Mdzog Phug and the Kosha

Discussion of the fifth religious tradition of Tibet.

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: Mdzog Phug and the Kosha

Postby Virgo » Sun Aug 05, 2012 1:46 am

Jikan wrote:Oh, I see. Looks like I misread your earlier post, Kevin.

I should have been clearer. I am not saying that cosmology is not important at all, or that it is not interesting. It is both. I am just saying that abhidharma is more important generally speaking, though in certain regards cosmology is very important.

Kevin
User avatar
Virgo
 
Posts: 1416
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Location: Globe

Re: Mdzog Phug and the Kosha

Postby deepbluehum » Sun Aug 05, 2012 2:11 am

Oh Virgo. Ay de mi con suerte!

One must learn to compartmentalize. Here the issue was limited. Did Vasu get his ideas from Bon? That's it.

Here's why that is important.

LTN says he did. He says Bon teachings are older than Vasu, which is how Vasu could get something from them. If that is not true, it calls into question the validity of Bon history.

Not Bon methodology. History.

However, if it is true, then that is very interesting, because it opens up the possibility for Buddhist history to be much more diverse than is generally held today.

As a side note, I think what you are picking up on is my disdain for one aspect of Abhidharma, that it has been ascribed to Buddha, when, in fact, monks made it up. I find it very weird and hypocritical that there was this huge lie made by folks with vows not to lie. I find it strange and troubling that this practice of making up lies and calling them Buddha's teachings is something diffused within all Buddhist schools. Again, this is a side note. Where the credibility has been tainted once, trust is difficult to maintain. The upshot is that one can still penetrate this manifold opacity and uncover the true gems of liberation.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Mdzog Phug and the Kosha

Postby Virgo » Sun Aug 05, 2012 2:24 am

deepbluehum wrote:LTN says he did. He says Bon teachings are older than Vasu, which is how Vasu could get something from them. If that is not true, it calls into question the validity of Bon history.

Not Bon methodology. History.

However, if it is true, then that is very interesting, because it opens up the possibility for Buddhist history to be much more diverse than is generally held today.

Your talking about a history from an age that is completely ending. That history doesn't matter much anymore. It all just gets lumped into old ways that wont exist soon.

deepbluehum wrote:
As a side note, I think what you are picking up on is my disdain for one aspect of Abhidharma, that it has been ascribed to Buddha, when, in fact, monks made it up. I find it very weird and hypocritical that there was this huge lie made by folks with vows not to lie. I find it strange and troubling that this practice of making up lies and calling them Buddha's teachings is something diffused within all Buddhist schools. Again, this is a side note.


I am pretty sure the various chapters of the Abhidharma were taught by Arhats. The Theravada sect claim their Abhidhamma was taught by the Buddha, and it probably was in pure visions.

deepbluehum wrote:Where the credibility has been tainted once, trust is difficult to maintain. The upshot is that one can still penetrate this manifold opacity and uncover the true gems of liberation.


Kevin
User avatar
Virgo
 
Posts: 1416
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Location: Globe

Previous

Return to Bön

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

>