Ancient Buddhas

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Wed Nov 13, 2013 4:10 am

asunthatneversets wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:Evolution is a fact.

No one has questioned evolution. Only the validity of the reigning model.


All that has been said, by you, is:
"You would be hard pressed to declare that there is any unassailable evidence to back up the reigning theory regarding the origins of mankind."

But in science, all evidence is assailable.
That's the difference between the scientific method and the religious method.
And you are welcome to show that the "reigning theory" , as you call it, is wrong.
But just saying,"well there could be another explanation" doesn't mean anything.
Having doubt is a good thing, but doubt by itself doesn't diminish the validity of the evidence on hand.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby asunthatneversets » Wed Nov 13, 2013 4:18 am

All I'm saying is the reigning paradigm isn't bullet proof, and there is continually new evidence appearing which contradicts it.

I also never said the evidence itself is associated with belief, though the model erected around the evidence surely is.

My point with the length in lifespan, was merely to say that 'if' conditions allowed, it may be possible. That is all. You seem to be extrapolating that I'm asserting that these theories are indeed flawless and true, I am not. I haven't made any definitive claims, you are the only one guilty of that.
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby catmoon » Wed Nov 13, 2013 7:46 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Is it possible that a living organism could survive for 20,000 years?
Yes. it is entirely possible.
Is there even a spec of evidence to suggest that such a thing has ever occurred?
No, there isn't.
is it possible that evidence of such an occurrence will ever be found?
maybe, maybe not.


Well, we have in hand a living bristlecone pine tree that is ring-dated to an age of over 5000 years. We have sea grasses in the Mediterranean that have been cloning and extending themselves for an estimated 200,000 years. We have the Oregon and Michigan fungi complexes. And we have a number of cases of bacteria being cultivated from inside salt crystals and lumps of amber that seem to go back farther still. So there are specks of evidence that an organism can live 20,000 years. Many specks. It's darn near an established fact.

I laud your efforts to combat the pseudo-thought of conspiracy theorists, it really needs to be done, but it has to be done accurately.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2916
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby Aemilius » Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:42 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Aemilius wrote:In Buddhism you have the proof of Dhyana

That doesn't make any sense. Dhyana is meditation.
Aemilius wrote:How do You view these material evidences http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azjWu6Uva8k ?


There is nothing here. Just a lot of "what if" and 'some people say there is a cover up" ...which means absolutely nothing.
I can't believe anybody takes this seriously.

And where is there any proof of supernormal powers?


What is accepted as truth is a result of social laws, result of the laws that govern of human behaviour, the laws of authority. Why doesn't a giant skeleton mean anything at all? Because it is against the established social structure, against the social hierarchy that is in power. Because people are ruled by ridicule, you are afraid of being laughed at, afraid of being shut outside of the circle of "normal people", maybe even afraid of losing your job and your social status. Therefore you don't see a giant skeleton, you don't see anything that would disturb your view and your social position.

You have to attain yourself the Dhyanas and Supernormal powers, then there is proof. It is like climbing the mountain yourself, and then knowing what it is like there.
Buddha did actually promise more than just "the end of suffering". In the Pali suttas he says that if you attain the Dhyanas you can fly in space, even as far as the Sun and the Moon. This Sutta is included in the sutta translations at http://www.accestoinsight. He promised other things too, like attainment of the three knowledges.

The attainment of supernormal powers is personal. If You attain the power of seeing your past lives, that is very personal. Who will believe You at that time? Your parents? Your spouse? Or your work mates? Or maybe You will know how the social laws really function?
Last edited by Aemilius on Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
svaha
User avatar
Aemilius
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby dharmagoat » Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:45 am

Aemilius wrote:In the Pali suttas he says that if you attain the Dhyanas you can fly in space, even as far as the Sun and the Moon.

Which, when you think about it, is a sure-fire way to get children to eat their spinach.
User avatar
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby Lhug-Pa » Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:47 am

*Need more time to edit, might re-post later*
Last edited by Lhug-Pa on Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:14 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Lhug-Pa
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby dharmagoat » Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:04 am

Here there be monsters.
User avatar
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby Paul » Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:13 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:Well, if humans have two eyes, then it is not so hard to imagine that some might have four eyes. And if they can have four eyes, then there is no reason not to suspect that some might even have eight.
And if humans can have eight eyes, then why on earth not eight legs?
Could it be that humans are actually spiders? Look at the evidence; here we both are, on the web.

