Tibetan deities real or symbolic

[biased]

Is there any evidence to show that the early Vajrayana tradition viewed the deities outlined in some of the vajrayana texts as purely symbolic or did they believe that were an literal entities?

 

[DreadFish]

I think apophenia can answer this the best.

There are multiple classes of deities in Vajrayana, some are considered to be aspects of enlightened mind, while some are considered actual beings that have been born into a more powerful, though still impermanent and subject to stress, form of life.

Here, I think, is a good source regarding deities in Vajrayana:

Deities

Why call them deities; why not gods?

Although the word deity was originally a synonym for god, experience has shown that some practices such as those performed by Buddhists consist of a type of address in which the intent is rather different from the usual ancient one. That is, the general intention is not to propitiate; not to flatter, placate or enter into contracts.
There is another important difference between Buddhist deities and mythological gods or goddesses. The latter are, or were once, considered real -- described as motivated by jealousy, power and other appetites and not very different from physical creatures such as people. The deities of Buddhism are ultimately regarded as manifestations of Emptiness. Some practitioners eventually abandon deity devotion as a method for attaining an enlightened state when it has outlived its utility.
In fact, Atisha is supposed to have remarked, "We Indians do the practice of one thereby accomplishing all of them; you people do the practices of so many, and so accomplish none!"
When deities are depicted in sexual union (called yab-yum or father-mother) this symbolizes intimate union of another type -- that of skill and compassion, or Means and Method, or Wisdom and Emptiness.
Some well-known Buddhist deities are Amitabha (Opameh, in Tibetan), his emanation Chenrezi (Avalokiteshvara in Sanskrit) and Tara, the female bodhisattva (who is also a Buddha) called upon particularly in times of distress. Kwan Yin (or, Gun Yom,) beloved by Buddhists of east Asia, is a combination form with the qualities of both Chenrezi and Tara.

 

[ratikala]

namaskarm :namaste

please excuse my wish to clarify , ...

There are multiple classes of deities in Vajrayana, some are considered to be aspects of enlightened mind,

only to some schools ...to others they are divine beings .

while some are considered actual beings that have been born into a more powerful, though still impermanent and subject to stress, form of life.

in to a higher realm , but not the higest fully enlightened realm ,

some bodhisatva have vowed to remain untill all beings have attained enlightenment , therefore they return or remain for our benifit whic makes them more than an aspect of our own mind , allthough our minds have this potential we have not yet atained the level of pure service to others .

Here, I think, is a good source regarding deities in Vajrayana:

DeitiesWhy call them deities; why not gods?Although the word deity was originally a synonym for god, experience has shown that some practices such as those performed by Buddhists consist of a type of address in which the intent is rather different from the usual ancient one. That is, the general intention is not to propitiate; not to flatter, placate or enter into contracts.
There is another important difference between Buddhist deities and mythological gods or goddesses. The latter are, or were once, considered real -- described as motivated by jealousy, power and other appetites and not very different from physical creatures such as people. The deities of Buddhism are ultimately regarded as manifestations of Emptiness. Some practitioners eventually abandon deity devotion as a method for attaining an enlightened state when it has outlived its utility.
In fact, Atisha is supposed to have remarked, "We Indians do the practice of one thereby accomplishing all of them; you people do the practices of so many, and so accomplish none!"
When deities are depicted in sexual union (called yab-yum or father-mother) this symbolizes intimate union of another type -- that of skill and compassion, or Means and Method, or Wisdom and Emptiness.
Some well-known Buddhist deities are Amitabha (Opameh, in Tibetan), his emanation Chenrezi (Avalokiteshvara in Sanskrit) and Tara, the female bodhisattva (who is also a Buddha) called upon particularly in times of distress. Kwan Yin (or, Gun Yom,) beloved by Buddhists of east Asia, is a combination form with the qualities of both Chenrezi and Tara.

was this from wickipedia ?

may I make a few corrections ....


