Archetypal Buddha?

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: Archetypal Buddha?

Postby heart » Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:29 am

gingercatni wrote:heres an article http://buddhism.about.com/od/vajrayanab ... tra101.htm that discusses this issue. It states that these buddhas are not believed in.

As a pureland buddhist i believe in the buddhas, why would the buddha speak about them if they are made up? could this view just be part of the reformation that became vajrayana buddhism? distinguishing it from mahayana? there are other people on the net that have similar views to the article, i posted it as it best described what i've been trying to explain here.


Buddhism isn't a one single view kind of religion on the metaphysical and philosophical side I am afraid. In Vajrayana there are many differences in the way how to approach the Buddha's, for many different people with different inclination. It is no small matter unfortunately. I am still not sure what bothers you?

/magnus
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3133
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Archetypal Buddha?

Postby gingercatni » Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:43 am

heart wrote:
gingercatni wrote:heres an article http://buddhism.about.com/od/vajrayanab ... tra101.htm that discusses this issue. It states that these buddhas are not believed in.

As a pureland buddhist i believe in the buddhas, why would the buddha speak about them if they are made up? could this view just be part of the reformation that became vajrayana buddhism? distinguishing it from mahayana? there are other people on the net that have similar views to the article, i posted it as it best described what i've been trying to explain here.


Buddhism isn't a one single view kind of religion on the metaphysical and philosophical side I am afraid. In Vajrayana there are many differences in the way how to approach the Buddha's, for many different people with different inclination. It is no small matter unfortunately. I am still not sure what bothers you?

/magnus


What bothers me is one school believes the buddhas are real enlightened beings reigning over their buddha fields, whereas vajrayana see's them as aspects of the buddha and not real at all, it sort of invalidates my practice.....probably not explaining myself well...
gingercatni
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:09 pm
Location: Belfast Northern Ireland

Re: Archetypal Buddha?

Postby heart » Mon Dec 24, 2012 1:09 am

gingercatni wrote:What bothers me is one school believes the buddhas are real enlightened beings reigning over their buddha fields, whereas vajrayana see's them as aspects of the buddha and not real at all, it sort of invalidates my practice.....probably not explaining myself well...


I can assure you Vajrayana practitioners believe that Buddhas are real enlightened beings that might or not manifest a Buddha field. Vajrayana do also teach the methods to become such a Buddha within one life. No need to feel that Vajrayana invalidates your practice, just keep an open mind and realize that there are so many different valid practices within Buddhism.

/magnus
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3133
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Archetypal Buddha?

Postby catmoon » Mon Dec 24, 2012 6:32 am

I'm having trouble getting a grip on the archetypical Buddha concept. Does it differ from the idea of a primordial Buddha?
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2995
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Archetypal Buddha?

Postby Johnny Dangerous » Mon Dec 24, 2012 7:21 am

My advice is to try to let go a bit of labeling things as real and unreal. I know it's really tempting, it is the culture some of us were raised in. I think though that the...flavor of the kind of real and unreal you are grabbing at just doesn't fit, you wont answer the questions through anything but your practice, using your conceptual mind to ask questions affirming or negating the reality of Buddhas just won't get you anywhere.

From my little learning in Vajrayana so far..they are not believed to be "made up", but they are not existent entities exactly either, the Chenrezig/Avalokiteshvara teachings emphasize the emptiness of the deities appearance. Again, not something we can ascertain the truth of through words I think.

That has been my experience at any rate.

So here's your question:

How is something that is an aspect of one of the three bodies not existing? How is an aspect of Buddha not existing?
"We're chained to the world and we all gotta pull" -Tom Waits
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2878
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA

Re: Archetypal Buddha?

Postby Kim O'Hara » Mon Dec 24, 2012 8:44 am

catmoon wrote:I'm having trouble getting a grip on the archetypical Buddha concept. Does it differ from the idea of a primordial Buddha?

Hi, catmoon,
Just for people like you, me and the others having some difficulty being sure about the phrase, I did a Google search on ["archetypal Buddha" tibetan buddhism].
I got only 1400 results, which tells me it's not all that common :thinking: and a quick look at the snippets on the results page tells me that it is not always used the same way :thinking: but I haven't got time to take it any further ... over to you :tongue:

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 920
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Archetypal Buddha?

Postby heart » Mon Dec 24, 2012 10:21 am

catmoon wrote:I'm having trouble getting a grip on the archetypical Buddha concept. Does it differ from the idea of a primordial Buddha?


The OP is talking about yidams actually. But Buddha's such as Samanthabadhra, Vajradhara, Vajrasattva and the heads of the five Buddha families are what is sometimes referred to as archetypical Buddha's. But this archetypical is a Jungian idea.

/magnus
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3133
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Previous

Return to Tibetan Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Johnny Dangerous, M.G., zerwe and 18 guests

>