stage of supreme enlightenment “the third heaven” and claims that it is founded upon “non-being” and nichil which is the Italian word for “Nothing”.

I reproduce for you below his poetic account of his experience of supreme enlightenment of the Catholic species. My questions are:

1. Is there anything in common with Buddhism? Or is it uniquely Christian?
2. If one were to peel away the obvious theistic and Christian language, could this be Nirvana? Can non-Buddhists experience Nirvana? And if they do might we not expect it not to be expressed in the exact same manner as a Buddhist would given the impossibility of such speech nearly 1,000 years ago in Europe?
3. Or is it totally different/largely different and if so how?

Note: The repeated use of the Christian specific term “soul” might be off-putting to Buddhists, given what I have learned in this thread. But note the fact that Jacopone, like Meister Eckhart, suggests a state of awareness where the soul is “lost” and no longer knows itself and indeed “drowns” in the “immensity”.

This is merely an interfaith excercise to deepen my understanding

I will let Jacopone speak now (it is rather long since I am trying to provide a full picture of his experience):

(continued next page)

 

[Vouthon]

"…As air becomes the medium for light when the sun rises,
And as wax melts from the heat of fire,
So the soul drawn to that light is resplendent,
Feels self melt away,
Its will and actions no longer its own.
So clear is the imprint of God
That the soul, conquered, is conqueror;
Annihilated, it lives in triumph.

What happens to the drop of wine
That you pour into the sea?
Does it remain itself, unchanged?
It is as if it never existed.
So it is with the soul: Love drinks it in,
It is united with Truth,
Its old nature fades away,
It is no longer master of itself.

The soul wills and yet does not will:
Its will belongs to Another.
It has eyes only for this beauty;
It no longer seeks to possess, as was its wont –
It lacks the strength to possess such sweetness.
The base of this highest of peaks
Is founded on non-being,
Shaped nothingness

On achieving their desired end
Human powers cease to function,
And the soul sees that what it thought was right
Was wrong. A new exchange occurs
At that point where all light disappears;
A new and unsought state is needed:
The soul has what it did not love,
And is stripped of all it possessed, no matter how dear.

In God the spiritual faculties
Come to their desired end,
Lose all sense of self and self-consciousness,
And are swept into infinity.
The soul, made new again,
Marveling to find itself
In that immensity, drowns.
How this comes about it does not know.

It is within and sees no exit;
It no longer knows how to think of itself
Or to speak of the wondrous change.
It ventures forth
Onto a sea without a shore
And gazes on Beauty without colour or hue.

Participating in the essence of all creatures
The doors open wide.

In losing all, the soul has risen
To the pinnacle of the measureless;
Because it has renounced all
That is not divine,
It now holds in its grasp
The unimaginable Good
In all its abundance,
A loss and a gain impossible to describe.

To lose and to hold tightly,
To love and take delight in,
To gaze upon and contemplate,
To possess utterly,
To float in that immensity
And to rest therein –
That is the work of unceasing exchange
Of charity and truth.

There is no other action at those heights;
What the questing soul once was it has ceased to be.
Neither heat nor fiery love
Nor suffering has place here.
This is not light as the soul has imagined it.
All it had sought it must now forget,
And pass on to a new world,
Beyond its powers of perception.

Until you reach this point, and the self is annihilated,
Everything you think is true is really false.
You do not yet have in you pure charity
While you can think of ‘yourself’
And the ‘victory’ you are ‘striving’ for.

Oh, the futility of seeking to convey
With images and feelings
That which surpasses all measure!
The futility of seeking
To make infinite powers ours!

Do not dwell on yourself, nor should you –
A creature subject to multiplicity and change.
Rest in tranquility, loftier than action or feeling.

The intellect no longer hears,
For no sound comes to it,
And intellect sees nothing,
For it has submerged its every power.

The senses no longer give pleasure.
Scent, though given back, no longer delights
And taste turns mute.

Silence has come on the scene -
No longer is there any need for language;
The soul speaks without words,
And closed in silent intimacy, gathers strength.