Although the word deity was originally a synonym for god, (synonym for divinity )
experience has shown that some practices such as those performed by Buddhists consist of a type of address in which the intent is rather different from the usual ancient one. That is, the general intention is not to propitiate; not to flatter, placate or enter into contracts.the buddhist practicing the sadhana of a particular yidam is worshiping , is offering praise , but symultaniously familiarising himself with the qualities of the yidam and aspiring to develop those qualities .
There is another important difference between Buddhist deities and mythological gods or goddesses. The latter are, or were once, considered real -- described as motivated by jealousy, power and other appetites and not very different from physical creatures such as people. The deities of Buddhism are ultimately regarded as manifestations of Emptiness.(not by all , ...to a practitioner perfprming the sadhana the yidam is the manifestation of a quality of the buddhas mind)...(the ultimate realisation of emptiness is emptiness of one perception but not all perception ) Some practitioners eventually abandon deity devotion (devotion is the wrong word for buddhism , it is a practice) (a sadhana being a dicipline )as a method for attaining an enlightened state when it has outlived its utility.
In fact, Atisha is supposed to have remarked, "We Indians do the practice of one thereby accomplishing all of them; you people do the practices of so many, and so accomplish none!"
When deities are depicted in sexual union (called yab-yum or father-mother) this symbolizes intimate union of another type -- that of skill and compassion, or Means and Method, or Wisdom and Emptiness.(this is creative union . the ultimate union not intimate in the sence we would impute)
Some well-known Buddhist deities are Amitabha (Opameh, in Tibetan), his emanation expansion Chenrezi bodhisatva of compassion (Avalokiteshvara in Sanskrit) and Tara, the female bodhisattva born of chenreizigs tears (who is also a Buddha)amitabha is one of the five dhyani buddhas (one of the five aspects of the buddhas mind) (the compasionate aspect ) thus ... called upon particularly in times of distress. Kwan Yin (or, Gun Yom,) beloved by Buddhists of east Asia, is a combination form with the qualities of both Chenrezi and Tara. kwan yin is avalokiteshvara in female form .

 

[apophenia]

may I make a few corrections ....

Buddhism is not vaisnavism.

Sure there are people who wish to make them the same, and yes there are even institutions with names who present buddhism as belief in divine beings. But that is not what Gautama was teaching.

Please, by all means present your own hybrid views, but you are "correcting" buddhism until it is no longer buddhism. Gautama's teaching was a break from all that 'gods and demons' and 'divine intervention' stuff which has plagued the human race.

When you present this view, please acknowledge that this is your 'homebrew'.

There are, for example, offshoots of buddhism purely concerned with saying mantras for wealth and good fortune. But they are fabrications using the name to appropriate authority. Just because they say they are buddhist does not mean that they are.

Chenrezig is a felt experience, not some 'divine dude' sitting on a lotus in space somewhere and doing 'divine intervention' when petitioned by prayer.

That is precisely the kind of belief Gautama dispensed with.

The whole notion of 'divine intervention' is anathema to buddhism.

Can you post even one sutra where Gautama recommends prayers to deities ?

If there are such deities, and they can be petitioned by prayer, then why is this absent from Gautama's teaching ? The only mention that even comes close is in the idealised dialogs where bodhisattvas are mentioned. Even there, you will find no indication that Gautama was suggesting that these beings can be petitioned by prayer or ritual to intervene in the lives of humans.

You will certainly find no Tibetan Vajrayana teachers who support your view.Nor will you find any Theravadin teachers who will support your view.The fact that there are offshoots which have conflated buddhism and belief in objectively existing deities, or 'divinities' if you prefer, is just a fact about the persistence of these views which Gautama was refuting.

What you are presenting is Ratikalism.

By all means present it, but please acknowledge that this is your invention.


I repeat ... Can you post even one sutra where Gautama recommends prayers to deities ?

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram :namaste

Buddhism is not vaisnavism.

dear apophenia , ...it is difficult to reply to you without sounding rude, .. so without any hint of rudness may I please assure you that I am quite aware of the differences and quite capable of speaking from either perspective . (you are I beleive aware that I have practiced both , however that is besides the point and I shouldnt need to publish a CV inorder to express an opinion .)

