Ask MysticSang'ha anything (Buddhism, disciple, doctrine, experience, pray)

[MysticSang'ha]

Patty, I just want you to know that I'll answer you a little later today. But first I need to address the differences further with each of the four Tibetan schools.

That would be Kagyu (which I know James was a former practitioner of - Karma Kagyu), Sakya, and Geluk (of which I practice).

But I will get to your questions right afterward. I don't want to give a hasty reply here. M'kay?




Peace,
Mystic

[MysticSang'ha]

To continue............

The New Translation schools began their formation, and this was mainly due to the influx of Indian conventional monasticism. A few guys were rather important at this time, Atisha - who penned the Bodhi-patha-pradipa..........later reintroduced as the Lam-Rim; Virupa, who taught what is known as the lamdre ("path and fruition"); and Tilopa, who is considered the human founder of the Kagyu lineage.

Let's see if I can nail this down all right.

Atisha founded the Kadampa school based on a scholarly approach to enlightenment. He was a true espouser of the Mahayana ideals, and even though he understood the importance of the Tantras, he felt that they should be there as a support for the exoteric teachings. This was then later absorbed by the Geluk school and it's founder, Je Tsongkhapa, and it remains as it's primary practice today.

Which, I know, looks like it puts me at odds with how I approach this world as a "mystic." But, that's OK. We all have our own paths to walk. =D

We spend most of our time studying the texts and getting into debates about Dharma teachings.........mostly about karma. We spend time on meditation, either guided or vipasanna, and so very little on the Tantras. The Geluk school practices the teachings mainly what I'd written earlier: the Lam-Rim. This is what's called "The Graduated Path to Enlightenment."

The Sakya school was founded by another Indian monk named Virupa. He was a brilliant scholar that traveled to Tibet to spread the Dharma, but was once discovered in a monastery eating the flesh of a bird (pigeon, in particular, but don't quote me on it, lol). He was immediately expelled, and the story goes that he then walked across a lake, opened his hands, and the pigeon he was eating flew away........alive and well. He demonstrated that reality is not what is always seen, and that everything that was observed was an illusion in the first place. His teaching, including the Lamdre, is known as "path and fruition", and it is taught from what I understand in poetic language..........."vajra songs." This Vajraygatha is told from beginning to end like a story, beginning with the practitioner entering the Buddha-Dharma and ending with the practitioner's full realization and enlightenment.

Finally, if James is lurking and would like to comment, the Kagyu school was founded by a tantric vision by Tilopa of an old woman who tested him with all sorts of maddening requests from ripping off his clothes, yelling like a madman, practice only in secret..........he eventually followed the dakini's instructions and attained realization in his lifetime. These Tantra-Dharma transmissions were passed down from guru to student for generations, and the yogins that are part of this lineage are some of the most revered teachers in all of Tibetan Buddhism: Tilopa, Naropa, Maitripa, Marpa (who was a householder), and perhaps our most beloved yogin........

Milarepa.

I wanted to point out how each school was founded to give you an idea of what is distinctive of each of them. For the most part, we've kept these foundations in place. As a whole, we're very much alike if compared with, say, Rinzai Zen Buddhism or Pure Land. But our beginnings, I think, tell the story of how we're just a little different in our visions for putting the Dharma to practice.




Peace,
Mystic

[MysticSang'ha]

Originally Posted by Willamena

I have some questions for you, Heather.

You mentioned earlier perceptions that were "absolutely NOT of this gross physical/material world." As I understand the concept of "unity," there is only one world ("form does not differ from emptiness"). Do you consider yourself to be a dualist?

Ultimately, no, but I do recognize and convey my personal experiences so that others may do the same. I feel that I can speak of dualism without getting stuck on it. Does that make sense?

Originally Posted by Willamena

You mentioned earlier 'three cosmological "functions"' of body called Sambhogakaya, Nirmanakaya, and Dharmakaya. Without demanding too much detail from you, as explanation might get very long, am I correct in concluding that these are three perspectives on humanity? Are they for all conscious beings (life-forms)? Do all things have these three functions of body?

Let me put it this way............all life forms/conscious beings have this potential to realize these forms. All have the potential to realize as a Nirmanakaya (like Shakyamuni Buddha), as a Sambhogakaya in the celestial realms, and as the Dharmakaya, which takes us back to the beginning of our very definition: this is our very nature, our Buddha-Nature.

What is

samsara? I suspect I know, but really should ask.
What is Sang'ha?

Both Engyo's and lilithu's answers in this thread are very sufficient, and I have nothing more to add than a "thumbs up."




Peace,
Mystic

[Don Penguinoini]

I was just wondering, Buddhism, based on non-violence, has a lot of monks//followers who eat meat, can it be fair to be base it non-violence?



Thanks in advance

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by MysticSang'ha

Ultimately, no, but I do recognize and convey my personal experiences so that others may do the same. I feel that I can speak of dualism without getting stuck on it. Does that make sense?

Ultimately, no.

I can tell you in what way it doesn't make sense to me, but maybe that's just me: it doesn't reflect the belief that you have about reality, so it doesn't actually convey a personal experience that you had. So how could others have the same?

[Engyo]

Originally Posted by penguino

I was just wondering, Buddhism, based on non-violence, has a lot of monks//followers who eat meat, can it be fair to be base it non-violence?



Thanks in advance

Penguino -

Can you please define fair in the context of this question? It would probably help if you also define non-violence. Are we talking about non-violence towards human beings, all sentient beings, all life, what?

[Don Penguinoini]

Sorry Engyo, i do mean towards animals, i have mentioned eating meat, i just thought thst would have given you a clue...

[Engyo]

P -

That still doesn't define the question tightly. Eating meat isn't violent. Killing animals to provide meat to be eaten generally is (or can be). I thought the question had to do with non-violence.

The reason I say we need to define it is that (for example) Martin Luther King Jr. practiced and taught non-violence, which had absolutely nothing to do with diet.

And, of course, we have yet to define what fairness is or is not in this context.

OH, BTW, Heather I'm sorry to hijack your thread. Please split it if you think that would help...........