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 tatpurusa » Sun Nov 17, 2013 1:11 am

Back on topic:

According to Bon tradition, the founder of Bon, Buddha Tonpa Shenrab Miwoche, was born about 18000 years ago, and had a lifespan of thousands of years.

Living Bonpo masters, like Yongdzin Tenzin Namdak, do interpret these numbers literally.
tatpurusa
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:17 am

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby tatpurusa » Sun Nov 17, 2013 1:43 am

A lot of people get attracted to Buddhism, because it is more logical and more compatible with Western scientific views than other religions.
Nevertheless, Buddhism is also full of teachings and stories that, if taken literally, contradict those views.

Quite often scientifically educated Westerners try to "purify" Buddhism from thoughts contradicting to those "scientific" (and therefore only possibly true) views.
Very much like modern Christian theologists do with their own religion, they try to interpret those incompatible parts of Buddhism as mere metaphors, pointing to the cessation of suffering.
Though it is true that everything in Buddhism has something to do with liberation from suffering, as much as that there can be found many metaphors within Buddhist literature, especially in Tantric scriptures; nevertheless there is no real justification to consider things like descriptions of siddhis etc. as mere metaphors. They are meant and interpreted literally within the living tradition, as probably have ever been during the history of Buddhism.

I personally have difficulty to understand how "scientific purist" Buddhists can identify themselves with Mahayana/Vajrayana/Tantric Buddhism, where the "magical" and transcendental parts play a relatively important role.
Theravada, Tripitaka are much closer to their ideals IMO, although not even these are completely free of those magical elements.
tatpurusa
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:17 am

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby Malcolm » Sun Nov 17, 2013 2:11 am

tatpurusa wrote:Back on topic:

According to Bon tradition, the founder of Bon, Buddha Tonpa Shenrab Miwoche, was born about 18000 years ago, and had a lifespan of thousands of years.

Living Bonpo masters, like Yongdzin Tenzin Namdak, do interpret these numbers literally.


There is not simply one tradition about this. It is like the Nyingmapa traditions around Padmasambhava. Not every account (i.e. the earlier accounts) has him appearing in a lotus blossom. Some accounts even portray him as having a human father and mother. :o
Last edited by Malcolm on Sun Nov 17, 2013 2:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10152
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby Malcolm » Sun Nov 17, 2013 2:13 am

Aemilius wrote:
Madam Blavatsky, who has been mentioned here, concretely experienced how the social order Religion and the social order of Science behave when they encountered her paranormal powers and capacities.


Right, she did not take kindly to being found out as a fraudulent con artist.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10152
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Sun Nov 17, 2013 2:34 am

tatpurusa wrote:If we are already at it ...
No "scientific proof", but interesting anyway:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRuxw-nZoJw


It is a hole in a rock which,
if you have ever seen human foot,
reminds you of the shape of a human foot.
But that is all.
People do this all the time.
We look at a constellation and say it resembles an animal or a big dipper.

The narrator elaborates on this granite rock formation,
talking about how mud looks squished around a footprint
and this creates the illusion that something more is there.
but where are the other footprints?
Why is it vertical?
I can't believe people still fall for this kind of thing.

look at this arrangement of shapes.
if you see a face, that is merely a projection of your own mind.
This has never been a picture of a face.
.
.
.
Attachments
01aa.jpg
01aa.jpg (4.23 KiB) Viewed 293 times
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: 2798
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Sun Nov 17, 2013 2:42 am

tatpurusa wrote:
I personally have difficulty to understand how "scientific purist" Buddhists can identify themselves with Mahayana/Vajrayana/Tantric Buddhism, where the "magical" and transcendental parts play a relatively important role.


I'll tell you how I do it.
My practice is not based on anything I cannot verify to my own satisfaction
and things my teachers teach, when I have doubts about those things,
I give them the "benefit of the doubt"
which means, "okay, I'll go along with it. I will try it out and see for myself".
And sometimes, as a result, a lot of "scientifically unexplainable" stuff occurs.
And sometimes not.
But the amazing stories of "supernatural feats", otherwise,
have no meaning for me whatsoever.
My practice would be exactly the same without them.
and in that regard, it doesn't matter whether they are true or not.
.
.
.
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: 2798
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby tatpurusa » Sun Nov 17, 2013 9:06 am

Malcolm wrote:like the Nyingmapa traditions around Padmasambhava. Not every account (i.e. the earlier accounts) has him appearing in a lotus blossom. Some accounts even portray him as having a human father and mother. :o


Exactly. Like the Bonpo tradition, regarding him as the son of the mahasiddha Drenpa Namkha.
tatpurusa
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:17 am

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby dharmagoat » Sun Nov 17, 2013 11:13 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:It is a hole in a rock which,
if you have ever seen human foot,
reminds you of the shape of a human foot.
But that is all.
People do this all the time.
We look at a constellation and say it resembles an animal or a big dipper.