Image
Image

"Do not block your six senses; delight in them with joy and ease.
All that you take pleasure in will strengthen the awakened state.
With such a confidence, empowered by the regal state of natural mind,
The training now is simply this: lets your six senses be at ease and free." - Princess Parani
User avatar
Paul
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 8:12 pm

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby catmoon » Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:24 pm

Aemilius wrote:What is accepted as truth is a result of social laws, result of the laws that govern of human behaviour, the laws of authority. Why doesn't a giant skeleton mean anything at all? Because it is against the established social structure, against the social hierarchy that is in power. Because people are ruled by ridicule, you are afraid of being laughed at, afraid of being shut outside of the circle of "normal people", maybe even afraid of losing your job and your social status. Therefore you don't see a giant skeleton, you don't see anything that would disturb your view and your social position.



My scientific beliefs fly in the face of what you are saying. They cause considerable social rejection, the nerd and geek labels get thrown around, and I am rejected and the grounds of lack of faith so I get in trouble there too. To follow the scientific view today is to be an outcast to some small degree at least. There are a lot of people in the world today who are only interested in cars, beer, football and women and they reject scientific thought and the holders of such thoughts. Then there are the southern Baptists....

More importantly, the most important thing about the scientific system of thought is that it is NOT based on social laws, authority, or established social structures. The scientific arbiters of truth are experiment and evidence. Without them no idea has scientific credence. And no amount of preconception, convention and authority will hold against a single, replicable experiment. If a child were to appear who knew how to build perpetual motion machines with Lego, a huge swath of scientific truth would be changed overnight.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2916
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby dimeo » Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:55 pm

Sounds similar to teachings from many other world religions that talk about 'gods from the sky' who came to earth and had children with our ancient ancestors.

Ever watched the TV show 'ancient aliens'? It really inspires the imagination, and makes you question what's fact and whats fiction.
dimeo
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:31 pm

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby xabir » Wed Nov 13, 2013 2:36 pm

20000 year old Buddhas...

Image
xabir
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:14 pm

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Wed Nov 13, 2013 2:48 pm

catmoon wrote:
I laud your efforts to combat the pseudo-thought of conspiracy theorists, it really needs to be done, but it has to be done accurately.

The very fact that you have proven me wrong by providing evidence evidence which contradicts my statement is proof that the scientific method is valid. Muchas gracias.

On the other hand, Aemilius' statement,
Aemilius wrote: Why doesn't a giant skeleton mean anything at all? Because it is against the established social structure, against the social hierarchy that is in power."
is just nonsense. Sorry, Aemilius, but that's just a conspiracy theory. All sorts of new discoveries (backed by evidence) are rocking the boat and upsetting the faithful all the time, upsetting the old social order. That's why the creationists & others get so worked up.
Show me the giant skeleton, not just the photoshop version.
if one cannot be produced, the answer
"well then, somebody must be hiding it, because theoretically a giant skeleton might be possible"
....ummmm....that just doesn't work.

How would being able to (literally) fly in space, even as far as the Sun and the Moon end suffering?
What would you do when you got there?
On the other hand, it describes perfectly the state of mind which is free of suffering.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby asunthatneversets » Wed Nov 13, 2013 5:30 pm

catmoon wrote:I laud your efforts to combat the pseudo-thought of conspiracy theorists, it really needs to be done, but it has to be done accurately.

If this is directed towards my interaction with PadmaVonSamba then I have to argue that no conspiracy theory or pseudo-thought has been presented. All that has occurred is questioning the presently accepted model surrounding the scientific evidence we have. If that's pseudo-thought, then science might as well throw in the towel now.
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby Lhug-Pa » Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:25 pm

:good:

"Creationists"? "Believing the Earth to literally be only 6,000 years old"? "Conspiracy theorists"?

It's quite the straw-man fest here isn't it.

To compare the believing of the Earth to be only 6,000 years old to Buddha-Dharma Anthropology & Cosmogony, is ludicrous.


PadmaVonSamba wrote:...there is much more profound truth to the concept of a buddha living 20,000 years
as a metaphor than as a literal statement.


Sure, such a statement could in some contexts be symbolic of the number of Bhumis reached, or something similar. This however does not mean that some of the "fantastical" sounding phenomena described by the Buddha-Dharma are not literal.


smcj wrote:HHDL says that if science has something right, and Dharma something wrong, then concede the point and move on.


"IF" being the big if here.

Asunthatneversets is right...

