GardenBanter.co.uk - View Single Post

22-07-2004, 07:02 PM

In article ,
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 05:49:44 GMT, (The Watcher) opined:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:56:46 -0700, (paghat)
wrote:

(snip)
But when asked about atheism, the Dalai Lama's rote reply is that "Atheism
is preferable to a complete lack of spirituality." Meaning, I presume,
that Belief in nothing is still belief. The Dalai Lama says it is okay for
you to not believe in things, the only philosophy that matters is kindness
-- not your forte either.

The Dalai Lama should stick to the Buddhism and leave the atheism to the
atheists.

I will clarify; Tibetan Buddhism, Mahayana tradition does not believe in
creation or creator.

What you said exactly was "Buddhism can be considered atheist." You never
mentioned Mahayana, which in any case is not unique among buddhism in
assuming the gods came after the ultimate reality, but which most
certainly does preserve a gigantic role for the gods -- that is hardly
atheism which is what you claimed buddhism to be. The Dalai Lama believes
in many gods & says Tara oversees the doings of all Buddhas. Tara,
Savioress, Deity, is the most important of many goddesses of Mahayana
buddhism.

You bolstered your false claim with a made-up quote from the Dalai Lama.
That you're not well versed in Buddhism is fine; most christians don't
know squat about christianity, but they love Jesus & that's enough. And
for you to be a good Mahayana buddhist requires no specific knowledge
(fortunately for you) but does require that you practice kindness.
Although even that generally evades you, you could start now!

I said nothing of any deities.

Oh just stop with the fibbery. First of all, an atheist is NOT someone
believes in all gods but doesn't believe they created the world; an
atheist is someone who believes there is no God or gods. You followed up
with your original dumb statement "Buddhists can be considered atheists"
-- vis, nonbelievers in god or gods -- with the even dumber statement
"Deities are bodhisattvas." Well, not all deities are bodhisattvas by any
means, but if saints & bodhisattvas ARE regarded as no different than
gods, then Tibetan buddhism is rampant at several levels with every
conceivable sort of god from Kali as originator of Time right on down to
bodhisattvas who hold themselves back from the ultimate enlightenment to
remain & assist the unenlightened. All of which puts buddhism about as far
away from "Atheism" as arch-theism ever gets.

Even the limited issue of how the universe was created is not as you
represent it, since in Mahayana buddhism creation issued from out of Kali
as a manifestation of Time, & will someday be restored to Kali putting an
end to this bad universe.

She is not Creator precisely but is the greatest power by which the
universe came into being, & by the same power is sustained. It was spun
out of her radiant trangle before the beginning, & will be devoured by her
at the end of time, & beyhond both ends of that calander is the One
Supreme Reality -- which is to say, Kali. That is the basis of Mahayana
creation & uncreation myth, which developed directly into Tantricism which
increases the importance of Kali as the One Reality (Nirvana). It is a
word-game to say she brought the universe into existance but did not
create it, for the universe is of herself & not separate from her; that
what she seemingly created doesn't actually exist but is an illusion so
she created nothing; & it is that nothingness which we through faith,
kindness, & knowledge may eventually recover.

But as the Dalai Lama interprets Mahayana, all that is required is simple
human kindness, therefore it focuses more on the role of Tara as ultimate
compassion, the Goddess born into this world from a teardrop. Such gods &
goddesses as that came along long after the universe was manifest. When
Mahayana became Tantricism Kali's role was more of a focus, but the fact
that Mahayana focuses more on Tara does not really diminish the Kali.

Before Mahayanism, Siddhartha's original teachings more greatly restricted
the significance of the Hindu gods, even Kali, real though they could be,
they had no serious purpose in the path of enlightenment. Mahayanismn, or
Northern Buddhism, restored the Hindu divinities to their former
significance, & added mew divinities. The Mahayana position for Kali is
closest to that for hindu saktism, which likewise believes no god actually
created because only Mahakali as Ultimate Reality is real, & anything any
god believes he achieved was actually the result of the existance of an
Ultimate Power, which is Mahakali.

The Dalai Lama is not the
living god, has never once said that, nor has anyone else said that who is
Buddhist. He repeatedly says he's a simple Buddhist monk. He is not god,
living or dead.

The Dalai Lama is the living embodiment of all Tibetan gods, & is a
double-incarnation of two specific gods.

