Guest guest Report post Posted May 10, 2005 The question was why does Kalachakra trample Rudra and Kamadev? The answer I am told by people I questioned is that all tantras depict the previous gods and goddesses being trampled under the new form of religion. Shaivitte tantras were replaced by Kali tantras and therefore show Kali trampling Shiva. Most tantras in general were playing in one form or another upon already extant Shivagamas and so used the common imagery of trampling upon Shiva to advance their superiority. This may or may not be correct but from the Kali example it should be clear that it was not only Buddhists which practiced this imagery, but other religions of the region as well. Hope this stems some cultural bias and hatred. We all are seeking the ultimate and it's prevalent to use the predominant language of the times to further our understanding. Due to the vast comingling of ideas that we can now be party to through the internet and publishing in general, and translations it behooves us to maintain a more open mind lest we fall into greater bias and ignorance of similarities due to a greater confusion of differences. If we don't at least consider other possibilities when looking at other iconography then we will tend to recreate all the previous errors of prejudice which have made the world so war torn and care frought. The greater access to knowledge in general should be freeing to our minds, not terrifying and mind numbing. Peace. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 11, 2005 No matter what has been said here before. It remains indisputable fact that tantric buddhism considers the Devatas as low beings with an imperfect viewpoint. Especially Siva /Kali and Ganapati are considered extremly evil beings that have been subjugated by Buddha. Because it is the belief of the tantric buddhists The tantric buddhist believe that all the attributes of Kali and Shiva that some tantric deities wear are a symbol of their superior power ans have been stolen from the gods. Since tantric buddhism has been very successful in the west the Lamas generally try to hide these (and other unpopular) views (and disgusting practices) because western people that are generally more tolerant might frown on these intolerant ideas. I refrain from citing parts of their legends about the fight and subjugation of the Buddhas with Iswara / Kali because the details are very disgusting and degenerate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 11, 2005 Well, I'm glad you're happy dividing the world up like this. May it bring you peace. - mahahradanatha Wednesday, May 11, 2005 6:25 AM Re: Trampling Deities No matter what has been said here before. It remains indisputable fact that tantric buddhism considers the Devatas as low beings with an imperfect viewpoint. Especially Siva /Kali and Ganapati are considered extremly evil beings that have been subjugated by Buddha. Because it is the belief of the tantric buddhists The tantric buddhist believe that all the attributes of Kali and Shiva that some tantric deities wear are a symbol of their superior power ans have been stolen from the gods. Since tantric buddhism has been very successful in the west the Lamas generally try to hide these (and other unpopular) views (and disgusting practices) because western people that are generally more tolerant might frown on these intolerant ideas. I refrain from citing parts of their legends about the fight and subjugation of the Buddhas with Iswara / Kali because the details are very disgusting and degenerate. Links / b.. c.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 11, 2005 ----Sorry, I can't take this as you state it. You're going to have to give references for your opinions, or just shut up. No matter what has been said here before. It remains indisputable fact that tantric buddhism considers the Devatas as low beings with an imperfect viewpoint. ----Give a quote where a Buddhist says a devata is a "low being." They are considered still of samsara, and bound to the wheel. That's not exactly a low being. In fact of the six lokas the devata are considered of the highest loka. They are considered high beings. Your polemics are hateful. Especially Siva /Kali and Ganapati are considered extremly evil beings that have been subjugated by Buddha. Because it is the belief of the tantric buddhists -----Well, I have never seen the Name Shiva in any Buddhist text. Have you? Please show us where. Rudra is commonly used since Rudra as per the Yajur Veda is the deity of worldly fulfillment. Rudra therefore is seen as the howling of the ego and it's attachment. You're mixing up concepts with actual deities. There are differences. Strange you think Buddhists hate Kali. Ever heard of Chod? Ganapati? Evil? Bwahahahaha. I've never heard that. In fact one of my favorite Lamas Kunzang Dechen Lingpa gives a Ganapati Terma sadhana. Bewahahahahhaa.... The tantric buddhist believe that all the attributes of Kali and Shiva that some tantric deities wear are a symbol of their superior power ans have been stolen from the gods. -----??? Not following. Since tantric buddhism has been very successful in the west the Lamas generally try to hide these (and other unpopular) views (and disgusting practices) because western people that are generally more tolerant might frown on these intolerant ideas. -----Please do tell. I refrain from citing parts of their legends about the fight and subjugation of the Buddhas with Iswara / Kali because the details are very disgusting and degenerate. -----Please do tell. Please give references. I know of the one text that shows Kali dismembering the Buddhist saints but that's a Hindu text. Links / b.. c.. -- / b.. c.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 11, 2005 This has nothing to do with me. I am only representing the doctrines of the tantric buddhist in an accurate way. The Buddhist consider not unlike the Hindu View Kam and Krodh as unwelcome "evil" tendencies. Kam and Krodh in the tantric buddhist symbology is represented by Kali/Shiva. The fight against them is depicted in a intolerant and disgusting manner. These are only facts. If someone is dividing the world it is the buddhist tantrics by abusing and misrepresenting hindu gods,not me. > Well, I'm glad you're happy dividing the world up like this. May it bring you peace. > - > mahahradanatha > > Wednesday, May 11, 2005 6:25 AM > Re: Trampling Deities > > > No matter what has been said here before. It remains indisputable fact > that tantric buddhism considers the Devatas as low beings with an > imperfect viewpoint. > Especially Siva /Kali and Ganapati are considered extremly evil beings > that have been subjugated by Buddha. Because it is the belief of the > tantric buddhists > The tantric buddhist believe that all the attributes of Kali and Shiva > that some tantric deities wear are a symbol of their superior power ans > have been stolen from the gods. > > Since tantric buddhism has been very successful in the west the Lamas > generally try to hide these (and other unpopular) views (and disgusting > practices) because western people that are generally more tolerant > might frown on these intolerant ideas. > > I refrain from citing parts of their legends about the fight and > subjugation of the Buddhas with Iswara / Kali because the details are > very disgusting and degenerate. -- ---------- > Links > > > / > > b.. > > > c.. Terms of Service. > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 11, 2005 It's still best to provide resources rather than opinions so others who might be interested in follow up may decide for themselves. Otherwise you merely are acting as a guru, expecting others to share your opinions, demanding not to be questioned. You say you're describing things in an accurate way. C'mon, My Friend, no one can describe things in an accurate way. Language is just naturally divisive. It's best to use language to unify instead of divide, best to use language to clarify instead of obfuscate, and best to use language humbly instead of raising up oneself as a guru. If one acts like a dictionary for the obscure then they will become one as well. People will