Now the faculties of the soul, both old and new,
Rest firmly on non-being, formed without form,
With no limits set to time or space, fused with Truth

Heart, mind, will,
Pleasure, feeling - all are gone

Friends have urged me to change my ways,
To take another path. I cannot.
I have already given myself away
And have nothing left to give.

The soul now dwells in a sphere
Beyond the reach of death and suffering
It looks down on creation
And basks in its peace

The soul drowns in ecstasy
Oh, the depths of the abyss.

O Deepest Truth that reigns over all,
You are the road and the end of the road.
A sweet tranquility superior to all other states,
Not susceptible to change.

The one who posses You,
Remains forever pure.
On a height and in peace it looks down,
On the world below stepped in ego.
The sense of self disappears,
For it can never rise to this level.

The war is over -
Virtue’s struggle, anguish,
All enemies have been vanquished.
Gone is desire, the straining of the will, the fear of loss.
You have more than you knew how to yearn for.

Lofty self-annihilation,
Yours is constant joy,
A dwelling on Truth,
Without shadow or pain.

You have cast out both pleasure and displeasure;
Surrendering yourself.
You have drowned both wanting and not wanting
And extinguished desire; yours is unending peace.
You are the flame that purifies
But does not destroy,
That overcomes both heat and cold.

From this perfection,
There is no impediment.
Leaving yourself behind,
In Infinity, without opposition.
No one can comprehend you.
This is the new covenant:
This is where life ebbs and dies,
It finds new and lasting strength.

Within and without I am shattered,
Reduced to nothingness
Caught in the swell of the sea,
I drown!
Being and nonbeing I have fused together.

Once cut off from all things,
Nothing is lost and nothing is sought;
Without appetite, being, or desire to posses,
Posseses all and is beyond corruption.
Utter annihiliation - that is the food
That truly leads me away from myself!

I disown all things and share in their possession!
In this, the first stage of self-annihilation,
The will of man drowns completely.
Submerged,
The turbulent alternations of fortune,
The winds of yesteryear,
Are no more.

All turmoil has faded away,
Opened on the freshness of a new dawn
And the ocean is wide and deep.
Stripped of all thought,
Holding on to nothing.
The will must drown itself.
Nothing, I reapeat, is to be possessed.
This is a rule that is not subject to change

The cycle of the seasons is no longer,
The heavens are immobile, they spin no more.

Intellect drowns
In this silence of frozen waters,
Far beyond exultation and suffering,
Beyond shame and honour.
Nothing grives, for perfect peace reigns.
Formed without form,
The traits of an original innocence…"

***- Blessed Jacopone da Todi (1230 - 1306), Catholic mystic & Franciscan poet ***

 

[iloveangels]

Because not everybody in the world is a Catholic, and frankly, I don’t think turning the forums into some sort of secluded, exclusive ‘Catholics-only’ country club is going to benefit anyone in the long run.

It’s pretty far from a country club.

 

[Bakmoon]

I have no idea what Buddhists are doing in the Catholic Answers Forums. Yeah, I know there’s a non-Catholic section. I have no idea why they have that either. Weirdness.

That said, I don’t think your ethics on a practical level are probably any worse or better than anyone else’s in here. I"m a Catholic convert and I’ve worked with many Buddhists too, and I haven’t seen any concretely outstanding models of morality in either place, to be honest.

[Yes, I know both systems have their idealized moral people (saints and gurus and whatnot), but most of the everyday proponents of both systems you better not turn your back on. JMHO.]

I think it does make sense to have such a section. I think St. Augustine said something once to the effect that Doctrine is defined largely out of a need to distinguish it from false teachings. This also promotes a healthy spirit of dialectic which lies at the very heart of the Scholastic Method.

You have my agreement on practical morality.

(On a side-note, iloveangels, I responded to you in post 363. I don’t know if you missed it or not.)

 

[iloveangels]

Religion does not make people good. Practice of the teaching of the religion leads people to goodness. Most people don’t practice. The following is from the Dhammapada

.

You are right. Religion does not make people good. Most people can’t be trusted any farther than you can throw them and that’s a fact. Buddhist or Catholic.

