Hi :
I wonder how you dear Bhuddists pray. I have read a book about Shakia Bhudda and his teachings. I can say I love him. I keep a tiny statue of Him at home. But I donot know how you pray. I say, May God bless this and that or May God keep you from any danger. But what about you?
I am very interested in knowing some useful prayings. With love and thanks.

Buddhists don't necessarily pray at all, because Buddhists don't necessarily believe in God.

What do you mean 'useful prayings?'

We don't pray exactly, unless you consider every action taken with awareness to be like a prayer. Meditation is the closest equivalent to religious prayer. The difference is, everything is already considered to be ok, the meditation is not intended to produce changes in the world, but a change in your perception of it. Who cares if you love some guru, that's easy, Buddha didn't want to be loved or worshipped. Try extending your love to the wider world. Can we really avoid danger by petitioning a deity? Danger and suffering are part of life and unavoidable, deal with these things directly as they come up.



Also it's spelled buddhist, not "bhuddist".

*For this post the part of SpyMoose will be played by a Christian fundamentalist*

Bwah-Ha! You fools! He has tricked you into admiting you are godless heathens doing the devils work! *Quotes obscure bible passage to the effect that if you dont prey god will turn your genitalia to worms* See! Now what do you have to say for yourselves? *raises eyebrow meaningfully and fully expects you to feel chastised because he pointed out that the bible condemns your nonprayer*

Originally posted by TheERK
Buddhists don't necessarily pray at all, because Buddhists don't necessarily believe in God.

What do you mean 'useful prayings?'
Hi
Christian pray when they go to the church. They may pray when they go to bed or when they wake up, Muslims pray five times a day. You don`t. That I understand.
But what a about special cases? For example when a dear one is in pain and in bed. Or when you want to have something to eat and you don`t have money. Or when you are in desperate need of something. What do you do in these cases? Do you say, O Dear Buddha, or somethign like that, help us out of this misery?
I hope I have made my self clear.
By useful prayings I mean, praying for special occasions, like the ones I mentioned above or like when a couple want to marry or at the time of death. thanks :)

There isn't anyone for a Buddhist to pray to. Buddhist prayer is not 'to' some other entity.

Originally posted by letitbe2
But what a about special cases? For example when a dear one is in pain and in bed. Or when you want to have something to eat and you don`t have money. Or when you are in desperate need of something. What do you do in these cases? Do you say, O Dear Buddha, or somethign like that, help us out of this misery?

No.
Nothing like that.
There is no occasion to pray to Buddha.
Buddha is not even a person or entity, it is a state.
That is the most common misconception about Buddhism.
When people talk about "THE Buddha" they are usually referring to the ORIGINAL Buddha. He was a man. His name was Siddhatta Gtama. He was not a God, but a man who lived in Northern India from 563 BCE to 483 BCE.
What he taught, referred to as The Dhamma (or Dharma), was that the meaning of life is to achieve human perfection. He said that we are all in a cycle of birth and rebirth, or reincarnation. This cycle is called samsara. The goal is to break free of this cycle and attain nirvana. Kind of like Heaven, but not really. Buddha said that the way to break free from samsara is achieve a state of enlightenment. The Dhamma outlines the path to enlightenment. Once you attain enlightenment you have released yourself from this world by basically releasing your desire to BE HERE. Craving is the proximate cause for suffering, and to be released from samsara , you must be free from craving. Free from craving for sensual pleasure, material possessions, glory, power, fame, ego, craving for re-birth, even craving for nirvana. At that point, you are a Buddha. An enlightened one. Someone who does not have desires. One of the ways to achieve that goal is through meditation (not prayer).
Siddhatta was an atheist.

There is more to it than that, of course, but you can't attain enlightenment just by reading a description of a Buddha anyway, so I will leave it at that. ;)

So, yes, you can be a Buddha too, and I am sorry if it is disappointing, but no one would pray to you either.

What is in a name....

The Buddha who is the founder of the Buddhist religion is called Buddha Shakyamuni. "Shakya" is the name of the royal family into which he was born, and "Muni" means "Able One." Buddha Skakyamuni was born as a royal prince in 624 BC in a place called Lumbini, which was originally in northern India but is now part of Nepal. His mother's name was Queen Mayadevi and his father's name was King Shuddhodana.

One night, Queen Mayadevi dreamed that a white elephant descended from heaven and entered her womb. The white elephant entering her womb indicated that on that very night she had conceived a child who was a pure and powerful being. The elephant's descending from heaven indicated that her child came from Tushita heaven, the Pure Land of Buddha Maitreya. Later, when she gave birth to the child, instead of experiencing pain the queen experienced a special, pure vision in which she stood holding the branch of a tree with her right hand while the gods Brahma and Indra took the child painlessly from her side. They then proceeded to honor the infant by offering him ritual ablutions.