merely ask you questions forgetting your entire point in the first place. - mahahradanatha Wednesday, May 11, 2005 9:01 AM Re: Trampling Deities This has nothing to do with me. I am only representing the doctrines of the tantric buddhist in an accurate way. The Buddhist consider not unlike the Hindu View Kam and Krodh as unwelcome "evil" tendencies. Kam and Krodh in the tantric buddhist symbology is represented by Kali/Shiva. The fight against them is depicted in a intolerant and disgusting manner. These are only facts. If someone is dividing the world it is the buddhist tantrics by abusing and misrepresenting hindu gods,not me. > Well, I'm glad you're happy dividing the world up like this. May it bring you peace. > - > mahahradanatha > > Wednesday, May 11, 2005 6:25 AM > Re: Trampling Deities > > > No matter what has been said here before. It remains indisputable fact > that tantric buddhism considers the Devatas as low beings with an > imperfect viewpoint. > Especially Siva /Kali and Ganapati are considered extremly evil beings > that have been subjugated by Buddha. Because it is the belief of the > tantric buddhists > The tantric buddhist believe that all the attributes of Kali and Shiva > that some tantric deities wear are a symbol of their superior power ans > have been stolen from the gods. > > Since tantric buddhism has been very successful in the west the Lamas > generally try to hide these (and other unpopular) views (and disgusting > practices) because western people that are generally more tolerant > might frown on these intolerant ideas. > > I refrain from citing parts of their legends about the fight and > subjugation of the Buddhas with Iswara / Kali because the details are > very disgusting and degenerate. > > > > > > > -- ---------- > Links > > > / > > b.. > > > c.. Terms of Service. > > > > Links / b.. c.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 11, 2005 Hinduism and Buddhism are not like Christianity or Islam. There is no Devil. All the Deities have both good and bad aspects to them. Even the Hindus talk about Shiva's bad temper and occasional lustful lapses. But he is also the kindest and most giving of the Devas. There aren't any "good guys" and "bad guys." Life is more complicated. >From my limited studies of Tibetan Buddhism, I thought that Shiva was revered by Buddhists in the form of Mahakala, and Kali in the forms of Lhamo and Tara. -- Len/ Kalipadma --- mahahradanatha <mahahradanatha wrote: > This has nothing to do with me. I am only > representing the doctrines > of the tantric buddhist in an accurate way. > The Buddhist consider not unlike the Hindu View Kam > and Krodh as > unwelcome "evil" tendencies. > Kam and Krodh in the tantric buddhist symbology > is represented by > Kali/Shiva. > The fight against them is depicted in a intolerant > and disgusting > manner. These are only facts. > If someone is dividing the world it is the buddhist > tantrics by > abusing and misrepresenting hindu gods,not me. > > > Well, I'm glad you're happy dividing the world up > like this. May it > bring you peace. > > - > > mahahradanatha > > > > Wednesday, May 11, 2005 6:25 AM > > Re: Trampling Deities > > > > > > No matter what has been said here before. It > remains indisputable > fact > > that tantric buddhism considers the Devatas as > low beings with an > > imperfect viewpoint. > > Especially Siva /Kali and Ganapati are > considered extremly evil > beings > > that have been subjugated by Buddha. Because it > is the belief of > the > > tantric buddhists > > The tantric buddhist believe that all the > attributes of Kali and > Shiva > > that some tantric deities wear are a symbol of > their superior > power ans > > have been stolen from the gods. > > > > Since tantric buddhism has been very successful > in the west the > Lamas > > generally try to hide these (and other > unpopular) views (and > disgusting > > practices) because western people that are > generally more > tolerant > > might frown on these intolerant ideas. > > > > I refrain from citing parts of their legends > about the fight and > > subjugation of the Buddhas with Iswara / Kali > because the details > are > > very disgusting and degenerate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > ---------- > > Links > > > > > > / > > > > b.. To from this group, send an > email to: > > > > > > c.. Your use of is subject to > the Terms of > Service. > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 11, 2005 >From my limited studies of Tibetan Buddhism, I thought that Shiva was revered by Buddhists in the form of Mahakala, and Kali in the forms of Lhamo and Tara. -- Len/ Kalipadma They are, in fact, on the Dalai Lama's altar in Dharamsala is a staute of Shiva and Uma. They are protectors in Nyingma called Lha Chenpo - The Great Father Deva, and Palden Lhamo - Sri Devi, protector of all religions. People choose what they want to believe and stick with it. If they want division then that's what they get. If they want universality, that's what they get. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 11, 2005 There are a lot of evil beings in hinduism and buddhism. The Deities kali durga and mahatripurasundari have appeared for one reason only to destroy several of these asuras. They are understood both as real existing evil beings and as part of the human nature. Both Buddhist and hindu tantrics have these legends. The Problem is that the buddhist tantrics use their symbolism to degrade the hindu gods. By trying to be superior they in truth degrade themselves. If you ask western scholars they would say Mahakala is a form of shiva - if you ask the buddhist tantrics they would say buddha appeared in his fierce and tantric forms only to destroy the evil demon rudra (shiva) and appeared afterwards as Mahakala etc (taking the outer form of the subjugated demon shiva/ kali etc as his body). Before the Buddhas appeared in the Form of these Devatas the Buddhists describe the fights these descriptions include humilation and desecration of the bodys of the hindu devatas that happened during the fighting in a very perverted way which is fully described in the buddhist legends. The Imaginary is indeed very perverted involving desecrations of the dead bodies of Kali and Rudra in a very revolting and disgusting sexual and bloody manner. I think if someone wants to know the truth about a religion or philosophy he should study it with those belonging to that religion and depend on their own interpretations and not depend on western scholars or new age teachers with their interpretations. That is why i consider it completly reasonable for a Hindu to critise the perverted desecration of what he considers holy as the first poster did. > Hinduism and Buddhism are not like Christianity or > Islam. There is no Devil. All the Deities have both > good and bad aspects to them. Even the Hindus talk > about Shiva's bad temper and occasional lustful > lapses. But he is also the kindest and most giving of > the Devas. There aren't any "good guys" and "bad > guys." Life is more complicated. > > From my limited studies of Tibetan Buddhism, I thought > that Shiva was revered by Buddhists in the form of > Mahakala, and Kali in the forms of Lhamo and Tara. > > -- Len/ Kalipadma > > > --- mahahradanatha <mahahradanatha> wrote: > > This has nothing to do with me. I am only > > representing the doctrines > > of the tantric buddhist in an accurate way. > > The Buddhist consider not unlike the Hindu View Kam > > and Krodh as > > unwelcome "evil" tendencies. > > Kam and Krodh in the tantric buddhist symbology > > is represented by > > Kali/Shiva. > > The fight against them is depicted in a intolerant > > and disgusting > > manner. These are only facts. > > If someone is dividing the world it is the buddhist > > tantrics by > > abusing and misrepresenting hindu gods,not me. > > > > > Well, I'm glad you're happy dividing the world up > > like this. May it > > bring you peace. > > > - > > > mahahradanatha > > > > > > Wednesday, May 11, 2005 6:25 AM > > > Re: Trampling Deities > > > > > > > > > No matter what has been said here before. It > > remains indisputable > > fact > > > that tantric buddhism