The narrator elaborates on this granite rock formation,
talking about how mud looks squished around a footprint
and this creates the illusion that something more is there.
but where are the other footprints?
Why is it vertical?
I can't believe people still fall for this kind of thing.

If the presenter of this video knew anything about geology, he would know that granite is not formed from mud, but from protrusions of molten rock. The only time this rock was soft enough to take an imprint was when it was red hot deep within the earth.

Also notice how the two middle toes are visibly shorter than the two outer toes, which is unlike any foot I have ever seen.

People fall for this kind of thing when they 1) don't observe properly, 2) don't think things through, and 3) lack basic scientific knowledge.
User avatar
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby tatpurusa » Sun Nov 17, 2013 11:42 pm

dharmagoat wrote:If the presenter of this video knew anything about geology, he would know that granite is not formed from mud, but from protrusions of molten rock. The only time this rock was soft enough to take an imprint was when it was red hot deep within the earth.


Ha ha ..., you manifest a serious lack of imagination (a disease of the scientific purist crowd :mrgreen: ). If they were so big, maybe they just adored warming their feet in molten rock :tongue:
tatpurusa
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:17 am

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby dharmagoat » Mon Nov 18, 2013 12:22 am

tatpurusa wrote:
dharmagoat wrote:If the presenter of this video knew anything about geology, he would know that granite is not formed from mud, but from protrusions of molten rock. The only time this rock was soft enough to take an imprint was when it was red hot deep within the earth.

Ha ha ..., you manifest a serious lack of imagination (a disease of the scientific purist crowd :mrgreen: ). If they were so big, maybe they just adored warming their feet in molten rock :tongue:

Maybe...

The possibilities are endless.
User avatar
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby jeeprs » Mon Nov 18, 2013 12:48 am

Real skepticism is not a kind of blanket doubt about anything and everything that can't be validated scientifically.

It is more like 'suspension of judgement'.

You can be open to the fact that spiritual traditions know things that are not known to science, without necessarily being gullible about it. If you're attached to such ideas because they fascinate or titillate, then that is attachment. If you reject them because you think science won't validate them, that is aversion.

I think the middle path is open-minded skepticism, i.e., neither believing nor rejecting but suspending judgement.

Buddha himself was a skeptic. Not a 'scientific skeptic' obviously as it was a completely different period of history. But he always insisted on direct perception, understanding and seeing, not simply taking something on faith.
He that knows it, knows it not.
User avatar
jeeprs
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Mon Nov 18, 2013 1:06 am

tatpurusa wrote:
dharmagoat wrote:If the presenter of this video knew anything about geology, he would know that granite is not formed from mud, but from protrusions of molten rock. The only time this rock was soft enough to take an imprint was when it was red hot deep within the earth.


Ha ha ..., you manifest a serious lack of imagination (a disease of the scientific purist crowd :mrgreen: ). If they were so big, maybe they just adored warming their feet in molten rock :tongue:


The fact that it's an igneous rock occurred to me as well.
But, if they assume it's a footprint
then they are just taking it for granite that it's true.
:rolling:
.
.
.
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: 2798
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby dharmagoat » Mon Nov 18, 2013 1:35 am

Wonderfully terrible. :smile:
User avatar
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby Aemilius » Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:02 am

futerko wrote:
Aemilius wrote:"Fact" is an elastic concept. It easily transforms into a prejudice, like here when you have seen pictures of giant skeletons, you begin to call them "photoshopped", (without actual evidence of such deception). Then it gets repeated for a while, and you now believe it is a "fact", just because it conforms to people's preconceived ideas.


Yes, if there were more than just pictures of giant skeletons then the evidence would definitely point in that direction. Are you claiming to have seen them with your own eyes?


The point is that I haven't been to Alaska or to New Zealand, then why do I believe they exist? And similarly with thousands or hundred thousands of other things. I haven't seen them with my own eyes. And neither have You. But because of the social pressure and the social habit we believe they exist.

There are many more than just one person in Youtube telling us about the giant skeletons. There are about a dozen of them, and they have been there for years. There are more than one giant skeleton found in the earth. I think it is quite reasonable to believe that these pictures of giant skeletons are there for existing things.

There are many more such things, like a sparkplug that was found in a coal mine, inside a piece of coal. But one sparkplug, that was probably about 400 million years old, didn't change the whole archaeology overnight! Things like that are just curiosities, they don't change the established theory of human evolution. The social factors demand you to be normal and to accept the governing theory. Sociology explains very well how the system of humanity works.
svaha
User avatar
Aemilius
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby futerko » Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:38 am

Aemilius wrote:
futerko wrote:
Aemilius wrote:"Fact" is an elastic concept. It easily transforms into a prejudice, like here when you have seen pictures of giant skeletons, you begin to call them "photoshopped", (without actual evidence of such deception). Then it gets repeated for a while, and you now believe it is a "fact", just because it conforms to people's preconceived ideas.