Sure there are people who wish to make them the same, and yes there are even institutions with names who present buddhism as belief in divine beings. But that is not what Gautama was teaching.

we were talking about vajrayana and tibetan deities , so I replied from the perspective that I gained practicing Tibetan buddhism .

Please, by all means present your own hybrid views, but you are "correcting" buddhism until it is no longer buddhism. Gautama's teaching was a break from all that 'gods and demons' and 'divine intervention' stuff which has plagued the human race.

excuse me please , ...but Tibetan buddhism is full of ..'' 'gods and demons' and 'divine intervention' stuff '' ...and in places is very far removed fron what Guatama taught .

When you present this view, please acknowledge that this is your 'homebrew'.

why can you not accept that this is the experience of a Tibetan buddhist practitioner?
and who are you to assume that it is... ''my home brew ???

There are, for example, offshoots of buddhism purely concerned with saying mantras for wealth and good fortune. But they are fabrications using the name to appropriate authority. Just because they say they are buddhist does not mean that they are.

for one to regard oneself buddhist one must take buddhist refuge , Refuge in Buddha , Dharma and Sangha , .... what one practices along side that refuge may or will be any of a number of cultural forms of buddhism , you may not wish to engage in some practices common within some budhist traditions that is your prerogative , however it dosent give you the right to say who is and who is not a buddhist . of course the laity will be very concerned about their material wellbeing , it is only natural for them to make prayers and recite mantra for wealth and fortune . a renunciate may be beyond this but buddhism is not exclusively for renunciates .

Chenrezig is a felt experience, not some 'divine dude' sitting on a lotus in space somewhere and doing 'divine intervention' when petitioned by prayer.

one may speak from ones own experience in which case one might wish to say that from personal experience chenreizig is a ''felt experience'' , but it might be wiser to keep an open mind as to the possibility that others experiences might be different .

That is precisely the kind of belief Gautama dispensed with.

The whole notion of 'divine intervention' is anathema to buddhism.

Can you post even one sutra where Gautama recommends prayers to deities ?

with all due respects we were talking about tibetan deities and how tibetan deities wre veived , not what buddha taught .

If there are such deities, and they can be petitioned by prayer, then why is this absent from Gautama's teaching ? The only mention that even comes close is in the idealised dialogs where bodhisattvas are mentioned. Even there, you will find no indication that Gautama was suggesting that these beings can be petitioned by prayer or ritual to intervene in the lives of humans.

we wernt nececarily talking either about petitioning with prayer , we were talking about how they are veiwed as entities in their own right or not ?

You will certainly find no Tibetan Vajrayana teachers who support your view.Nor will you find any Theravadin teachers who will support your view.The fact that there are offshoots which have conflated buddhism and belief in objectively existing deities, or 'divinities' if you prefer, is just a fact about the persistence of these views which Gautama was refuting.

What you are presenting is Ratikalism.

By all means present it, but please acknowledge that this is your invention.

wonderfull , ..... I present ratikalism to counter Apopheniaism ...

I repeat ... Can you post even one sutra where Gautama recommends prayers to deities ?

I repeat , .... we wre not discussing prayer , or Gautamas recomendations , we were discussing vajrajana and how tibetan deities are vieved , as you know in many aspects vajrayana is quite far removed from the practice of buddhism taught by the buddha himself .

 

[crossfire]

Is there any evidence to show that the early Vajrayana tradition viewed the deities outlined in some of the vajrayana texts as purely symbolic or did they believe that were an literal entities?

A slight rephrasing of the OP question: Could any sign of literal entities be a product of your mind?

 

[apophenia]

s , so I replied from the perspective that I gained practicing Tibetan buddhism .

Are you saying that a Tibetan lama taught that deities actually exist as entities ?

Please, who was your teacher, and in what context did he say this ? ( i.e was it part of his teachings to a ngondro gruop ? was it in public lectures ? Is it published anywhere in a book he or she wrote ?