When the king saw the child he felt as if all his wishes had been fulfilled and he named the young prince "Siddhartha". He invited a Brahmin seer to make predictions about the prince's future. The seer examined the child with his clairvoyance and told the king, "There are signs that the boy could become either a chakravatin king, a ruler of the entire world, or a fully enlightened Buddha. However, since the time for chakravatin kings is now past it is certain that he will become a Buddha, and that his beneficial influence will pervade the thousand million worlds like the rays of the sun."

Link: http://www.aboutbuddha.org/life-of-buddha.htm

I see your point, Letitbe2, that in extreme circumstances, deists feel the need to appeal to a higher power to help them out. For all I know there might be Buddhist prayers intended for laypeople in trouble. But since most trouble is self-induced, that is the main focus of Buddhism. If problems are beyond our control, we might as well get used to it. Prayer, I feel, seems to be a way to avoid coming to terms with difficult circumstances; an attempt to feel in control when we are in fact helpless. In this way, prayer is more of a psychological crutch for the pray-er than a means to overcome the reality of problems.

That seems a bit of a misunderstanding of prayer. It has more purposes than just asking God for stuff in a crisis.

I believe that recent research has shown that prayers said for hospital patients recovering from operations has an impact on recovery rates even where neither those prayed nor the control groups knew they were being prayed for or by whom. Neither did the people praying know the patients. (One study was in Canada (Toronto?) but I can't remember the details).

The results have been published but I have no idea how they've been received.

Originally posted by Canute
That seems a bit of a misunderstanding of prayer. It has more purposes than just asking God for stuff in a crisis.

I believe that recent research has shown that prayers said for hospital patients recovering from operations has an impact on recovery rates even where neither those prayed nor the control groups knew they were being prayed for or by whom. Neither did the people praying know the patients. (One study was in Canada (Toronto?) but I can't remember the details).

The results have been published but I have no idea how they've been received.

Didn't Elizabeth Targ do a study on that?

Fraudulent results.

There are other such studies, but none of them have any significant effect. If you have a link to something that says otherwise, I'd be happy to read it.

It does seem that Targ's experiments are dodgy. I've lent my source to a friend so I'll have to get back to you about whether the claims I read about were based on Targ or not. I read them thinking they were interesting. However I suspect that if they had been judged to be good science then the research would be getting a lot more press.

Actualy, there are two missconceptions here.

Buddhists DO actualy pray in a sense. That is lay-followers do, in other words those who are not monks and devotees to the teaching of buddha often find spiritual refuge in some kind of converse with buddha and/or other key figures in buddhist lore, a form of prayer if you will. However this form of buddhism is considered as lower or slightly ineffective by the holders of the teaching as it does not offer a path to salvation or any real self-realization, however I think they do support it as it spawns faith in the buddhist teaching amongst the people and they also claim that by chanting certain 'prayers' you may be able to get through times of hardship and withstand the forces of evil.
As I said before, it isn't considered 'proper' buddhism to practice it solely through prayer. However in Tibet it is very common for monks to 'pray' at times, even to the extent of being a dayly thing, but in their case it is mostly to build faith and concentration.

Please also consider that the word prayer here and in what I am refering to within buddhist practice has a very different meaning to what we might consider prayer in the west, it usualy doesn't mean 'asking for help from higher forces' but rather the recitation of phrases that will help you personaly to make it through rough times no divine intervention involved.

Here is a practice involving recitation and contemplation of the Essence of Wisdom Sutra. It can be used to over come internal and external obstacles.


Going for refuge

I and all sentient beings, until we acheive enlightenment,
Go for refuge to Buddha, Dharma, and Samgha.
(3x)

Generating bodhichitta

Through the virtues I collect by giving and other perfections,
May I become a Buddha for the benefit of all
(3x)

Preliminaries

NAMO Guru, Teacher, Blessed One, and the Great Mother Prajnaparamita,
Surrounded by your Sons, the Buddhas of the ten directions and all Bodhisattavas;
I prostrate to this assembly, make offerings, and fo for refuge,
Please empower me with your blessings
(3x)

Reciting the Essence of Wisdom Sutra

(Sutra is as follows)

Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva, when practicing deeply the Prajna Paramita, perceives that all five skandhas are empty and is saved from all suffering and distress.

"Sariputra, form does not differ from emptiness, emptiness does not differ from form. That which is form is emptiness; that which is emptiness, form. The same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses, consciousness."

