One God, Many Paths

[TheLightWithin]

Some in Hinduism consider all attempts to approach the deity as Left-hand path, contrived, forced, Hatha (Hatha yoga).

Interesting.
I don't know what their take on it is, but "contrived" and "forced" - relatable - I sometimes find expressions of religion seem contrived or forced to me. I don't go around saying that, but it's my impression, often.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Interesting.
I don't know what their take on it is, but "contrived" and "forced" - relatable - I sometimes find expressions of religion seem contrived or forced to me. I don't go around saying that, but it's my impression, often.

The idea is 'do Gods want anything from you?'. If they don't, then 'you are trying to reach them for your own purpose.'
Therefore, contrived, forced, hatha (insistence, 'listen to me whether you want that or not').

 

[TheLightWithin]

The idea is 'do Gods want anything from you?'. If they don't, then 'you are trying to reach them for your own purpose.'
Therefore, contrived, forced, hatha (insistence, 'listen to me whether you want that or not').

Oh? I guess in Western religions the idea is God wants something from people
But also that it is okay to pray and ask for things (which is how "moralistic therapeutic deism" ideas developed I'm sure)
Maybe I meant something different? It is just an impression I have sometimes that the outward expressions of religiosity by many often ring false to me, and seem contrived or forced, or for show. I can't really put my finger on it, and of course I don't say that to people. It would be an awful thing to say to people, by me or anybody, and besides, you'd only get blow-back, not clarification.
So maybe I mean something different, but it's an impression I get sometimes from the loud and talkative.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I guess in Western religions the idea is God wants something from people..

..but what is meant by "wants" ?
One could say that in Islam, G-d "wants" us to worship Him 5 times a day.

G-d "wants" us to be successful, and repel evil.
Yet from my understanding, G-d is not in need of our worship .. it is mankind that are in need.

But also that it is okay to pray and ask for things..

..within reason .. it is not okay to pray to become a billionaire, for example.

 

[Alif Balaam Yashin]

Thanks for your opinion.

Now let's explore.

What tells you Theravada is the original Buddhism?

Theravada Buddhism is the oldest existing form of Buddhism, if you have proof otherwise, I'd like to hear it.

 

[Alif Balaam Yashin]

The deception here is, I would suggest, the result of short-sighted understanding

You are welcome to your opinion

Not quite ... salvation is one thing.

What you see as 'self-annihilation' is the transcending of the transient ephemeral idea of self as distinctly 'other', to the knowing of Self as such – summed up across the various traditions in such aphorisms as 'Tat Tvam Asi' and 'ego eimi' ... the end of all distinction between 'I and Thou' ...

It's Eckhart's Urgrund – that from which all things derive their being, a nothingness from which God and the world arise.

So it's actually the end of all delusion, all illusion, and so forth.

Western LHP philosophy asserts that the Self is sacred and the goal is self-deification, not dissolution.
Eckhart’s path asserts "Empty thyself, lose thyself, and merge with the Ground."
The Western LHP path asserts "Empower thyself, exalt thyself, become as a god."

The Urgrund calls for the annihilation of the individual, which for the Western Left-Hand Path is a spiritual regression, not liberation. It is a return to inertia rather than transcendence. Where Eckhart sees salvation in return, the WLHP sees power in differentiation, to become an uncreated one. The Urgrund is a honeyed lie that demands self-cancellation in exchange for peace.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But also that it is okay to pray and ask for things ..

Yeah sure. That is why Hinduism has both the paths. RHP and LHP. LHP is not deprecated, not even 'Aghora' (if you know about it).
'Aghora' lieterally means 'not extreme'.

 

[TheLightWithin]

..but what is meant by "wants" ?

I was quoting @Aupmanyav -- I am not sure what meaning he intended, but in my mind it had to do with the requirements or obligations of many religions.

..within reason .. it is not okay to pray to become a billionaire, for example.

??
Is it ok to ask G-d to smite your enemies?
I don't know what rules various religions have on what is okay to ask for and what not.
I would think that asking for things that are forbidden or hateful are off the table...
Most people ask for health or help for themselves or their loved ones, AFAIK
There is no guarantee anything will be granted

 

[TheLightWithin]

The Western LHP path asserts "Empower thyself, exalt thyself, become as a god."

Something like this is reputed to be Mormon doctrine.
Is Mormonism considered RHP or LHP or some combination?

 

[TheLightWithin]

Yeah sure. That is why Hinduism has both the paths. RHP and LHP. LHP is not deprecated, not even 'Aghora' (if you know about it).
'Aghora' lieterally means 'not extreme'.

I looked up Aghora, and it says something about a form of the god Shiva, in the form of a terrifying destroyer.
Sounds pretty extreme to me...
But then under Aghora Yoga it says "not extreme or terrible"

 

[Ahanu]

Theravada Buddhism is the oldest existing form of Buddhism, if you have proof otherwise, I'd like to hear it.