Do you have any quotes from any Tibetan buddhist text which would support this ? Have these texts been explained to you by a Tibetan buddhist teacher ?

why can you not accept that this is the experience of a Tibetan buddhist practitioner?
and who are you to assume that it is... ''my home brew ???

I have never heard a lama suggest that there are actual deities. I have sat at many teachings with quite a number of lamas, and there has never been the suggestion that deities actually exist objectively as you are suggesting. Nor in all the Tibetan buddhist texts on Vajrayana is there any such suggestion.

Please tell me who taught this, and any Vajrayana texts which support it. I am calling it 'homebrew' because it is not what is taught. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.
Otherwise you should refrain from asserting that this is taught as Tibetan buddhism, if it is only your personal interpretation.

If you are saying that it is taught as Vajrayana, you should be able to direct us to the teaching and the teacher.

one may speak from ones own experience in which case one might wish to say that from personal experience chenreizig is a ''felt experience'' , but it might be wiser to keep an open mind as to the possibility that others experiences might be different .

Whatever their 'experiences' may be, buddhism does not support the idea of objectively existing deities.

with all due respects we were talking about tibetan deities and how tibetan deities wre veived , not what buddha taught .

Tibetan buddhism is .... buddhism !

Vajrayana is a form of .... BUDDHISM - all phenomena are momentary dependent arisings, empty of self essence. Buddhism, you know ? Which does not include belief in divine deities.

we wernt nececarily talking either about petitioning with prayer , we were talking about how they are veiwed as entities in their own right or not ?

If there is anything which defines buddhism, it is that there is no such thing as 'an entity in its own right'. That is foundational. That is what characterises buddhism.

It is not negotiable, or optional. It the the essential proposition of anything which could be called buddhism.

There are said to be Four Seals of buddhism -

Dukha
Annicca
Anatta
Nirvana

Annicca and anatta mean temporary and devoid of self, and are applied to any phenomena which arise. So 'divine deities' just don't pass the basic test of validity as buddhist, which is what the Four Seals are about.

I repeat , .... we wre not discussing prayer , or Gautamas recomendations , we were discussing vajrajana and how tibetan deities are vieved , as you know in many aspects vajrayana is quite far removed from the practice of buddhism taught by the buddha himself .

I cannot believe that you were taught that deities objectively exist by an ordained Tibetan lama teaching the vajrayana.

And in the essential aspect the teaching of Vajrayana in Tibetan buddhism is precisely an application of Gautama's teaching. The notion of inherently existing entities with enduring self-essence is simply not buddhism at all.

To be honest, at this stage, unless you can provide evidence that such ideas were taught to you as Vajrayana by Tibetan buddhist teachers, I simply can't take the idea seriously.

By all means believe it yourself,you are certainly entitled to do that, but calling it Tibetan Vajrayana buddhism is just false.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram :namaste

Are you saying that a Tibetan lama taught that deities actually exist as entities ?

Please, who was your teacher, and in what context did he say this ? ( i.e was it part of his teachings to a ngondro gruop ? was it in public lectures ? Is it published anywhere in a book he or she wrote ?

Do you have any quotes from any Tibetan buddhist text which would support this ? Have these texts been explained to you by a Tibetan buddhist teacher ?


I have never heard a lama suggest that there are actual deities. I have sat at many teachings with quite a number of lamas, and there has never been the suggestion that deities actually exist objectively as you are suggesting. Nor in all the Tibetan buddhist texts on Vajrayana is there any such suggestion.

Please tell me who taught this, and any Vajrayana texts which support it. I am calling it 'homebrew' because it is not what is taught. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

having allready said that I am not about to issue a CV , you seem to feel confident to demand answers rather than hold a discussion as to the possibility of a different veiw from your own .

If you are saying that it is taught as Vajrayana, you should be able to direct us to the teaching and the teacher.

as you know I am not fond of your style of confrontational debating , I do not demand that you give evidence and scriptural references for your veiw .

all veiws are a grasping that occurs before the atainment of realiation .