(And in case anyone missed it):


:good: :good: :good:

...modern scientism's so-called facts are oftentimes only theories (or as ASTNS said, they're bits & pieces of evidence that are constructed into theories which are passed off as "fact"), theories that are in a lot of cases heavily funded by corporate, government, pharmaceutical-company, and military-industrial-complex interests. And educators, media outlets, (and even Buddhists), etc. regurgitate the corpocratic propaganda as if it were undeniable fact.

Evolution may be a fact, but there are good reasons why the widely-accepted model of it ought to be subject to major scrutiny.

Edit: The following link is to the Sutra section of Jigme Lingpa's Treasury of Precious Qualities, so I think it is okay to post here:



Party-line evolutionists don't take into account the possibility of devolution (i.e. that some apes and/or various hominids could have devolved from humans) because contemporary scientism-ists are either ignorant or too close-minded to even consider the possibility of devolution in light of the above-linked-to Buddha-Dharma Teaching (of course we can forgive the men of scientism's not having been exposed to such teachings, however we cannot excuse their overall narrow-mindedness).

Of course I'm not trying to replace evolution with devolution; I'm just referring to their existing side-by-side.

We're not talking about trying to prove flying-spaghetti monsters here either. We're talking about a system of knowledge (Buddha-Dharma) that has proven to be worthy of getting taken seriously. Of course we shouldn't take everything of the Buddha-Dharma literally (for example the ones who first wrote about Meru Cosmology must have known that Meru Cosmology is symbolic, albeit with some literal—yet non-physical—aspects), as some of the Buddha's teachings are provisional. At the same time, much of Buddha-Dharma is definitive.

And yes it is likely that some of the giant skeletons that Aemilius posted a link to were photo-shopped, but there are many other sources about the existence of giants; including the writings of Upasika Blavatsky—who was certainly a friend of the Buddha-Dharma even though she was seemingly more learned in the 'Vehicles of Gods and Men' than she was in the Buddha-Dharma proper that she had taken Refuge in—which were (and still are) capable of causing the self-proclaimed men of science to question their theories (which they often dislike doing, so they resort to smug ridicule or simply go into ignore mode).

Oh and before anyone accuses H.P. Blavatsky of racial prejudice (which inevitably happens whenever her name is brought up in forums), first see:

THIS POST with quotes of her alleged racism

My main criticism of H.P. Blavatsky is her criticism of Bön; because she apparently assumed that all Bönpo's are the same as the negative Böns that Padmasambhava subdued, which is a mistake because there have always been positive Bönpo's both before and after Padmasambhava arrived in Tibet. If she were still physically alive today, I'm sure that she would rectify her mistake.

(Also, for those skeptical of her Stanzas of Dzyan and Books of Kiu-te, see David Pratt and David Reigle)

Upasika Blavatsky on Giants:

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd2-1-16.htm

On Science:

http://www.theosophytrust.mobi/485-the- ... of-science

Upasika Blavatsky on Science wrote:"In our day, as has been proved repeatedly, no statement can hope for a fair trial, or even hearing, unless its arguments run on the lines of legitimate and accepted inquiry, remaining strictly within the boundaries of either official, materialistic science, or emotional, orthodox theology.

"Our age, reader, is a paradoxical anomaly. It is pre-eminently materialistic, and as pre-eminently pietist, a Janus age, in all truth."


That^.

She was way ahead of her time for a European, and still is light-years ahead of your average party-line spouting European & Ashkenazi secularist-scientism-ist despite her having physically passed away over 100 years ago.

Also (Edit: I wrote this before Aemilius posted above), the difference between creationists who believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and the Buddha-Dharma's assertion of Siddhis such as the Five or Six Abhijna(s); is that the latter are said to be possible for Buddha-Dharma practitioners to attain in this very lifetime, while the former is based on mere belief (because in Abrahamic exotericism in general, one cannot know the truth about many things until after one physically dies).

By the way, Siddhis, Jhanas, and Abhijnas are in harmony with the Scientific Method, as according to instructions the way to attain them is based on precise methods and also of personal trial & error. It is just that some of them would be difficult to display to others; and, the ones that one could display to others, are likely never shown to those who have an overly-skeptical or even negative attitude towards such things.