considers the Devatas as > > low beings with an > > > imperfect viewpoint. > > > Especially Siva /Kali and Ganapati are > > considered extremly evil > > beings > > > that have been subjugated by Buddha. Because it > > is the belief of > > the > > > tantric buddhists > > > The tantric buddhist believe that all the > > attributes of Kali and > > Shiva > > > that some tantric deities wear are a symbol of > > their superior > > power ans > > > have been stolen from the gods. > > > > > > Since tantric buddhism has been very successful > > in the west the > > Lamas > > > generally try to hide these (and other > > unpopular) views (and > > disgusting > > > practices) because western people that are > > generally more > > tolerant > > > might frown on these intolerant ideas. > > > > > > I refrain from citing parts of their legends > > about the fight and > > > subjugation of the Buddhas with Iswara / Kali > > because the details > > are > > > very disgusting and degenerate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ---------- > > > Links > > > > > > > > > / > > > > > > b.. To from this group, send an > > email to: > > > > > > > > > c.. Your use of is subject to > > the Terms of > > Service. > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > > removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 11, 2005 That is why i consider it completly reasonable for a Hindu to critise the perverted desecration of what he considers holy as the first poster did. ----Yeah, but you have esoteric knowledge and he didn't. So maybe you are a better judge, and maybe it's for you to make peace where you could make war. This is an empowerment for you personally. It's extremely foolish to take the tantras as literal. If so then we would all be having 12 year old wives and screwing on corpses. Maybe people wrote what you say, but so what? That doesn't mean that anyone on Earth believes or practices those things today. Keeping ancient hatreds alive based on medieval notions and twilight language is kind of unfair. You know, this conversation is very interesting in that it has gone on for at least 2,500 years. The Saivittes and tantric Buddhists used to have epic wars and do all kind of unimaginably cruel things to each other. We don't need more of this. Just as we don't have sex with twelve year olds. For every single point you make about Buddhists I'll make two about Hindus. It's really not that important. As I always say, does this knowledge cook a fine meal, and will it fill a hungry belly. Maybe that's pretty materialistic, unless you're starving. I feel you. I really do. But who degrades who and which God and Goddess, when we're all being assholes? Yeah, some book degrades this or that Devata, or this or that Buddha, but who's the asshole now bringing it all back up? Let bygones be bygones, because if you can't then there's plenty of work for you in the Middle East blowing yourself up in hatred and Jihad. The whole thing is a mad circle of Christians poking the butt of Islamics poking the butt of Hindus poking the butt of Buddhists. Everyone wants a slice of the pie. He who takes two slices without offering to a brother is the ass in my book. religion be damned. Like the rapper said, I'm human before being black. I'm human before being religious. This mind was born crying, and the first word was dada or mama, not buddha or hara. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 11, 2005 The buddhist tantric murtis still trample on ganesha shiva and kali (while the buddhist teachers do not even allow that a murti of buddha to be fixed at a height even below the navel of the devotee) the legends are still being read and published on the net and as long as the tantric buddhist do not change their iconography or legends they will hurt other peoples feelings. But what happens if someone asks why are the buddhist tantrics having these murtis? He is criticed by a tantric buddhist, where in fact the buddhist should apologise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 11, 2005 , "mahahradanatha" <mahahradanatha> wrote: > No matter what has been said here before. It remains indisputable fact > that tantric buddhism considers the Devatas as low beings with an > imperfect viewpoint. This is an erroneous View. Tantric Buddhism contains an entire corpus of practices of deity yoga--often in much greater detail than their Hindu counterparts and freshly revealed (e.g. the recent Buddhist tantras surrounding Ganapati). Shiva and Kali, etc. have both made their way into Tantric Buddhism albeit under different names and removed from their negative karmic and evolutionary obscurations (i.e. human sacrifice, animal sacrifice, etc.). It may be helpful for you to recognize that is not not merely beings in the human realm who evolve--but ALL realms. Consequently Dharmic influence ("Buddhism") is contributing to to evolution of the multiverse in ways that might not be obvious. The fact is, Tibetan Buddhism is largely due to the evolution of Kapalika Shaivism and the Nath Siddhas. In fact the only remnant of the Kapalikas IS Tibetan Buddhism. Sincerely, Vajranatha Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 12, 2005 It is the acccurate view and you are only supporting it by your comments. There have been two ways the tantric buddhists "incorporated" deities one is by peaceful means for instance in the buddhist legends it was Indra that "converted" to Buddhism, and the second way is by aggression, for instance Shiva an Kali were converted by an aggressive fight. > Shiva and Kali, etc. have both made their way into Tantric Buddhism albeit under different > names and removed from their negative karmic and evolutionary obscurations How did the Buddhas "remove the obscurations" ? - by entering the deities through the anus opening killing and exploding them from the inside , killing humiliating skinning- and afterwards using the deities skins. This is a a nice way of converting others to ones "superior evolved " ideas. Evey Hindu will of course be glad to hear that the obscurations of the deities are removed now by the grace of the buddha but please understand if we do not especially like the methods and the depicted degrading symbolism. It is not of great interest to a hindu that the buddhist tantrics believe that all the deities have converted to buddhism by now :)it would rather be amusing to hear, the problem is the fact that they had to humilatate and desecrate the old deities to "transform" them into what they consider "better" (buddhist deities) and display openly their seeming superiority by depicting deities of other faiths in humilating situations. It may be helpful for you to recognize that is not not > merely beings in the human realm who evolve--but ALL realms. Consequently Dharmic > influence ("Buddhism") is contributing to to evolution of the multiverse in ways that might not be obvious. Yes Buddhism may contribute to the in-or e-volution of other faiths but it can can also evolve itself by giving up the idea of superiority and the humilation of other deities. Tantric buddhism is able to be maintained in full in both Theory and practice withouth using these degrading depictions and theories of superiority. It would in fact by folowing this in the hindu view evolve out of the fold of the unclean dharmas (unclean dharmas are those dharmas which pronounce their superiority over other dharmas) and enter sanatana dharma where it has sprung from once. Thats why the "removal of the obscuration of superiority" would be helpful for the tantric buddhists themselves if they would but realise their errors and rectify their iconography and teachings. > > The fact is, Tibetan Buddhism is largely due to the evolution of Kapalika Shaivism and the > Nath Siddhas. In fact the only remnant of the Kapalikas IS Tibetan Buddhism. There is no exact historical evidence of what the Kapalikas exactly believed and where the sampradaya vanished or merged into. The nath sampradaya influenced both sufism and tantric buddhism but to call tantric buddhism an "evolution" of nath ideas is hmmm...."obscuration of superiority". Naths where never obsessed with the idea that their cult