Tibetan buddhism is .... buddhism !

Vajrayana is a form of .... BUDDHISM - all phenomena are momentary dependent arisings, empty of self essence. Buddhism, you know ? Which does not include belief in divine deities.

tibetan buddhism is buddhism when it is practicing the Kangyur ....however the tangyur contains cometaries on sutra and tantra composed after the advent of buddha .

If there is anything which defines buddhism, it is that there is no such thing as 'an entity in its own right'. That is foundational. That is what characterises buddhism.

this is what defines buddhism in your veiw .......

It is not negotiable, or optional. It the the essential proposition of anything which could be called buddhism.

There are said to be Four Seals of buddhism -

Dukha
Annicca
Anatta
Nirvana

Annicca and anatta mean temporary and devoid of self, and are applied to any phenomena which arise. So 'divine deities' just don't pass the basic test of validity as buddhist, which is what the Four Seals are about.

I cannot believe that you were taught that deities objectively exist by an ordained Tibetan lama teaching the vajrayana.

does truth or wisdom arise or is it allready existant , is it not our true natural state ?

And in the essential aspect the teaching of Vajrayana in Tibetan buddhism is precisely an application of Gautama's teaching. The notion of inherently existing entities with enduring self-essence is simply not buddhism at all.

is the vajrayana in Tibetan buddhism not Padmasambhavas teaching ?

although guru rinpoche is himself regarded as a buddha amongst tibetan schools , when most people use the term buddhism they are refering to the doctrine of shakyamuni buddha , however tibetan buddhism encompases both sutra and tantra so to be fair it is only correct to diferentiate tibetan buddhism from buddhism as a whole as it encompases not only gautamas teachings .

the methodology of gautama teachings and padmasambhava 's teachings were very different as was time place and circumstance , both are dharma tansmitions , the realisation is one .

To be honest, at this stage, unless you can provide evidence that such ideas were taught to you as Vajrayana by Tibetan buddhist teachers, I simply can't take the idea seriously.

By all means believe it yourself,you are certainly entitled to do that, but calling it Tibetan Vajrayana buddhism is just false.

Blahhh Blahhh , .... any excuse not to have a discussion .....

I am sorry I am not interested in this evidence based debating although some people seem to think it is either clever or fun ? ...sorry it is lost on me .

 

[apophenia]

In other words, you have not studied Tibetan Vajrayana buddhism with a teacher in that tradition.

is that correct ?

 

[ratikala]

In other words, you have not studied Tibetan Vajrayana buddhism with a teacher in that tradition.

is that correct ?

no that is not correct .

please enter into a conversation rather than trying to play ping pong .

 

[apophenia]

I am not playing ping pong Ratikala.

You are claiming to be a student of Tibetan Vajrayana buddhism. You are answering questions in the Vajrayana DIR.

Your posts are completely contrary to not only what I have learned from vajrayana teachers with whom I have studied, but also contrary to the basic foundations of buddhism.

Therefore I am asking you to indicate on what basis you are purporting to be a student of Tibetan vajrayana buddhism.

You do not have a direct answer. This indicates to me that you have not studied vajrayana with a Tibetan vajrayana teacher.

There are basic rules in this forum. I'm sure you have some idea that presenting yourself as a Tibetan vajrayana student to answer questions in the vajrayana DIR implies that you are in fact a bona fide practitioner.

However, it appears at this point as though you are presenting your own syncretic beliefs.

If you are not and never have been a student of vajrayana, you should refrain from posting in this DIR unless you have respectful questions. Simply deciding for yourself that your hindu vaisnava practices and beliefs, plus your syncretic constructions, is Tibetan vajrayana, is deceptive. It is spamming a DIR.

 

[crossfire]

There are said to be Four Seals of buddhism -

Dukha
Annicca
Anatta
Nirvana

Annicca and anatta mean temporary and devoid of self, and are applied to any phenomena which arise. So 'divine deities' just don't pass the basic test of validity as buddhist, which is what the Four Seals are about.

