lokeshvara

Dear friends,

 

Although this question was directed to another, if I may, the Buddhist answer most generally is that "individuality is integral to the living being and is in EVERY way a temporary condition."

 

Buddhist ontology in the Mahayana traditions is radically different from Vaisnava ontology. It should be pointed out, however, that the philosophies of different schools make it very difficult to categorically state any position as being THE Buddhist position.

 

Even a question such as rebirth/reincarnation is not at all straightforward. Sutras and teachings can be found which lead one to believe that reincarnation is accepted, or that reincarnation is rejected, even within a single tradition. This tension is always present in Buddhism, and attempting to resolve it leads to some very subtle reasoning, or to enigmatic pronouncements which are difficult to interpret.

 

My experience has been that Buddhist laypersons from east Asia tend to accept reincarnation and the permanence of the unique individual but that Buddhist teachers, when pressed about the question, will either avoid answering directly, or deny the permanence of the unique individual.

 

Hare Krsna

namaste,

as far as personal identity goes, i will address that in the next post to Bhaktajan. but for rebirth. that is a constant in all buddhist traditions. it wasn't until buddhism met western secularism that there there was a question of whether or not rebirth is a part of buddhism. in the suttas, sutras, and tantras, along with abidharmic literature, rebirth is a given as it was taught by Lord Buddha. to deny rebirth would be considered to either take and eternalist or nihlist point of view, both disputed by the Buddha.

you will find to even on the largest english speaking buddhist forum (e sangha) it is against the TOS to claim Buddha did not teach rebirth. personal belief is a different story. there are a lot of people out there who claim rebirth doesn't happen but still call themselves buddhists. this is their choice, however they would be lying if they claimed it wasn't taught in Buddhadharma.

blessings

Bhaktajan,

I am not quite sure if this is in the sutras, i will have to research it. the names that are invoked during mantras and dharanis varry. the main deity of the mantra is always addressed and sometimes the names of other buddhas and bodhisattvas along with the names of various protectors. some mantras like that of Nilakantha Avalokiteshvara invokes Avalokiteshvara as Hare, Hara, Narayana etc. so names are always present either directly or in directly as is the case with the ever popular "om mani padme hum"

enlightenment does not mean seeing the suffering of existance necessarially. those who are enlightened see this world for what it is, maya. because of this they are moved by compassion for those of us still stuck in it. they however, do not suffer. the mental abidings of these beings are called "brahmaviharas" and consist of: compassion, kindness, joy, and equanimity.

Theist,

i think this is where our systems part ways. thank you for clarifying what you mean. in buddhism there is the idea of anatman which often is misunderstood to mean "no self" it really means "not self" and is used to describe those things that we often think or our selves but they really aren't. the true self is something different. for us all of life is transformation. we are not the same person we were at the age of 10 or the age of 20 or the age of 40 and so on therefore in this system we are not the same after liberation either. its like being in a nightmare. when you have the nightmare you find yourself in a strange place with strange creatures and you think, "this is real, i am going to get hurt, this is very bad" then you wake up and remembering the dream you think about how silly those things are. they weren't real even your own dream body that could get hurt wasn't real.

Is there transformation that happens once liberated from maya in your system? is there any type of way you have to transform yourself for liberation to occurr or is it bestowed through the grace of Krishna?

blessings

theist,

you bring up a very interesting issue, that of personal identity, that of god and that of the individual. i think perhaps we are not too far off in our understandings. buddhism does not deny the individual. we are all different, have different temperments, likes, personalities, talents, etc. however, we all have this eternal true self nature and that is that of being awakened, being free from samsara, being complete in wisdom, compassion, and skilled means. this doesn't mean though that every enlightened being is the same identity. its like the ocean. every wave, every drop is unique and individual but made of the same substance.

it is interesting too, the importance on holy names. buddhism has an entire tradition (pure land) that relies on the divine saving power of the holy name. in this case that of the buddha Amitabha and or Avalokiteshvara (depending on the devotees affinity)

i may be speaking herasy according to others in my own tradition but i see many similarities between traditions.

Jnani is correct, in mahayana/vajrayana Lord Buddha is not a mere human. even in the earliest suttas of the theravada it is established that he is not. this can be found in the sutta dedicated to the Brahmin, Dona who approached the Buddha asking if he was a deva like Indra, a gandharva, a yaksha, or a human. the buddha denied all of these possibilities and declared himself the Buddha.

the following is from the Lankavatara Sutra, another important text.

"Some recognize me as Tathágata, some as the self-existent one, some as Gautama the Ascetic, some as Buddha. Then there are others who recognize me as Brahma, as Vishnu, as Ishvara; some see me as Sun, as Moon; some as a reincarnation of the ancient sages; some as one of "ten powers"; some as Rama, some as Indra, and some as Varuna. Still there are others who speak of me as The Un-born, as Emptiness, as "Suchness," as Truth, as Reality, as Ultimate Principle; still there are others who see me as Dharmakaya, as Nirvana, as the Eternal; some speak of me as sameness, as non-duality, as un-dying, as formless; some think of me as the doctrine of Buddha-causation, or of Emancipation, or of the Noble Path; and some think of me as Divine Mind and Noble Wisdom. Thus in this world and in other worlds am I known by these uncounted names, but they all see me as the moon is seen in the water. Though they all honor, praise and esteem me, they do not fully understand the meaning and significance of the words they use; not having their own self-realization of Truth they cling to the words of their canonical books, or to what has been told to them, or to what they have imagined, and fail to see that the name they are using is only one of the many names of the Tathágata."

blessings

fascinating responses

when speaking of bhakti i am not refering to the same thing as what is cultivated by gaudiya vaishnavas between themselves and Krishna. by bhakti i am refering to the cultivation of pure devotion and trust that is developed between the individual and the divine and of course for the buddhist this is different as we do not see buddha as being seperate from ourselves..

kind of off topic but maybe interesting for the furthering of conversation. in the nilakantha mahakaruna dharani, one of the most important mantras to mahayana buddhists, the names of Vishnu and Shiva are included in the description of buddha Avalokiteshvara (manifestation of compassion) in it he is refered to as Narayana, Hare, Hara, and Yogasvara.

blessings

hiya Theist,

thanks for the welcome and clarification. yes according to what you have said most buddhism would not fall into the theistic category. there are some mahayana/ vajrayana texts that may not be too far from your understanding. not exactly the same though.

at least according to most texts buddhism is different from theism however i wonder how similar they are on a practitioner level. a large percentage of mahayana practice is bhakti oriented. and while i can not speculate what goes on in the hearts of other practitioners, i would hazzard to say that at least in some places buddhism is theistic.

blessings /]\

Namaste All,

I sometimes visit this forum due to an interest in Hindu Dharma but decided to join once i saw this topic as I am a practicing Mahayana buddhist. I certainly hope my posting here is ok. I am a firm believer in dialogue and our traditions share many similarities.

in regards to the first question about reincarnation. we usually don't call it that but rebirth instead because everything is changing our being and existance is not static. I am not the same person today as i was five years ago etc. therefore reincarnation can't work but rebirth or continuation of the stream of consciousness. Perhaps buddhists are just playing with semantics here. anyway, what is reborn? Some one has already posted the Alayavijnana, this is acurate. this is the deepest level of conscousness which contains our karmic roots, deepest seeds of what we commonly call self and tathagata-garbha (our inherent buddha nature)

as for being athiestic this is also not true. buddhist cosmology is filled with gods and goddesses, bodhisattvas, and buddhas. all these beings are in constant interaction with life in the universe.

I'll stop for now but I look forward to some great discussions