Yes, if there were more than just pictures of giant skeletons then the evidence would definitely point in that direction. Are you claiming to have seen them with your own eyes?


The point is that I haven't been to Alaska or to New Zealand, then why do I believe they exist? And similarly with thousands or hundred thousands of other things. I haven't seen them with my own eyes. And neither have You. But because of the social pressure and the social habit we believe they exist.

There are many more than just one person in Youtube telling us about the giant skeletons. There are about a dozen of them, and they have been there for years. There are more than one giant skeleton found in the earth. I think it is quite reasonable to believe that these pictures of giant skeletons are there for existing things.

There are many more such things, like a sparkplug that was found in a coal mine, inside a piece of coal. But one sparkplug, that was probably about 400 million years old, didn't change the whole archaeology overnight! Things like that are just curiosities, they don't change the established theory of human evolution. The social factors demand you to be normal and to accept the governing theory. Sociology explains very well how the system of humanity works.


Yes, my first degree was in Sociology, so I am aware of these things.

I have no doubt that giant skeletons have been found, and are possibly awaiting identification, and that there have also been occasional injustices towards scientists who have been ahead of their time in anticipating the next new paradigm shift and who, due to peer pressure, have been ridiculed at the time.

I also have no doubt that there have been many hoaxes claiming the existence of giant human-like beings and 400 million year old sparkplugs.

One thing that Sociology and Buddhism both teach is not to cling too tightly to your object. It is one thing to question the truth claims of the reigning paradigm, and quite another to make alternative truth claims based upon lunatic theories.
The relative truths concerning who is making the claim, how they are making it, with what evidence, who's interests it serves, and how it impacts upon the current paradigm are the objects of Sociological study par excellence.

I am also fairly sure that were a sparkplug to be accurately carbon dated to be 400 million years old, then it would be more than just a curiosity.
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 futerko » Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:53 am

I found;

    "There's a bit of controversy around this artifact, as you can imagine. Some contend that the artifact was not inside a geode at all, but encased in hardened clay. The artifact itself has been identified by experts as a 1920s-era Champion spark plug."

and,

    "Unfortunately, we may never know for sure whether the Coso Artifact is in fact the world’s oldest spark plug and proof of ancient technology much more advanced than previously thought, or a simple geologic collision of the old and not-so-old."

So what you call, "one sparkplug, that was probably about 400 million years old" was actually from the 1920's and found in a rock that may or not have taken 500,000 years to form.

So you can see how these myths are created simply by someone getting the details slightly wrong and then inserting the word "probably" in there.
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 jeeprs » Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:53 am

Futerko wrote:I am also fairly sure that were a sparkplug to be accurately carbon dated to be 400 million years old, then it would be more than just a curiosity.


I reckon the Antikythera mechanism is quite amazing in its own right.

Wikipedia wrote:This machine has the oldest known complex gear mechanism and is sometimes called the first known analog computer, although the quality of its manufacture suggests that it may have had undiscovered predecessors during the Hellenistic Period. It appears to be constructed upon theories of astronomy and mathematics developed by Greek astronomers and is estimated to have been made around 100 BC.
He that knows it, knows it not.
User avatar
jeeprs
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby futerko » Mon Nov 18, 2013 11:05 am

jeeprs wrote:
I reckon the Antikythera mechanism is quite amazing in its own right.


Indeed, there has been evidence found of an ancient steam "engine," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile

...and a railway, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periander

...although the two weren't connected, however these are things which are not disputed by the "powers that be."

edit; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diolkos
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 » Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:00 pm

Aemilius wrote: The point is that I haven't been to Alaska or to New Zealand, then why do I believe they exist? And similarly with thousands or hundred thousands of other things. I haven't seen them with my own eyes. And neither have You. But because of the social pressure and the social habit we believe they exist.


By that same reasoning, how do we know you exist?
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: 2798
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:08 pm

futerko wrote:Indeed, there has been evidence found of an ancient steam "engine," ...and a railway,
...although the two weren't connected, however these are things which are not disputed by the "powers that be."


The point is, here is some offering of evidence.
But you can't just make a leap and say
"because I have evidence of something that until now nobody knew existed,
therefore anything that anybody assumes or can imagine is also likely to exist
even though there is no evidence to support it".

That just doesn't make sense.

.
.
.
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: 2798
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: deff, Johnny Dangerous and 31 guests

cron
>