And most people never get any better than that no matter what they say they’re doing, secular, religious or otherwise.

 

[patrick457]

Correct. In general, we are not allowed to intentionally kill any living creature that is capable of suffering. If it is accidental, there is no wrong, however, so if I step on an ant, I haven’t broken my commitment.

The reason why we cannot kill is because it brings harm to what we are killing. It is often difficult to empathize with lower lifeforms, but they do have the ability to suffer and feel pain, even if this is much cruder than with human beings.

Intentionally killing a bug isn’t on par with killing a person, though. It all depends on the complexity of the life form and its ability to feel pain and have a desire for life, I think.

Again pardon me for speaking from a Mahayana POV, but is there any idea of ‘violence’ being justifiable in certain contexts (defending the Dharma, for instance) in Theravada? AFAIK that was the rationale behind Shaolin monks practicing and developing martial arts and the organization of warrior monks (僧兵 sohei) in medieval Japan.

 

[Bakmoon]

I am very interested to try and learn more about Nirvana, although I understand that trying to explain Nirvana is probably impossible, since it is ineffable and beyond all human understanding.

Not having much knowledge of Buddhism other than the Dhammapada and the fantastic Suttas which brother/sister Notself has been posting in this thread (such as the one above), I can only rely on what I have read and heard other Buddhists say about this supreme state:

I have it heard it explained as being akin to a candle flame blown out. In other words, its the extinction of all cravings and the suffering caused as a result. I know that it leads one beyond the cycle of death and rebirth such that it can be called “liberation”.

Because it is unconditioned, it is not transitory but infinite and eternal.

Nonetheless is it “existence” on some level? Or is it non-existence? When the flame of craving, suffering and the illusionary self is blown out - is there anything left once that enlightened being dies? If there is no more rebirth, does something continue to exist in this supreme, unbounded state of sheer bliss beyond space and time? Or is it complete non-being?

I have been thinking about the experiences of Christian mystics - mostly either Western or Eastern Catholic but the odd Protestant as well such as the Lutheran Jacob Boehme - who have claimed to have attained the supreme state of union with God, the “union without distinction” as it was called by Blessed Jan Van Ruysbroeck, and I’m trying to ascertain whether there is a common mystical experience within our two traditions which the Catholic mystics have expressed and understood in a theistic way and expressed using Christian terminology but which could in its kernel be akin to the Buddhist experience of Nirvana.

At random, largely, I have trawled through my various books and selected, as an example, the Catholic mystic Blessed Jacopone da Todi, one of my favourites. He was a member of the Franciscan order in the thirteenth century. Jacopone calls this stage of supreme enlightenment “the third heaven” and claims that it is founded upon “non-being” and nichil which is the Italian word for “Nothing”.

I reproduce for you below his poetic account of his experience of supreme enlightenment of the Catholic species. My questions are:

1. Is there anything in common with Buddhism? Or is it uniquely Christian?
2. If one were to peel away the obvious theistic and Christian language, could this be Nirvana? Can non-Buddhists experience Nirvana? And if they do might we not expect it not to be expressed in the exact same manner as a Buddhist would given the impossibility of such speech nearly 1,000 years ago in Europe?
3. Or is it totally different/largely different and if so how?

Note: The repeated use of the Christian specific term “soul” might be off-putting to Buddhists, given what I have learned in this thread. But note the fact that Jacopone, like Meister Eckhart, suggests a state of awareness where the soul is “lost” and no longer knows itself and indeed “drowns” in the “immensity”.

This is merely an interfaith excercise to deepen my understanding

I will let Jacopone speak now (it is rather long since I am trying to provide a full picture of his experience):

(continued next page)

This is an issue that is resolved very differently by different traditions and schools, so I will confine my answer to the Theravadin perspective.

a) You are right that it is something ineffable. The biggest hang up with it is in my opinion, people try to think of Nibbana as a “thing”. At the end of the day, Nibbana is just a word, that is bound up with all of the limitations that words have. In the Suttas, the term Nibbana as a noun is actually somewhat unusual. It is almost always found as the verb Nibbuti, which means to extinguish, or to put out. I personally prefer the translation “to Quench” and the noun “Quenching” because it not only captures the meaning of putting something out, but also of refreshment, which also fits because one of the connotations of the word is “cooling”.