If there is any step of the Scientific Method missing from the process of the attaining of Siddhis, Jhanas, Abhijnas, etc.; then please share with us what that is.
User avatar
Lhug-Pa
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby catmoon » Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:33 pm

Blavatsky? You are going to quote Blavatsky as some kind of authority? Ludicrous. Ridiculous. Ronald MacDonald swings more credibility than she does. What next? Donald Duck on existentialism? L Ron Hubbard on compassion? David Koresh as an authority on tantra? I know, let's ask Ronald Reagan about this. We'll just run a little seance.
Last edited by catmoon on Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2916
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby futerko » Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:36 pm

catmoon wrote:Blavatsky? You are going to quote Blavatsky as some kind of authority? Ludicrous. Ridiculous. Ronald MacDonald swings more credibility than she does.


:rolling:

Yeah, but he does have those huge shoes. What more proof of giants do you need?
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche
User avatar
futerko
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:44 pm

Lhug-Pa wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:...there is much more profound truth to the concept of a buddha living 20,000 years as a metaphor than as a literal statement.

Sure, such a statement could in some contexts be symbolic of the number of Bhumis reached, or something similar. This however does not mean that some of the "fantastical" sounding phenomena described by the Buddha-Dharma are not literal.


If 20,000 actually meant something specific, but "symbolically", that would still be literal.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby Lhug-Pa » Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:04 pm

As expected, more insubstantial smug ridicule, and no substance.

Okay, two can play at logical fallacies. Here's an appeal to authority:

H.H. the Dalai Lama found Upasika Blavatsky's writings worth considering; and who has more credibility: The Dalai Lama, or random internet forum members (such as myself and most others who post here).

And I also quoted the Omniscient Jigme Lingpa as well.

Padmavonsamba, if 20,000 years is metaphoric rather than symbolic and/or literal, do you know what it could be metaphoric of, or have any ideas?
Last edited by Lhug-Pa on Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Lhug-Pa
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:09 pm

Lhug-Pa wrote:
To compare the believing of the Earth to be only 6,000 years old to Buddha-Dharma Anthropology & Cosmogony, is ludicrous.


Why so? I know a gentleman, a lama and former monk (born in Tibet) who lives in upstate New York today. He holds a place of importance in one of the four major Tibetan lineages. About 25 years ago, he and I met a man, and astronomer with a telescope focused on Saturn. My friend was quite astonished, and perhaps a little bothered, to learn from our visitor that other planets have moons, and that our Moon is not flat, and does not emit its own light, but instead only reflects light from the Sun. He had grown up in a monastery, and only heard the official Buddhist version, and which, as it turns out, are wrong.

Now, his monastery wasn't "heavily funded by corporate, government, pharmaceutical-company, and military-industrial-complex interests" but Tibetan monasteries were influenced by the interests of the various royal families and people with political interests...not that either makes any difference to this discussion.

I only mention this because every civilization and culture has a history of the universe based on religious doctrine, with many people who believe and perpetuate religious doctrine as absolute truth, even though there is no evidence to support it. Truth is not democratic. Things are not true merely because a lot of people have always believed them to be true. Likewise, the fact that evidence is not presentable for 20,000 year old giants or whatever does not mean that someone must be intentionally hiding the truth.

I am still waiting for actual evidence of a giant skeleton.
For that matter, I am still waiting for proof that
the Buddha actually said any of the things people claim he said.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:20 pm

Lhug-Pa wrote: Padmavonsamba, if 20,000 years is metaphoric rather than symbolic and/or literal, do you know what it could be metaphoric of, or have any ideas?

If the Buddha said it, then it a metaphor for the cessation of suffering.

"20,000 years", as with the phrase "84,000 paths to Dharma"
is meant as something beyond the ordinary human imagination,
the mind which is limited due to clinging to appearances.
The true nature of mind is limitless.

Measurements of time and size mean nothing to a Buddha.
they have nothing to do with the true nature of things.
If you look at that sutra, He is expressing the limitless nature of limitless Buddhas.

To quote from "On Believing in Mind" (Hsin Hsin Ming / (Shinjin-No-Mei)
By Seng-t'san, third Chinese patriarch of Zen, who phrased it quite elegantly:

This Absolute Reason (realized true nature of mind) is beyond time and space,
For it one instant is ten thousand years;
Whether we see it or not,
It is manifest everywhere in all the ten quarters.

Infinitely small things are as large as large things can be,
For here no external conditions obtain;
Infinitely large things are as small as small things can be,
For objective limits are here of no consideration.

.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Asbestos Buddha, Inge, Lhug-Pa, Lotus108, MSNbot Media, palchi, Simon E. and 21 guests

>