"Sariputra, all dharmas are marked with emptiness. They do not appear or disappear, are not tainted or pure, do not increase or decrease. Therefore, in emptiness, no forms, no feelings, perceptions, impulses, consciousness."

No eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind; no color, no sound, no taste, no touch, no object of mind, no realm of eyes, and so forth until no realm of mind consciousness. No ignorance and also no extinction of it, and so forth until no old age and death, and also no extinction of them. No suffering, no originations, no stopping, no path, no cognition. Also, no attainment, with nothing to attain.

The Bodhisattva depends of the Prajna Paramita, and his mind has no hindrance. Without any hindrance, no fears exist. Far apart from every perverted view, he dwells in Nirvana.

In the three worlds all Buddhas depend on Prajna Paramita, and attain Anuttara Samyak Sambodhi.

Therefore, know that Prajna Paramita is the great transcendent mantra, is the great bright mantra, is the utmost mantra, is the supreme mantra which is able to relieve all suffering an is true, not false. So proclaim the Prajna Paramita mantra, proclaim the mantra which says:

TAYATHA OM GATE GATE PARAGATE PARASAMGATE BODHI SÖHA

Reciting the mantra

TAYATHA OM GATE GATE PARAGATE PARASAMGATE BODHI SÖHA (3x, 7x, etc.)




Phew, here's a shorter one:

Requests to overcome hindrances

Great Mother Prajnaparamita, and all the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of the ten directions, through the power of your blessings may these true words of mine be acheived. Just as before, when by contemplating the profound meaning of the perfection of wisdom and recting it's words, Indra overcame all the harm of maras, non-humans, and so forth, in the same way, by my contemplating the profound meaning of the perfection of wisdom and reciting its words,

May all the harm of maras, non-humans, and so forth be overcome (clap)
May they become non-existent (clap)
May they be pacified. (clap)
May they be thoroughly pacified. (clap)



These are taken from the book Heart of Wisdom by Geshe Kelsang Gyasto, the essence of wisdom sutra was cut and pasted from a website and differs slightly from the books version. There is no copyright on religious texts and practice.

Nice post.

interesting...
thanks!

My pleasure, however the true meaning of the sutra is only grasped through an extensive commentary by a learned monk. So I highly recomend that you read the book if you are interested in learning more about Mahayana Buddhism and what they call the essentail teachings of buddha.

For example, the meaning of TAYATHA OM GATE GATE PARAGATE PARASAMGATE BODHI SÖHA can be translated as 'it is like this, go, go, perfectly go, perfectly and completely go, enlightenment, build the foundation.'

If you can decifer that without living for 50 years at a tibetan monastery my hat's off to you.

A classic Beachboys lyric. I can almost hear the harmonies. :D

Is it suggesting that one must learn to 'go' in the sense of go away, cease to exist as a 'self', learn how to depart the stage completely in order, through experience, to build an understanding of the foundation of oneself?

exsto_human you are absolutely correct.
I don't pray to the Buddha, I pray to the world. I am directing my prayers towards the people who need it, to uplift them and try to help them out. But you know when I am really in tight spot I ask the Buddha for help, my Christian ways are still existant, it helps because it calms you down but other than that the prayer was futile. Hopefully what i have said is correct, if not enlighten me. ;)

Originally posted by Voltaire
... I pray to the world.
I am directing my prayers towards the people who need it, to uplift them and try to help them out
... but other than that the prayer was futile.
HI:
I read your post I could not understand if fully. Could you be more specific on the above excerpts?
As for the opening thread, praying in in Islam - I am born in and brought up in a muslim family and live in a country most of its inhabitants are muslims but I am not one of them - is to converse with God and to ask him something general or personal.
Throug praying you feel you become close to that entity which is almost completely unknown to you. This you can do it anywhere, while sitting in a bus, walking or even watching a program on tv which you don`t like it.
Once I was reading a book, unfortunately I can`t remember its name, it was one of those general books giving people advice on how to promote their daily lives.
There, a priest - may God bless him- said to decrease stress while you are caught up in a traffic jam, or wating in queue pick some one and pray for him/her. Like, O God protect that man from falling or give that woman a good husband or any thing like that.
Is this kind of well- wishing possible in Buddhism? Can I ask the Buddha, these kind of things? I mean I can, I need not the permission. What I want to say is that is it normal in Buddhism?
I have some of the sayings of Shakiamoni Buddha, I read them every day. They are absolutely helpful. They are in Farsi.
"Finding good friends is hard" is one of them. Thanks
And one thing else, What is... Ten directions?