It is better then (IMHO) to think in terms of the verb form which simply means “to Quench the fire of craving.” In this sense, Nibbana is just an abstract noun that is the result of being able to grammatically manipulate a verb and turn it into a noun. It isn’t a “thing” in any meaningful ontological sense, and neither is it “nothing” because it is conceptual.

b)

1. It could have several parallels in Buddhism. Because the language is largely figurative, I can’t really say for sure what it corresponds to, but there are high meditative states that definitely fit the bill. I am thinking of the two last of the Arupa Jhanas, but most likely the last, which is the Sphere of neither perception nor non-perpection. In this state, the mind’s faculty of perception is very subtle and still. It is so still that even though it is able to engage in perception, it cannot cognizance anything until after the mind comes out and remembers what happened. It is an extremely advanced state
2. It could be Nibbana. I can’t find anything in the quote that would disqualify it (at least at first reading) but it does sound more like the Sphere of neither perception nor non-perception, because it sounds like he is alluding to things that happened in that state, and yet paradoxically refers to it as anihilation, which is the same paradoxical language used in the term “Sphere of neither perception nor non-perception” itself. Is it Nibbana? I would give it a definite maybe

 

[Bakmoon]

Again pardon me for speaking from a Mahayana POV, but is there any idea of ‘violence’ being justifiable in certain contexts (defending the Dharma, for instance) in Theravada? AFAIK that was the rationale behind Shaolin monks practicing and developing martial arts and the organization of warrior monks (僧兵 sohei) in medieval Japan.

It is permissible to fight in immediate self-defense or (by extrapolation I think) in the immediate defense of others. That’s about it.

I don’t mind Mahayana perspective at all. If I don’t have a problem having dialogue with Catholics, responding to Mahayana Buddhism should be a piece of cake!

 

[iloveangels]

It is permissible to fight in immediate self-defense or (by extrapolation I think) in the immediate defense of others. That’s about it.

I don’t mind Mahayana perspective at all. If I don’t have a problem having dialogue with Catholics, responding to Mahayana Buddhism should be a piece of cake!

Not getting out the little violins for you. If you want to be in a CATHOLIC forum, you’re going to have to put up with a few Catholics.

 

[patrick457]

You’re not being annoying at all. It is for people like you (and of course people who want friendly debate and lively discussion) that I started this thread in the first place. I find great enjoyment in answering these questions.

The Theravada has no teaching similar to the Trikaya doctrine. It seems to be a much later teaching.

The Lotus Sutra doesn’t have any textual parallels in the Theravadin Canon, either. Many Theravadins regard the Lotus Sutra with a sense very similar to how Christians regard the Gnostic Gospels, for instance. They are seen as later texts that aren’t correct portrayals of the teachings of this historical figures they seem to be of.

I don’t personally think Mahayana sutras are somehow worthless, but on the whole, they aren’t my cup of tea. I can learn some things from some of them if I interpret them metaphorically for example, but I prefer the clarity and practicality of the Pali Suttas over the poetry and metaphor of the Mahayana texts, personally.

Now that’s an interesting analogy there. The little I’ve read of Mahayana texts gives me the impression that many of them try hard to pass themselves off as authentic or even containing a higher teaching. I mean the Lotus Sutra purports to be a discourse given by the Buddha toward the end of his life that was hidden for centuries (in another world, no less!) because mankind was supposedly not yet ready for the teachings expounded thereon. And it claims itself to be the highest of the sutras (although I seem to recall of other rival claimants).

And BTW there is actually a theory that Buddhism might have been one of the religions which influenced some gnosticisms.