is superior to any others on the contrary they where open for exchange with all religions thats why even buddhism and islam could profit from their teachings. I dont think they need to evolve into intolerance, they are o.k the way they are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 12, 2005 On May 12, 2005, at 6:45 AM, mahahradanatha wrote: > It is the acccurate view and you are only supporting it by your > comments. > > There have been two ways the tantric buddhists "incorporated" deities > one is by peaceful means for instance in the buddhist legends it was > Indra that "converted" to Buddhism, and the second way is by > aggression, for instance Shiva an Kali were converted by an aggressive > fight. Perhaps from your POV these appear to be aggressive acts, indeed transformation is often perceived as a threat, when it is really just about the different means to transform from one state to another. That means in some cases a transformation may have to utilize Wrathful forms of compassion. It is an error to assume that these represent aggression, but instead the represent a total integration with the principle of movement--and thus often appear as dramatic events because of the nature of the change taking place. There are different means of conversion at different levels of the Buddhist path: The means of conversion in Hinyana is primarily through setting a fantastic example, as exemplified by Shakyamuni Buddha. The means of conversion of Mahayana is primarily through generosity, as exemplified through the the accounts of many bodhisattvas. The means of conversion in Vajrayaana is primarily through appropriation and subjugation, as exemplified by Padmasambhava, and Mahasiddha Virupa. This is difficult for some people to understand, esp. since many have a limited idea of what compassion is. Compassion can also be the wrathful loving kindness of a lioness who protects her cubs. The four classes of tantra were taught in order to attract different people of different sensibilities in different castes; thus, in order to create a means attractive to those who are very fond of elaborate ritual, and ritiual purity etc., i.e. brahmins, the Buddha taught kriyatantra to the devas of the thirty three heavens. Skipping up to Anuttarayogatantra, in order to provide a means of practice attractive to Shaivites and Kapalika mendicants and their followers, who were primarily outcastes, Mahasiddhas revealed tantras such as Hevajra, and so on; because in these tantras are found practices like Ganacakra, candali yoga [gtum mo], etc. It is for this reason that Vajrayana is also called the vehicle of skillful means. > It is not of great interest to a hindu that the buddhist tantrics > believe that all the deities have converted to buddhism by now :)it > would rather be amusing to hear, the problem is the fact that they had > to humilatate and desecrate the old deities to "transform" them into > what they consider "better" (buddhist deities) and display openly > their > seeming superiority by depicting deities of other faiths in humilating > situations. I'm not sure what "desecration" you are referring to. Please give an example. > > It may be helpful for you to recognize that is not not > > merely beings in the human realm who evolve--but ALL realms. > Consequently Dharmic > > influence ("Buddhism") is contributing to to evolution of the > multiverse in ways that might not be obvious. > > Yes Buddhism may contribute to the in-or e-volution of other faiths > but > it can can also evolve itself by giving up the idea of superiority and > the humilation of other deities. I don't believe any of this has to do with humiliation, but I recognize that this is how you feel. It's important to point out that in most religions, the previous "gods" were often demonized. It's only through appropriation that this unfortunate process (of demonizing) is left behind and evolution occurs. You do believe that evolution occurs, correct? You do believe in the law of karma, correct? Well then you have to recognize that many Hindu deities have the karma of ritual sacrifice connected to them. If the newer forms are not for you, I guess they are simply not for you. > > Tantric buddhism is able to be maintained in full in both Theory and > practice withouth using these degrading depictions and theories of > superiority. Once again, this is about transformation from one state to the other. It is the ego which fears transformation that sees such rapid change as degrading or scary or violent. Evolution towards complete enlightenment is the purest form of love. > > > > The fact is, Tibetan Buddhism is largely due to the evolution of > Kapalika Shaivism and the > > Nath Siddhas. In fact the only remnant of the Kapalikas IS Tibetan > Buddhism. > There is no exact historical evidence of what the Kapalikas exactly > believed and where the sampradaya vanished or merged into. > > The nath sampradaya influenced both sufism and tantric buddhism but > to > call tantric buddhism an "evolution" of nath ideas is > hmmm...."obscuration of superiority". It's just a fact. Some tantras only exist in Tibetan Buddhism. Even popular practices like hatha-yoga in their original purity are lost in their Hindu versions. -V. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 12, 2005 > > Perhaps from your POV these appear to be aggressive acts, indeed > transformation is often perceived as a threat, when it is really just about the different means to transform from one state to another. That means in some cases a transformation may have to utilize Wrathful forms of compassion. This discussion started with your comment that my view that the deities in devaloka are viewed by the buddhist doctrine as having a lower viewpoint than the buddha is incorrect. I hope your concentration is developed enough to still remember your first post while writing the second? In case it is here a repost of the discussion: Mahahradanatha: No matter what has been said here before. It remains indisputable fact that tantric buddhism considers the Devatas as low beings with an > imperfect viewpoint. Vajranatha: This is an erroneous View. Tantric Buddhism contains an entire corpus of practices of deity yoga--often in much greater detail than their Hindu counterparts and freshly revealed (Buddhist have better bigger and more colorful hindu deities than the hindus and to top that :they are even cheaper!) > > There are different means of conversion at different levels of the > Buddhist path: > > The means of conversion in Hinyana is primarily through setting a > fantastic example, as exemplified by Shakyamuni Buddha. > > The means of conversion of Mahayana is primarily through generosity, as > exemplified through the the accounts of many bodhisattvas. > > The means of conversion in Vajrayaana is primarily through > appropriation and subjugation, as exemplified by Padmasambhava, and > Mahasiddha Virupa. This is difficult for some people to understand, > esp. since many have a limited idea of what compassion is. Compassion > can also be the wrathful loving kindness of a lioness who protects her > cubs. > > The four classes of tantra were taught in order to attract different > people of different sensibilities in different castes; thus, in > order to create a means attractive to those who are very fond of > elaborate ritual, and ritiual purity etc., i.e. brahmins, the Buddha > taught > kriyatantra to the devas of the thirty three heavens. Skipping up to > Anuttarayogatantra, in order to provide a means of practice > attractive to Shaivites and Kapalika mendicants and their followers, > who were primarily outcastes, Mahasiddhas revealed tantras such as > Hevajra, and so on; because in these tantras are found practices like > Ganacakra, candali yoga [gtum mo], etc. It is for this reason that > Vajrayana is also called the vehicle of skillful means. Thank you for providing further arguments to confirm the correctness of my viewpoint. Buddhism is a Religion of conversion like Islam And Christianity! I am absolutly of your opinion that by cunning the buddhists assume the outward form only of other cults. This is amply and scholarly demonstrated by