I cannot believe that you were taught that deities objectively exist by an ordained Tibetan lama teaching the vajrayana.

this is what defines buddhism in your veiw .......

Actually, apophenia is correct--The Four Seals are what define Buddhism, according to Buddhists. Any practice that follows these, no matter how unusual it might be, is considered to be Buddhism. Any practice that does not follow the Four Seals is considered to be non-Buddhism, according to Buddhists.

 

[crossfire]

Actually, apophenia is correct--The Four Seals are what define Buddhism, according to Buddhists. Any practice that follows these, no matter how unusual it might be, is considered to be Buddhism. Any practice that does not follow the Four Seals is considered to be non-Buddhism, according to Buddhists.

Here is an article from a Tibetan Buddhist Khentin Tai Situ Rinpoche about the Four Seals:
HE – Four Seals of Mahamudra

 

[ratikala]

dear crossfire :namaste

Actually, apophenia is correct--The Four Seals are what define Buddhism, according to Buddhists. Any practice that follows these, no matter how unusual it might be, is considered to be Buddhism. Any practice that does not follow the Four Seals is considered to be non-Buddhism, according to Buddhists.

with all due respects I was not refuting this ...

There are said to be Four Seals of buddhism -

Dukha
Annicca
Anatta
Nirvana

Annicca and anatta mean temporary and devoid of self, and are applied to any phenomena which arise.....

I had actualy raised the question.....

does truth or wisdom arise or is it allready existant , is it not our true natural state ?

you have miss quoted me as saying ......

this is what defines buddhism in your veiw .......

which in truth I said in answer to another remark ....Please do not cut and past my words .
please be patient with my question and give it fair concideration it is about what constitutes arising phenomena not a refutation of the four seals .

Annicca and anatta mean temporary and devoid of self, and are applied to any phenomena which arise. So 'divine deities' just don't pass the basic test of validity as buddhist, which is what the Four Seals are about.

read this in conjunction with my question and prehaps you might understand my point ?

many thanks :namaste

 

[crossfire]

Actually, you are correct in my mispasting. The actual part was:

If there is anything which defines buddhism, it is that there is no such thing as 'an entity in its own right'. That is foundational. That is what characterises buddhism.

this is what defines buddhism in your veiw .......

apophenia then brought up the four seals.
My apologies for the mispaste.

 

[Penumbra]

**Staff Post**
​

There is no debating allowed in DIR areas. Discussion is allowed, debate is not.

This is a Green DIR, the least restrictive color code, which means that knowledgeable and respectful posts that comply with the tenets and spirit of Vajrayana Buddhism are acceptable by those who do not currently identify as Vajrayana Buddhist, including by former practioners and by those that have not identified as Vajrayana Buddhists but are knowledgeable about a particular aspect.

If there is disagreement about a point, discuss it rather than debate it. If someone feels that there is a DIR violation, report it, don't discuss/debate it in the thread.

 

[Yeshe Dondrub]

There is a difference in enlightened minds, lama's, teachers who reflect a form.

There are images that reflect qualities, cutting through negative aspects in mind, to trick ego to let go. Which are not literal manifestations that will walk into a room.

In mahamudra you realize it, and realize the base teaching is all that is needed, once your purify.

Don't expect mahakala to walk out and clear you mind for you, the reflection is to allow you to cut through it and realize that it was all reflection.

Many reflect qualities and become them. Images are reflections of qualities. "Diety" is not the actual Tibetan idea or form. I some area old culture has played a roll. Yet they are not physical beings. However you can reflect the qualities and become it in reflection. Then realize the true aspect was to trick the ego.

Rather then debate, share what you have learned, and for most it will be incomplete, some debate is common in schools of Buddhism in order to help each other enforce proper teachings. What we must not do is slander, hurt, harm, and be anything less then compassionate with each other. We respect our Guru's who help guide us. There can be variations in the way a root lama guides students. Even tho the base teachings are the same, foundational practices, and core.