 

[notself]

Now that’s an interesting analogy there. The little I’ve read of Mahayana texts gives me the impression that many of them try hard to pass themselves off as authentic or even containing a higher teaching. I mean the Lotus Sutra purports to be a discourse given by the Buddha toward the end of his life that was hidden for centuries (in another world, no less!) because mankind was supposedly not yet ready for the teachings expounded thereon. And it claims itself to be the highest of the sutras (although I seem to recall of other rival claimants).

And BTW there is actually a theory that Buddhism might have been one of the religions which influenced some gnosticisms.

Why would the Buddha teach for 45 years and then hide the Lotus Sutra to be discovered 400 years later? Possibly the claim is a style of writing, using phrases to excite the readers interest. In India at the time, inflated language was common and people understood that certain phrases were meant to help form a mental or emotional state.

Below are snips from the sutta of his last days. accesstoinsight.org/ptf/buddha.html#teaching

"Now I am frail, Ananda, old, aged, far gone in years. This is my eightieth year, and my life is spent. Even as an old cart, Ananda, is held together with much difficulty, so the body of the Tathagata is kept going only with supports. It is, Ananda, only when the Tathagata, disregarding external objects, with the cessation of certain feelings, attains to and abides in the signless concentration of mind, that his body is more comfortable.

"Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.

"And how, Ananda, is a bhikkhu an island unto himself, a refuge unto himself, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as his island, the Dhamma as his refuge, seeking no other refuge?

“When he dwells contemplating the body in the body, earnestly, clearly comprehending, and mindfully, after having overcome desire and sorrow in regard to the world; when he dwells contemplating feelings in feelings, the mind in the mind, and mental objects in mental objects, earnestly, clearly comprehending, and mindfully, after having overcome desire and sorrow in regard to the world, then, truly, he is an island unto himself, a refuge unto himself, seeking no external refuge; having the Dhamma as his island, the Dhamma as his refuge, seeking no other refuge.”

— DN 16

"Now, O bhikkhus, I say to you that these teachings of which I have direct knowledge and which I have made known to you — these you should thoroughly learn, cultivate, develop, and frequently practice, that the life of purity may be established and may long endure, for the welfare and happiness of the multitude, out of compassion for the world, for the benefit, well being, and happiness of gods and men.

“And what, bhikkhus, are these teachings? They are the four foundations of mindfulness, the four right efforts, the four constituents of psychic power, the five faculties, the five powers, the seven factors of enlightenment, and the Noble Eightfold Path. These, bhikkhus, are the teachings of which I have direct knowledge, which I have made known to you, and which you should thoroughly learn, cultivate, develop, and frequently practice, that the life of purity may be established and may long endure, for the welfare and happiness of the multitude, out of compassion for the world, for the benefit, well being, and happiness of gods and men.”

Then the Blessed One said to the bhikkhus: “So, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness. The time of the Tathagata’s Parinibbana is near. Three months hence the Tathagata will utterly pass away.”

— DN 16

Then the Blessed One addressed the monks, “Now, then, monks, I exhort you: All fabrications are subject to decay. Bring about completion by being heedful.” Those were the Tathagata’s last words.

Then the Blessed One entered the first jhana. Emerging from that he entered the second jhana. Emerging from that, he entered the third… the fourth jhana… the dimension of the infinitude of space… the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness… the dimension of nothingness… the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. Emerging from that, he entered the cessation of perception & feeling…

Then the Blessed One, emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling, entered the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. Emerging from that, he entered the dimension of nothingness… the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness… the dimension of the infinitude of space… the fourth jhana… the third… the second… the first jhana. Emerging from the first jhana he entered the second… the third… the fourth jhana. Emerging from the fourth jhana, he immediately was totally Unbound.

— DN 16

 

[Bakmoon]

Not getting out the little violins for you. If you want to be in a CATHOLIC forum, you’re going to have to put up with a few Catholics.

I wasn’t complaining at all. I was just saying that I don’t mind talking with Catholics and engaging with Catholic ideas at all, so addressing topics in Mahayana Buddhism isn’t a problem either.

 

[patrick457]

Why would the Buddha teach for 45 years and then hide the Lotus Sutra to be discovered 400 years later? Possibly the claim is a style of writing, using phrases to excite the readers interest. In India at the time, inflated language was common and people understood that certain phrases were meant to help form a mental or emotional state.