the examples you give, Buddhist seemm to have only one idea in mind and that is to convert other to their "superior" viewpoint, by all means, this is justified with the argument that is the best for the poor suffering hindu suckers who have a wrong understanding of the nature of the world and their mind. All your argument is based on the superiority of the buddhist philosophy. > > > It is not of great interest to a hindu that the buddhist tantrics > > believe that all the deities have converted to buddhism by now it > > would rather be amusing to hear, the problem is the fact that they had > > to humilatate and desecrate the old deities to "transform" them into > > what they consider "better" (buddhist deities) and display openly > > their > > seeming superiority by depicting deities of other faiths in humilating > > situations. > > I'm not sure what "desecration" you are referring to. Please give an example. The killing of Rudra, the maiming and trampling of Ganapati under the feet of Mahakala. Kalachakra subjugating several hindu deities. The appeareance of cakrasamwara in the shakti pithas and the subsequent legend of the destruction of the matrikas bhairavas and so on and so forth. Tantric Buddhism shares with Christianity and Islam the idea to be in possesion of the ultimate Truth which is ok with me but they should not attack other religions or their gods. > > I don't believe any of this has to do with humiliation, but I recognize .. what if you see a murti that shows Padmasambhava trampled upon ,his hat in the dirt and his khatvanga broken? and i would call this symbolisming the transformation of his clinging to form and ego? All Budhhists would love this Picture? I don´t think so. The whole thread started with the question why are the buddhist deitys shown in an attitude of triumph trampling on other deities. My opinion is that this not good and should be corrected by buddhism. and there is no need to critize this question, or the person who asked. I am only writing on this topic because i think it is very unfair to punch someone in the face and then critice him for asking: "why are you hitting me and pretend he is the one who is the offender. > that this is how you feel. No for my feelings plz refer to the above statement. It's important to point out that in most > religions, the previous "gods" were often demonized. It's only through > appropriation that this unfortunate process (of demonizing) is left > behind and evolution occurs. You do believe that evolution occurs, > correct? This is incorrect i believe that all processes are cyclic. > Once again, this is about transformation from one state to the other. > It is the ego which fears transformation that sees such rapid change as > degrading or scary or violent. Evolution towards complete enlightenment > is the purest form of love. The Problem is not that Buddhist may believe in rapid transformations and symbolise these- i only ask them while symbolising these processes to respect other religions. The Space inside a pot is not created by forming a pot. Shiva/Shakti cannot be transformend or enlightened by Buddha. This is a joke. > > > > > > The fact is, Tibetan Buddhism is largely due to the evolution of > > Kapalika Shaivism and the > > > Nath Siddhas. In fact the only remnant of the Kapalikas IS Tibetan > > Buddhism. > > There is no exact historical evidence of what the Kapalikas exactly > > believed and where the sampradaya vanished or merged into. > > > > The nath sampradaya influenced both sufism and tantric buddhism but > > to > > call tantric buddhism an "evolution" of nath ideas is > > hmmm...."obscuration of superiority". > > It's just a fact. Some tantras only exist in Tibetan Buddhism. Even > popular practices like hatha-yoga in their original purity are lost in their Hindu versions. Now next post you tell me they invented the mobile phone.... and the rabbit has horns and the pope shits in the wood .... But you are of a tremendous help in illustrate the viewpoint of the buddhist faction: Buddhist commercials: tantric buddhism :its bigger, better and faster than every other car and its at the same time small enough to fit in every parking lot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 12, 2005 Well, in iconography anything goes. What of the many icons of Kali trampling Shiva? Answer me this one thing. - mahahradanatha Thursday, May 12, 2005 10:38 AM Re: Trampling Deities > > Perhaps from your POV these appear to be aggressive acts, indeed > transformation is often perceived as a threat, when it is really just about the different means to transform from one state to another. That means in some cases a transformation may have to utilize Wrathful forms of compassion. This discussion started with your comment that my view that the deities in devaloka are viewed by the buddhist doctrine as having a lower viewpoint than the buddha is incorrect. I hope your concentration is developed enough to still remember your first post while writing the second? In case it is here a repost of the discussion: Mahahradanatha: No matter what has been said here before. It remains indisputable fact that tantric buddhism considers the Devatas as low beings with an > imperfect viewpoint. Vajranatha: This is an erroneous View. Tantric Buddhism contains an entire corpus of practices of deity yoga--often in much greater detail than their Hindu counterparts and freshly revealed (Buddhist have better bigger and more colorful hindu deities than the hindus and to top that :they are even cheaper!) > > There are different means of conversion at different levels of the > Buddhist path: > > The means of conversion in Hinyana is primarily through setting a > fantastic example, as exemplified by Shakyamuni Buddha. > > The means of conversion of Mahayana is primarily through generosity, as > exemplified through the the accounts of many bodhisattvas. > > The means of conversion in Vajrayaana is primarily through > appropriation and subjugation, as exemplified by Padmasambhava, and > Mahasiddha Virupa. This is difficult for some people to understand, > esp. since many have a limited idea of what compassion is. Compassion > can also be the wrathful loving kindness of a lioness who protects her > cubs. > > The four classes of tantra were taught in order to attract different > people of different sensibilities in different castes; thus, in > order to create a means attractive to those who are very fond of > elaborate ritual, and ritiual purity etc., i.e. brahmins, the Buddha > taught > kriyatantra to the devas of the thirty three heavens. Skipping up to > Anuttarayogatantra, in order to provide a means of practice > attractive to Shaivites and Kapalika mendicants and their followers, > who were primarily outcastes, Mahasiddhas revealed tantras such as > Hevajra, and so on; because in these tantras are found practices like > Ganacakra, candali yoga [gtum mo], etc. It is for this reason that > Vajrayana is also called the vehicle of skillful means. Thank you for providing further arguments to confirm the correctness of my viewpoint. Buddhism is a Religion of conversion like Islam And Christianity! I am absolutly of your opinion that by cunning the buddhists assume the outward form only of other cults. This is amply and scholarly demonstrated by the examples you give, Buddhist seemm to have only one idea in mind and that is to convert other to their "superior" viewpoint, by all means, this is justified with the argument that is the best for the poor suffering hindu suckers who have a wrong understanding of the nature of the world and their mind. All your argument is based on the superiority of the buddhist philosophy. > > > It is not of great interest to a hindu that the buddhist tantrics > > believe that all the deities have converted to buddhism by now it > > would rather be amusing to hear, the problem is the fact that they had > > to humilatate and desecrate the old deities to "transform" them into > > what they consider "better" (buddhist deities) and display openly > > their > > seeming superiority by depicting deities of other faiths in humilating > > situations. > > I'm not sure what "desecration" you