Archetypal Buddha?

[heart]

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

[gingercatni]

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...

[heart]

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

[catmoon]

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

[Johnny Dangerous]

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?

[Kim O'Hara]

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 and a quick look at the snippets on the results page tells me that it is not always used the same way but I haven't got time to take it any further ... over to you


Kim

[heart]

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