Below are snips from the sutta of his last days. accesstoinsight.org/ptf/buddha.html#teaching

Again the usual explanation is that the teaching contained in the Lotus Sutra is so advanced, people during the Buddha’s time are not yet ready to fully understand it. So it was hidden for five centuries before surfacing again in the human world when the time was ripe, or so it is said. A similar story is actually told of the Prajnaparamita (Perfection of Wisdom) literature I believe: the Buddha supposedly entrusted said sutras to different realms for safekeeping because humans of his time could not yet comprehend them, until Nagarjuna came and recovered them.

I think these stories were, on the practical level, meant to give authoritative weight and an air of legitimacy to these sutras. After all they claim to be ‘secret’ sermons of the Buddha expounding higher doctrines than the Agamas. One could ask: if such teachings existed all along, where were they all this time? Why weren’t there any trace of them before they started popping up all over the place? No offense, but yeah, IMHO this kinda sounds eerily like Joseph Smith ‘finding’ the Book of Mormon.

And yet another: dharanis are a Mahayana-only thing, aren’t they?

 

[notself]

I think that the Lotus Sutra incorporates much of the Agamas but with a reflection of the culture or the time. The intention was probably to bring the teachings to the people with language references of the time.

When I think of the Lotus Sutra, I think of the King James Bible. The translation of the KJB was specifically slanted to support the Protestant Reformation and to, as much as possible, use language of beauty and poetry. I think the Lotus Sutra and other Mahayana texts were translations and compilations of previous works in the same spirit of the KJB.

The Book of Mormon is an entirely new text so it does not compare to the Lotus Sutra or the KJB.

 

[notself]

And yet another: dharanis are a Mahayana-only thing, aren’t they?

I just Googled Theravada dharanis and only came up with Mahayana sites that said Theravada used dharanis. I have never heard the term before so I had to look it up.

dharani

in Buddhism and Hinduism, a sacred Sanskrit phrase of great efficacy, used as a verbal protective device or talisman and as a support or instrument for concentration. The dharani is a short summary of the essential doctrine contained in a much longer sacred text and serves as an aid to its retention. Properly recited, the dharani conveys the same merit as reading the entire work. The meaning of a dharani is often very difficult to determine and may sound to the uninitiated like a string of meaningless words, the accuracy of which is, nevertheless, carefully guarded when passed on from teacher to pupil. Compare mantra. dictionary.reference.com/browse/dharani

I dharanis are not used in Theravada. It is my understanding that dharanis are used only in Mahayana and Tibetan Buddhism. Thanks for the question. Now I know what Tibetan Buddhist mean when they say they have received a transmission from their teacher. Theravada doesn’t require a student of the Buddha to have a teacher other than the Tipitaka, i.e. the Dhamma.

 

[patrick457]

I just Googled Theravada dharanis and only came up with Mahayana sites that said Theravada used dharanis. I have never heard the term before so I had to look it up.

I dharanis are not used in Theravada. It is my understanding that dharanis are used only in Mahayana and Tibetan Buddhism. Thanks for the question. Now I know what Tibetan Buddhist mean when they say they have received a transmission from their teacher. Theravada doesn’t require a student of the Buddha to have a teacher other than the Tipitaka, i.e. the Dhamma.

Thanks. As mentioned in that quote dharanis are somewhat like, but not identical to, mantras. Dharanis, like mantras, are almost always invariably chanted in Sanskrit (or some similar language), but they are much longer than mantras. Apparently Wikipedia notes that one can say that mantras are dharanis but not all dharanis are mantras.