are referring to. Please give an example. The killing of Rudra, the maiming and trampling of Ganapati under the feet of Mahakala. Kalachakra subjugating several hindu deities. The appeareance of cakrasamwara in the shakti pithas and the subsequent legend of the destruction of the matrikas bhairavas and so on and so forth. Tantric Buddhism shares with Christianity and Islam the idea to be in possesion of the ultimate Truth which is ok with me but they should not attack other religions or their gods. > > I don't believe any of this has to do with humiliation, but I recognize .. what if you see a murti that shows Padmasambhava trampled upon ,his hat in the dirt and his khatvanga broken? and i would call this symbolisming the transformation of his clinging to form and ego? All Budhhists would love this Picture? I don´t think so. The whole thread started with the question why are the buddhist deitys shown in an attitude of triumph trampling on other deities. My opinion is that this not good and should be corrected by buddhism. and there is no need to critize this question, or the person who asked. I am only writing on this topic because i think it is very unfair to punch someone in the face and then critice him for asking: "why are you hitting me and pretend he is the one who is the offender. > that this is how you feel. No for my feelings plz refer to the above statement. It's important to point out that in most > religions, the previous "gods" were often demonized. It's only through > appropriation that this unfortunate process (of demonizing) is left > behind and evolution occurs. You do believe that evolution occurs, > correct? This is incorrect i believe that all processes are cyclic. > Once again, this is about transformation from one state to the other. > It is the ego which fears transformation that sees such rapid change as > degrading or scary or violent. Evolution towards complete enlightenment > is the purest form of love. The Problem is not that Buddhist may believe in rapid transformations and symbolise these- i only ask them while symbolising these processes to respect other religions. The Space inside a pot is not created by forming a pot. Shiva/Shakti cannot be transformend or enlightened by Buddha. This is a joke. > > > > > > The fact is, Tibetan Buddhism is largely due to the evolution of > > Kapalika Shaivism and the > > > Nath Siddhas. In fact the only remnant of the Kapalikas IS Tibetan > > Buddhism. > > There is no exact historical evidence of what the Kapalikas exactly > > believed and where the sampradaya vanished or merged into. > > > > The nath sampradaya influenced both sufism and tantric buddhism but > > to > > call tantric buddhism an "evolution" of nath ideas is > > hmmm...."obscuration of superiority". > > It's just a fact. Some tantras only exist in Tibetan Buddhism. Even > popular practices like hatha-yoga in their original purity are lost in their Hindu versions. Now next post you tell me they invented the mobile phone.... and the rabbit has horns and the pope shits in the wood .... But you are of a tremendous help in illustrate the viewpoint of the buddhist faction: Buddhist commercials: tantric buddhism :its bigger, better and faster than every other car and its at the same time small enough to fit in every parking lot. Links / b.. c.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 12, 2005 Hi mahahradanatha: On May 12, 2005, at 11:38 AM, mahahradanatha wrote: > > > > Perhaps from your POV these appear to be aggressive acts, indeed > > transformation is often perceived as a threat, when it is really > just about the different means to transform from one state to > another. That means in some cases a transformation may have to > utilize Wrathful forms of compassion. > > This discussion started with your comment that my view that the > deities in devaloka are viewed by the buddhist doctrine as having a > lower viewpoint than the buddha is incorrect. That's not what I said nor is it what was meant. The Deva realm is one of the realms of conditioned existence--it is still within karmic vision. Consequently "regular Devas" of that realm are of little value to a Buddhist since they do not all represent enlightened beings--merely beings on a higher, but still conditioned plane. The ultimate reason for deity yoga is to obtain the union of bliss and emptiness and thereby attain enlightenment. Long story, short explanation. > I hope your concentration is developed enough to still remember your > first post while writing the second? > > In case it is here a repost of the discussion: > > Mahahradanatha: No matter what has been said here before. It remains > indisputable fact that tantric buddhism considers the Devatas as low > beings with an > > imperfect viewpoint. > > Vajranatha: This is an erroneous View. Tantric Buddhism contains an > entire corpus of practices of deity yoga--often in much greater > detail than their Hindu counterparts and freshly revealed > (Buddhist have better bigger and more colorful hindu deities than the > hindus and to top that :they are even cheaper!) > > > > > > There are different means of conversion at different levels of the > > Buddhist path: > > > > The means of conversion in Hinyana is primarily through setting a > > fantastic example, as exemplified by Shakyamuni Buddha. > > > > The means of conversion of Mahayana is primarily through > generosity, as > > exemplified through the the accounts of many bodhisattvas. > > > > The means of conversion in Vajrayaana is primarily through > > appropriation and subjugation, as exemplified by Padmasambhava, and > > Mahasiddha Virupa. This is difficult for some people to understand, > > esp. since many have a limited idea of what compassion is. > Compassion > > can also be the wrathful loving kindness of a lioness who protects > her > > cubs. > > > > The four classes of tantra were taught in order to attract > different > > people of different sensibilities in different castes; thus, in > > order to create a means attractive to those who are very fond of > > elaborate ritual, and ritiual purity etc., i.e. brahmins, the > Buddha > > taught > > kriyatantra to the devas of the thirty three heavens. Skipping up > to > > Anuttarayogatantra, in order to provide a means of practice > > attractive to Shaivites and Kapalika mendicants and their > followers, > > who were primarily outcastes, Mahasiddhas revealed tantras such as > > Hevajra, and so on; because in these tantras are found practices > like > > Ganacakra, candali yoga [gtum mo], etc. It is for this reason that > > Vajrayana is also called the vehicle of skillful means. > > Thank you for providing further arguments to confirm the correctness > of my viewpoint. > Buddhism is a Religion of conversion like Islam And Christianity! You must have missed the point. You are confusing two different and separate definitions of "conversion" (not to mention the vast differences between Abrahamic religions and Buddha-dharma). > > All your argument is based on the superiority of the buddhist > philosophy. The Fruit is somewhat different. There were similar teaching from several rishis, but mostly these were lost. There are exceptions. > > > > > > It is not of great interest to a hindu that the buddhist tantrics > > > believe that all the deities have converted to buddhism by now > it > > > would rather be amusing to hear, the problem is the fact that > they had > > > to humilatate and desecrate the old deities to "transform" them > into > > > what they consider "better" (buddhist deities) and display > openly > > > their > > > seeming superiority by depicting deities of other faiths in > humilating > > > situations. > > > > I'm not sure what "desecration" you are referring to. Please give > an example. > > The killing of Rudra, the maiming and trampling of Ganapati under the > feet of Mahakala. Kalachakra subjugating several hindu deities. The > appeareance of cakrasamwara in the shakti pithas and the subsequent > legend of the destruction of the matrikas bhairavas and so on and so > forth. I see. Hey that's the way it goes. Things evolve. "Resistance is futile" -- Evolution Before this is was the subjugation