Theravada can't be singularly identified as the original Buddhism. If you are able to prove that, I would like to see such proof.

The first major schism in the Buddhist Sangha occurred around 383 BCE at at the Second Buddhist Council. It was mostly over monastic disciplinary rules (Vinaya). Sthaviravada (Elders) were there as a precursor to Theravada, but you also had Mahasamgika (Great Assembly), a precursor to Mahayana. Mahasamgika emerged concurrently with, or very shortly after, the lineage leading to Theravada.

Strangely, the oldest surviving ancient Buddhist manuscripts (Gandharan texts) come from a form of Buddhism that we would eventually identify with the Mahayana stream, and they have been carbon-dated to between 84 BCE and 74 CE. This suggests Mahayana ideas are quite early. Isn't this roughly around the time the Pali Canon was first committed to writing?

Here is an insightful excerpt from the link I shared above:

"One of the clear messages these texts seem to have for contemporary practitioners is that it’s not helpful to think of Buddhism in terms of a contrast between a single original source and the implicitly inferior derivatives of that primal source. Rather, the complexity and variability of Buddhist teachings appear to have been built in from the very beginning; after all, one of the Buddha’s special qualities was said to be his intuitive ability to adapt his teachings to the capabilities and needs of the person or persons to whom he was speaking."

 

[Ahanu]

Theravada can't be singularly identified as the original Buddhism. If you are able to prove that, I would like to see such proof.

The first major schism in the Buddhist Sangha occurred around 383 BCE at at the Second Buddhist Council. It was mostly over monastic disciplinary rules (Vinaya). Sthaviravada (Elders) were there as a precursor to Theravada, but you also had Mahasamgika (Great Assembly), a precursor to Mahayana. Mahasamgika emerged concurrently with, or very shortly after, the lineage leading to Theravada.

Strangely, the oldest surviving ancient Buddhist manuscripts (Gandharan texts) come from a form of Buddhism that we would eventually identify with the Mahayana stream, and they have been carbon-dated to between 84 BCE and 74 CE. This suggests Mahayana ideas are quite early. Isn't this roughly around the time the Pali Canon was first committed to writing?

Here is an insightful excerpt from the link I shared above:

"One of the clear messages these texts seem to have for contemporary practitioners is that it’s not helpful to think of Buddhism in terms of a contrast between a single original source and the implicitly inferior derivatives of that primal source. Rather, the complexity and variability of Buddhist teachings appear to have been built in from the very beginning; after all, one of the Buddha’s special qualities was said to be his intuitive ability to adapt his teachings to the capabilities and needs of the person or persons to whom he was speaking."

And:

“Sprinkled among the many dozens of texts are ten examples of Mahayana sutras—including ones well known in Sanskrit, Tibetan, or Chinese, such as the ‘Perfection of Wisdom Sutra’ and the ‘Bodhisattva Basket Sutra’—as well as others previously unknown in any language. These texts are leading scholars to rethink the long-debated origins of Mahayana Buddhism, revealing Gandhara to have been a—though not necessarily the—center of early Mahayana. The texts have also called into question the widespread assumption that the Mahayana sutras were originally composed or set down in Sanskrit, rather than a regional dialect such as Gandhari. Even more significant are the circumstances of the discovery of these ten Mahayana sutras; in every case, they constituted part of larger groups of manuscripts, the majority of which were non-Mahayana texts. Thus, we’re left with the impression that Mahayana Buddhism in the early centuries of the Common Era was not institutionally, and perhaps not even doctrinally, distinct from what later came to be called the ‘Hinayana’ or ‘Lesser Vehicle.’ All indications are that the more traditional or conservative practices coexisted with Mahayana ideas, even within the same monastic communities.”

 

[Ahanu]

Strangely, the oldest surviving ancient Buddhist manuscripts (Gandharan texts) come from a form of Buddhism that we would eventually identify with the Mahayana stream, and they have been carbon-dated to between 84 BCE and 74 CE.

To be more accurate, I should say that these texts contain examples of Mahayana Buddhism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The texts have also called into question the widespread assumption that the Mahayana sutras were originally composed or set down in Sanskrit, rather than a regional dialect such as Gandhari.

84 BCE and 74 CE is very late, taking Buddha to have lived in 6th or 5th BCE.
If they are in Sanskrit, then they sure belonged to a later date, creations of later Buddhist scholars. Originals should be in Pali, even Gandharan is after the expansion of Buddhism.
My emphasis is on the bed-rock of Buddhist philsosophy; anicca, anatta, sunyata and the Noble Eight-fold path (Dhamma).