The humble beauty of a God manifesting as a simple monk is the point, kiddo.

He also never says he is a teacher; he is instead an example. Ask him if
he's an important man. He will smile & say he is an unimportant man.

Though the Dalai Lama embodies all Gods, he is in particular a
manifestation of two divine beings: First he is Amitabha, God of the
Western Paradise, & a sun-god. Because Amitabha cannot descend to the
world of matter as anything but light, in order to manifest physically he
first descended into the bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara (the male twin of
female Tara), & it is Avalokiteshvara who descends into every incarnated
Dalai Lama.

So the Dalai Lama is Two Gods, Two Gods, Two Gods In One. This is the
Double-Incarnation of the Living God.

In Mahayana buddhism Amitabha is definitely a God, though not in the sense
of an Almighty God, since he repre3sents a level of godhead all
enlightened beings can achieve. Whether Avalokiteshvara as "mere"
bodhisattva is also a god is more questionable, but you're not the first
one to assume indeed that bodhisattvas are gods. Even of bodhisattvas are
more like saints, Amitabha certainly is a god, & he is visible to all as
the Sun, is present in all heat energy, is ruler of all meditations, whose
warmth is kindness, & who receives prayers from Mahayana buddhists who
address him as Shining Lord, Unbounded Light, Opulent Sun, the Infinite
Revelation.

In other forms of buddhism it is denied that Amitabha is a god at all, but
in the form you mention, Northern Buddhism, Amitabha is the tutelary God
of Lamism, & most assuredly a sun-god & addressed as one. In Mahayana
portraits he is usually red, dressed in layers of monks robes. So when the
Dalai Lama says "humbly" he's a monk, that's because he is a manifestation
of the god of monks.

To some extent he duplicates or supplants Kali as the chief authority &
energizing power of the physical universe, but where her power is
devouring, his is gentleness, though even the Shining Lord can devour
illusions & flesh & materiality with his fire of knowledge. (I take much
of this from THE SHADOW OF THE DALAI LAMA. It would be possible to play
word-games that Dalai Lama is not a manifestation of the Gods, but Victor
& Victoria Trimondi are the western authorities on this, & barring an
ability to read both Tibetan language & Sanskrit, will stand as better
authorities than you or I -- & they are clear, the Dalai Lama is
worshipped as a manifestation of the Tibetan gods. Is he really? Of course
not -- unless you share that faith -- & that you can claim to be a
Mahayanist denying every basic tenant of that faith is oh so Zen).

Paghat loves to know everything.

I'm perfectly aware that knowing more than you know doesn't mean I know a
great deal at all. But really, that you persist in abhoring a love of
knowledge is very unbuddhist of you.

I feel sorry for her. She's a very angry woman.

Don't project your anger on others. I rarely engage you in anything
because you're nuts. I really thought that in my first factual correction
you'd have no reason to lose your marbles again, but as you like to be
rude while you repeat & justify your errors, I can play it your rude way
too. A civil conversation being impossible with you, then a heated one
will do.

If you weren't so damned angry it wouldn't bother you so much to have such
a big error corrected. You could have as easily laughed at yourself &
said, Oh I know, I don't know where I got that dumb statement, but oh
well. You may well have good reasons in your life to be angry instead of
amused, sure, so when you project that on me, ninety-nine times out of a
hundred I overlook it. And will probably overlook it the next ninety-nine
times you pull that one out.

But the only real correction I intended before you got so ****y was when
you call this sort of stuff Atheism which is simply silly. You heap lies
on silliness pretend the Dalai Lama personally told you so. That you can't
even now admit to posting outrageous nonsense is almost comical. Sticking
to the entirely incorrect idea that buddhists are atheists is your
stubbornness, not mine; your response to the correction is your anger, not
mine. I will own up to my own failure at kindness similar to yours, but
then I'm not pretending to be a follower of mahayana northern buddhism. I
like to discuss this stuff because I loved my mom whose faith it was, &
because I find human capacity for myth-making to be fascinating stuff, NOT
because I think you're ignorant though you respond as though that's the
whole point. Yet when in the past I've attempted to be kind to you, you've
just gotten ****ier. But I will even so close with as kind a thought as I
can muster in your behalf:

It's not important that you know so little; it's more important, for your
own well being, that you cease to get so peevish & defensive about your
own mistakes.

-paggers

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com