and conversion of the Tamil yogis to "Vedic" ideals. I guess you prefer that conversion? > > Tantric Buddhism shares with Christianity and Islam the idea to be > in possesion of the ultimate Truth which is ok with me but they > should not attack other religions or their gods. > > > > I don't believe any of this has to do with humiliation, but I > recognize .. > > what if you see a murti that shows Padmasambhava trampled upon ,his > hat in the dirt and his khatvanga broken? > and i would call this symbolisming the transformation of his clinging > to form and ego? > All Budhhists would love this Picture? I don´t think so. > The whole thread started with the question why are the buddhist > deitys shown in an attitude of triumph trampling on other deities. And I explained that (simply). > > My opinion is that this not good and should be corrected by buddhism. > and there is no need to critize this question, or the person who > asked. > > I am only writing on this topic because i think it is very unfair to > punch someone in the face and then critice him for asking: "why are > you hitting me and pretend he is the one who is the offender. > > > that this is how you feel. > No for my feelings plz refer to the above statement. > It's important to point out that in most > > religions, the previous "gods" were often demonized. It's only > through > > appropriation that this unfortunate process (of demonizing) is left > > behind and evolution occurs. You do believe that evolution occurs, > > correct? > > This is incorrect i believe that all processes are cyclic. Within Samsara. Samsara = cyclic existence. > > > > Once again, this is about transformation from one state to the > other. > > It is the ego which fears transformation that sees such rapid > change as > > degrading or scary or violent. Evolution towards complete > enlightenment > > is the purest form of love. > > The Problem is not that Buddhist may believe in rapid transformations > and symbolise these- i only ask them while symbolising these > processes to respect other religions. > The Space inside a pot is not created by forming a pot. > Shiva/Shakti cannot be transformend or enlightened by Buddha. This is > a joke. Ultimately nothing enlightens anything or anyone. > > > > > > > > > The fact is, Tibetan Buddhism is largely due to the evolution > of > > > Kapalika Shaivism and the > > > > Nath Siddhas. In fact the only remnant of the Kapalikas IS > Tibetan > > > Buddhism. > > > There is no exact historical evidence of what the Kapalikas > exactly > > > believed and where the sampradaya vanished or merged into. > > > > > > The nath sampradaya influenced both sufism and tantric buddhism > but > > > to > > > call tantric buddhism an "evolution" of nath ideas is > > > hmmm...."obscuration of superiority". > > > > It's just a fact. Some tantras only exist in Tibetan Buddhism. Even > > popular practices like hatha-yoga in their original purity are lost > in their Hindu versions. > > Now next post you tell me they invented the mobile phone.... > > and the rabbit has horns and the pope shits in the wood .... > > But you are of a tremendous help in illustrate the viewpoint of the > buddhist faction: Buddhist commercials: > > tantric buddhism :its bigger, better and faster than every other car > and its at the same time small enough to fit in every parking lot. > Faster download speeds. Gets you nowhere. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 12, 2005 On May 12, 2005, at 12:10 PM, Eve__69 wrote: > Well, in iconography anything goes. What of the many icons of Kali > trampling Shiva? Answer me this one thing. > A good point. And they have "inner" or secret meaning not obvious on the outer. For example it is not unusual to see representations of Vajrakilaya stomping on Shiva and Paravati--but this is not about "we won"--it represents the defeating of Eternalism and Nihilism--the two extremes. Since the kilaya cult has Indian precedents, one automatically wonders what they usage was in those cases--and indeed in Hindu tantra and Vedic rites it was truly macabre: a kilaya was what was used in the infamous purusha sacrifices (i.e. human sacrifice) to hold the victim down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 12, 2005 > That's not what I said nor is it what was meant. The Deva realm is one > of the realms of conditioned existence--it is still within karmic > vision. Consequently "regular Devas" of that realm are of little value > to a Buddhist since they do not all represent enlightened > beings--merely beings on a higher, but still conditioned plane. The > ultimate reason for deity yoga is to obtain the union of bliss and > emptiness and thereby attain enlightenment. Long story, short > explanation. > Exactly just what i said to your brother in the sangha. He should be a good buddhist and drop the worship of worldly gods. (like Kali and Shiva) It is a pleasure conversing with someone who knows what he is talking about. > You must have missed the point. You are confusing two different and > separate definitions of "conversion" (not to mention the vast > differences between Abrahamic religions and Buddha-dharma). No i do not think so, Tibetan Buddhism has just recently been very succesfully in mass conversions of people in the west. The Legends we discussed about the subjugation or "incarnation" of the buddhist gods in the outer form of other deities is also a witness to the way the buddhist missionary work: they often retaining the outer form but change the inner meaning often to the exact contrary. This is very obvious in buddhis "higher yoga tantra" where the meditations ultimate aim is to try to establish the buddhist view by the meditation on realising the impermanent nature of the indestructible heart bindu, while the result of the meditation on the bindus in the original yoga tradition is to realise the eternal indestructible nature of that bindu, which is ultimately of the nature of alakh and niranjan and is the akhanda-mandala the essence of the six sunyas in the original Nath-Sampradaya. The buddhist only use the method the outward form but the aim is a completly different one it is just to refute the Natha view. > > The Fruit is somewhat different. There were similar teaching from > several rishis, . > I refer you to the above statement but mostly these were lost. There are exceptions There is a huge extant hindu tradition probably bigger both in numbers and in the amount of existing scriptures and knowledge but because it is not taught openly and it is not striving to convert others it is less obvious. ....killing of Rudra, the maiming and trampling of Ganapati under the > > feet of Mahakala. Kalachakra subjugating several hindu deities. The > > appeareance of cakrasamwara in the shakti pithas and the subsequent > > legend of the destruction of the matrikas bhairavas and so on and so > > forth. > > I see. Hey that's the way it goes. Things evolve. "Resistance is > futile" -- Evolution > Respect you seem to know something about the religion you practice...but it is nonetheless amusing that you really seem to believe that the conquest has actually happened:) I am sorry but i have to disappoint you the pithas are still under full control of the Matrikas and Bhairavas they are not converted- there is no trace of chakrasamvara left at the pithas-it is all only a buddhist megalomaniac pipe dream. > Before this is was the subjugation and conversion of the Tamil yogis to "Vedic" ideals. I guess you prefer that conversion? India is a melting pot of tradition there are a lot of different Siddhar Tradition in the South ranging from orthodox to unorthodox. > Ultimately nothing enlightens anything or anyone. And meanwhile we have to humilate other religions and trample on their gods, alright i get the picture. ^<Perhaps from your POV these appear to be aggressive acts, indeed > transformation is often perceived as a threat, when it is really <just about the different means to transform from one state to <another. That means in some cases a transformation may have to <utilize Wrathful forms of compassion. This argument is dangerous and has been used to legitimate murder and killing rites in the budhhist tradition. The Christian church fathers used a similar argument in the witch hunts. They argued that through the flames of the fire the witch would be cleanend of her sins and it was for the good of the witch that she was burned. Now the Buddhist argue that it is good for the deities to be killed and maimend good for those who preach othr ways to get subjugated and even killed by magic rites? this is a common theme in the stories of the Mahasiddhas. Thank you Sir: you can have your superior Vehicle i prefer walking on my own feet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 12, 2005 , "Eve__69" <eve__69@h...