 

[Ahanu]

84 BCE and 74 CE is very late, taking Buddha to have lived in 6th or 5th BCE.

Then all Buddhist texts are very late. The Pali Canon was first written down in Sri Lanka around 1st century BCE. It's not late in terms of written records within Buddhist textual tradition.

If they are in Sanskrit, then they sure belonged to a later date, creations of later Buddhist scholars. Originals should be in Pali,

Originals should be in Pali? Who says? Who do you give ear to? Theravada tradition? Pali commentator Buddhaghosa?

After his parinirvana, the Buddha's teachings were transmitted orally for about four centuries before being committed to writing.

Pali was not the sole language of early Buddhist discourse, and Pali is not identical to the language the historical Buddha spoke despite widespread belief in Theravada tradition that it was. To be brief, modern linguistic scholarship finds no definitive basis for the Theravada tradition that Pali is the language the Buddha spoke. Also, to further complicate matters, Pali is considered a hybrid language. It is a mix of several Prakrit languages and subsequently underwent partial Sanskritization.

Instead, the historical Buddha likely spoke in one or more of the various Prakrits.

even Gandharan is after the expansion of Buddhism.

The Gandharan texts are the oldest surviving Buddhist manuscripts in the world. The discovery of the Gandharan manuscripts calls into question the idea that Mahayana sutras were originally composed in Sanskrit. This shows they likely originated in a regional dialect. According to the vinaya, the Buddha himself urged his followers to spread his message "in one’s own dialect." Hasn't India always been a land of linguistic diversity? Perhaps it was there from the very beginning, eh? Any search for the exact, true, original language of the Buddha is likely misguided from the start.

The idea that the "originals should be in Pali" simply reflects the historical prominence of the Pali canon and the traditional assumptions of Theravada. Instead, the "originals" likely reflect linguistic diversity.

 

[Ahanu]

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't know what rules various religions have on what is okay to ask for and what not..

..nor do I..
I wasn't quoting a 'rule' .. I'm not saying I think it is forbidden to pray for worldly wealth.
..but the greatest wealth is religious knowledge, and a strong faith.

 

[Ahanu]

"To begin at the beginning, we will have to ask some very basic questions. For example, what language did the Buddha speak? That's pretty basic. Now, if you ask a pious Theravada Buddhist today, if you ask one of my neighbors in Thailand, they'll be eager and quick to reply, he spoke Pali . . . but, as we shall see, things are certainly not so simple."
-Jan Nattier

 

[Thomas]

You are welcome to your opinion

Thank you.

Western LHP philosophy asserts that the Self is sacred and the goal is self-deification, not dissolution.

Curiously, the Western RHP asserts the same thing.

Eckhart’s path asserts "Empty thyself, lose thyself, and merge with the Ground."
The Western LHP path asserts "Empower thyself, exalt thyself, become as a god."

Again, it would seem both are saying much the same thing, it depends on how one understands the terms.

The Urgrund calls for the annihilation of the individual, which for the Western Left-Hand Path is a spiritual regression, not liberation.

I would suggest a more discerning reading of the eschaton – particularly in Christian terms – as clearly the writings in the tradition speak precisely of liberation and emancipation, etc., and of the 'aion to come' described in richly cataphatic terms.

At the end of the 'aion of aions' then all enfolds into the One, and this is the final age, all will be one and there will be nothing other ... a final consummation of all essences, all natures, all beings, and all gods, of whatever path.

The Urgrund speaks of that which transcends the individual, which is itself transient and ephemeral, even if a demigod. One might say the Urgrund is beingness as such, whereas ideas of 'the self' or 'the individual' are subsequent and originate and arise from that, and comprise a construct of an 'I', a self-identification, in relation to other being.

Surely one may attain a 'godlike' status within one's own regnum imaginarium, nevertheless, one lives in and among other worlds, all of whom derive their being from the One?

Where Eckhart sees salvation in return, the WLHP sees power in differentiation, to become an uncreated one.

To become an uncreated one surely implies shedding, or detaching from, the created?

I don't quite see how one can become 'an uncreated' because the prior condition is created ... ?

It seems to me terms such as 'deification' as used by the LHP carries a broad range of meaning, from a RHP concept of deification to simply achieving one's own inner potential. I think the term is slippery and deceptive, and I'm not sure it's useful in terms of LHP-RHP dialogue, because from a very quick survey, self-deification in the LHP is not how a RHP reader will interpret it.

I've linked to a couple of posts re the Imaginal Realm – I think here is the place where LHP-RHP dialogue is viable.

The Urgrund is a honeyed lie that demands self-cancellation in exchange for peace.

You v Meister Eckhart? I admire your chutzpah!

 

[Aupmanyav]

After his parinirvana, the Buddha's teachings were transmitted orally for about four centuries before being committed to writing.

Yeah, and the Suttas will then contain not just what Buddha taught, but also the beliefs of the scholars who committed them to writing.