I asked because I mentioned the so-called Nilakantha Dharani (aka 大悲心陀羅尼 or 大悲咒, the Great Compassion Dharani/Mantra, or even 千手千眼觀世音菩薩廣大圓滿無礙大悲心陀羅尼 the Vast, Perfect, Unimpeded Great Compassionate Heart Dharani of the Thousand-Armed and Thousand-Eyed Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva), which is popular in East Asia, a few posts ago, The thing about it is, as I mentioned, that the dharani actually uses the imagery of Harihara (the composite form of the Hindu gods Vishnu - Hari - and Shiva - Hara): in fact Nilakantha is an epithet of Shiva, the ‘blue-throated’. There is actually one idea that the original version of the dharani has Avalokitesvara praising the ‘heterodox’ deity Nilakantha, but today the dharani is often understood as being to Avalokitesvara as Nilakantha.

The version of said dharani in China and Japan (as used by the Zen sect) - Bhagavaddharma’s translation circa mid-7th century - are highly similar to each other, the difference resting mainly on a few extra ‘characters’ in the Chinese version. The Japanese Zen version is notable in that it is read using a unique pronunciation of the Chinese characters (most sutras and Buddhist terminology in Japan are read mainly using the Go-on reading; the Prajnaparamitanaya Sutra, aka Rishu-kyou is the only one AFAIK read in Kan-on, mostly due to historical reasons - this dharani does not seem to fit with either pronunciation scheme). The Shingon school has a slightly more different version of the dharani read diferently than the Zen version. The Korean recension is slightly longer and substantially different than these.

 

[notself]

, The thing about it is, as I mentioned, that the dharani actually uses the imagery of Harihara (the composite form of the Hindu gods Vishnu - Hari - and Shiva - Hara): in fact Nilakantha is an epithet of Shiva, the ‘blue-throated’. There is actually one idea that the original version of the dharani has Avalokitesvara praising the ‘heterodox’ deity Nilakantha, but today the dharani is often understood as being to Avalokitesvara as Nilakantha.

The version of said dharani in China and Japan (as used by the Zen sect) are highly similar to each other, the difference resting mainly on a few extra ‘characters’ in the Chinese version. The Japanese Zen version is notable in that it is read using a unique pronunciation of the Chinese characters (most sutras and Buddhist terminology in Japan are read mainly using the Go-on reading; the Prajnaparamitanaya Sutra, aka Rishu-kyou is the only one AFAIK read in Kan-on, mostly due to historical reasons). The Shingon school has a slightly more different version of the dharani read diferently than the Zen version. The Korean recension is slightly longer and substantially different than these.

Thank you for your post. I’m learning a great deal about Mahayana. What is especially interesting is the mentions of Vishnu and Shiva in the dharanis. It is not unusual for people in Asia to combine bits and pieces from several traditions into their religious practices. It is my understanding that in Japan people tend to have Shinto weddings and Buddhist funerals. Is that correct? I am told that in Thailand Buddhist meeting halls often have statues of Hindu Gods along with those of Buddha. The people show reverence to the Buddha and pray to the Hindu Gods. In India, several Hindu sects have incorporated the Buddha in their pantheon as an avatar of Vishnu.

The link below is an essay on the imagery used by the Buddha to describe enlightenment. It is also an essay on what is meant by enlightenment. I will be posting snips of it.

accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/likefire/1.html

 

[Michael19682]

I would hold that the Dhamma isn’t a “thing” in any meaningful sense. It is a set of principles that describe how things operate.

Sorry for jumping in on your exchange, but I thought my two cents would be helpful.

Dhamma as you call it must either be a thing or not a thing. You admit now it is not a thing. Then it must be not a thing. What is the third option? Exactly that reality beyond the Maya of the Hindus. Just because it is a “set of principles” does not exempt it from inspection, inquiry, or interrogation as such.

I don’t think any Catholic would try to take away the beauty of the Buddhist psychology; it’s very spiritual nature. But as far as Western logic is concerned, it is not a truly formal method of inquiry into Truth. It’s aim is stable realizations of “principles”. In any given individual, we have no means of verification of these and the result of all that meditation could be just the opposite, delusion, misreported as realization.

Plato has written in The Republic that we participate in the Forms (my interpretation). Is there any Buddhist anywhere who is an Embodiment of “Changeness”, “Emtipness”, “Right Speech”? If so, how did he or she transform into something that never changes.

In Catholicism, Jesus was always God. He might be said to “embody” the divinity, God.