> wrote: > Well, in iconography anything goes. What of the many icons of Kali trampling Shiva? Answer me this one thing. There is no icon of Kali "trampling" on shiva. There is an icon of Kali standing above shiva. The meaning is the exact opposite of what you think it is: it shows that Kali is completly unable to hurt shiva even if the position is reversed and she is standing or sitting above Shiva. There is a similar symbolism involved when siva is the couch for Mahatripurasundari and she is sitting on top of him. There is no harm or degradation involved in that act. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 12, 2005 Thank you Sir: you can have your superior Vehicle i prefer walking on my own feet. ----So far, I see you only walking on the feet of others. You have only shown that you dislike Buddhists, but still have never given a single source for anything you have conjectured. ----Moreover, you say you walk on your feet but all your references are merely pseudointellectual. that is, if they truely were intellectual you would cite sources, and before even in your kundalini expositions you merely quoted readily available teachings. Nothing you have ever said has been your own. That's not walking on your feet, it's being carried in the shakey rickshaw of your imagination, by the feet of others who did the hard work for you. ----This is the greatest danger of mere bookishness, that one thinks they have some experience but the only experience is that of flipping pages. In this way you resemble most Catholics who think by "The Book." Moreover the more you preach against Buddhism, the more you become the very proselitizing pulpit pounder that you despise. Better to beat your chest at King Kong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 12, 2005 > A good point. And they have "inner" or secret meaning not obvious on > the outer. For example it is not unusual to see representations of > Vajrakilaya stomping on Shiva and Paravati--but this is not about "we won"--it represents the defeating of Eternalism and Nihilism- -the two extremes. This exactly what i say they use the gods of other relgions to symbolise evil tendencies this is a desecration and it shows in fact the inferiority of their philosophy while it is supposed to show the superiority. Since the kilaya cult has Indian precedents, one automatically wonders > what they usage was in those cases--and indeed in Hindu tantra and > Vedic rites it was truly macabre: a kilaya was what was used in the > infamous purusha sacrifices (i.e. human sacrifice) to hold the victim > down. > The Kilaya cult is most probably a remnant of some nomadic tribal cults The Nail being originally a tent peg used to mark the circumference of the living quarters. It is a destructive magic cult, with a bad reputation amongst the common people, because of the associated destructive rites. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 12, 2005 Hi mahahradanatha: On May 12, 2005, at 1:51 PM, mahahradanatha wrote: > > You must have missed the point. You are confusing two different and > > separate definitions of "conversion" (not to mention the vast > > differences between Abrahamic religions and Buddha-dharma). > > No i do not think so, Tibetan Buddhism has just recently been very > succesfully in mass conversions of people in the west. The Legends we > discussed about the subjugation or "incarnation" of the buddhist gods > in the outer form of other deities is also a witness to the way the > buddhist missionary work: they often retaining the outer form but > change the inner meaning often to the exact contrary. This is very > obvious in buddhis "higher yoga tantra" where the meditations > ultimate aim is to try to establish the buddhist view by the > meditation on realising the impermanent nature of the indestructible > heart bindu, while the result of the meditation on the bindus in the > original yoga tradition is to realise the eternal indestructible > nature of that bindu, which is ultimately of the nature of alakh and > niranjan and is the akhanda-mandala the essence of the six sunyas in > the original Nath-Sampradaya. Well one could certainly say the same of Neo-Hinduism. How many converts do we have from Mahesh Yogi, Osho and ISHKON? Millions. Without knowing which "original Nath-sampradaya" you are referring to or specifically which two tantras you are comparing it's hard to even respond to this. Numerous Buddhist tantras speak of Vajra-nature, the indestructible quality of ultimate reality. > > The buddhist only use the method the outward form but the aim is a > completly different one it is just to refute the Natha view. > > > > > The Fruit is somewhat different. There were similar teaching from > > several rishis, . > > > I refer you to the above statement > > but mostly these were lost. There are exceptions > > There is a huge extant hindu tradition probably bigger both in > numbers and in the amount of existing scriptures and knowledge but > because it is not taught openly and it is not striving to convert > others it is less obvious. Perhaps. > > And meanwhile we have to humilate other religions and trample on > their gods, alright i get the picture. If you understand the intent of these tantras, the depiction is never to humiliate or trample Gods, but as symbols of ignorance. I'm sure that doesn't make you feel any better, but neither does the usage of Hindu divinities for black magic, sacrifice, etc. as far as I'm concerned. See my previous message on Shiva and Parvati for an example. > > ^<Perhaps from your POV these appear to be aggressive acts, indeed > > transformation is often perceived as a threat, when it is really > <just about the different means to transform from one state to > <another. That means in some cases a transformation may have to > <utilize Wrathful forms of compassion. > > > This argument is dangerous and has been used to legitimate murder and > killing rites in the budhhist tradition. Then you should have no problem citing an authoritative and specific example. > > The Christian church fathers used a similar argument in the witch > hunts. They argued that through the flames of the fire the witch > would be cleanend of her sins and it was for the good of the witch > that she was burned. I seriously doubt that Christians have a concept such as wrathful compassion--the ideal of which is to convert anger and wrath into mirror-like awareness. If you could post an authoritative reference to such an inner practice, I'd love to hear it! Best, -V. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 12, 2005 Dear mahahradanatha: On May 12, 2005, at 2:00 PM, mahahradanatha wrote: > The meaning is the exact opposite of what you think it is: it shows > that Kali is completly unable to hurt shiva even if the position is > reversed and she is standing or sitting above Shiva. Not even close! It is a coded instruction in the twilight-language for specific practices regarding the "corpse position". -V. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 12, 2005 On May 12, 2005, at 2:14 PM, mahahradanatha wrote: > The Kilaya cult is most probably a remnant of some nomadic tribal > cults The Nail being originally a tent peg used to mark the > circumference of the living quarters. > It is a destructive magic cult, with a bad reputation amongst the > common people, because of the associated destructive rites. Actually numerous Kilaya rites exist in Hinduism--most notably those in the Artha-shastra. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