Originally posted by Voltaire
... I pray to the world.
I am directing my prayers towards the people who need it, to uplift them and try to help them out
... but other than that the prayer was futile.
HI:
I read your post I could not understand if fully. Could you be more specific on the above excerpts?
As for the opening thread, praying in in Islam - I am born in and brought up in a muslim family and live in a country most of its inhabitants are muslims but I am not one of them - is to converse with God and to ask him something general or personal.
Throug praying you feel you become close to that entity which is almost completely unknown to you. This you can do it anywhere, while sitting in a bus, walking or even watching a program on tv which you don`t like it.
Once I was reading a book, unfortunately I can`t remember its name, it was one of those general books giving people advice on how to promote their daily lives.
There, a priest - may God bless him- said to decrease stress while you are caught up in a traffic jam, or wating in queue pick some one and pray for him/her. Like, O God protect that man from falling or give that woman a good husband or any thing like that.
Is this kind of well- wishing possible in Buddhism? Can I ask the Buddha, these kind of things? I mean I can, I need not the permission. What I want to say is that is it normal in Buddhism?
I have some of the sayings of Shakiamoni Buddha, I read them every day. They are absolutely helpful. They are in Farsi.
"Finding good friends is hard" is one of them. Thanks
And one thing else, What is... Ten directions?

Originally posted by letitbe2

Is this kind of well- wishing possible in Buddhism? Can I ask the Buddha, these kind of things? I mean I can, I need not the permission. What I want to say is that is it normal in Buddhism?
I have some of the sayings of Shakiamoni Buddha, I read them every day. They are absolutely helpful. They are in Farsi.
"Finding good friends is hard" is one of them. Thanks
And one thing else, What is... Ten directions?

Of course it is:), and it's very normal. Compassion for others is at the core of Buddhist teaching. And praying through Buddha, wishing blessings upon others is usual practice.
The ten directions are very simply the four cardinal points, North, South, East and West. The four points in between, Northwest, Northeast etc... And the directions above and below.

I hope that helps.

Is this kind of well- wishing possible (leitbe)

religions are irrelevant. all you need is a consciousness and a will to make something happen. we create our worlds. label it prayer if it fits into the comfort zone.

I think there are a range of teachings in buddhism that are intended for people at different levels of understanding. It is important to remember, that the core teaching is not about being in touch with a diety, but has to do with yourself, and the sense of separation we feel between us and "the devine". I think the intent is to dissolve this separation because it is a illusion. To the extent that prayer accentuates this separation, it is wrong practice. There is a sense in this post, of trying to find some common ground between east and west, but I feel the approach is radically different. Its not that we all worship the same god in different forms. Meditation is the primary way, and it is fundamentally different than prayer. Prayer is whistling in the dark, meditation is adjusting to the darkness to see what is hidden there. There are some similarities, and you may pray in a meditative way, or you can meditate in a prayerful way, it depends on the intent.

Spidergoat

"To the extent that prayer accentuates this separation, it is wrong practice".

Well said - to me it sums up the whole issue of prayer in Buddhism.

Canute

There are different forms of Buddhism. Some buddist pray to the Hindu gods, some don't pray at all. Some meditate daily, and pull themselves away from the world. Some meditate daily, and involve themselves in the world. Some belive that the buddha escaped this world of suffering. Others believe that he was so compassionate, that he returned to earth after reaching Nirvana, in order to help others.

What pulls them all together are a few realizations and faiths:
1)there is suffering
2)there is a way out of suffering
3)everything that lives suffers

Once one and two are understood, compasion blooms from number three. Compasion for everything that lives in this world, because everything suffers pain and loss at times.

The main conclusion that the Buddha had about number 2 is this : the middle way. Extremes lead to an increase in suffering, so to reduce suffering one must find a path between those extremes. That path is the middle way. The way between pacifism and murder, between starvation and gluttony, between life and death.

I like Buddhism because it requires no prior beliefs. With the exception of re-incarnation, everything in it comes from simple observation of the world and that which lives in it. However, the ideas of Karma which rely on re-incarnation are not required to find compassion for all that suffers, so its removal from the equation doesn't remove compassion, it just removes the self-interested goal of bettering your future incarnations. Once re-incarnation and all its following ideas are removed, the basics of Buddism still stand, because they are formed from the most integral functions of the world we live in. If any part of Buddism is removed, it still works, because by simple thought and observation, the same principals are discoved.

I hope that you find peace in whatever you follow or learn from.


note: My Dad and I disagree on some things about religion. But after 12 years of disscussion, we discovered something: we believe in the same principals of life: there is joy, there is saddness, you can act on both, and change things. But you can never truely know all of what will happen. Our differences lie in one place: He believes in God, and asks forgiveness for everthing he does, incase it has negative results which he can't foresee. I don't believe in God, and allow myself to forgive my own mistakes, with the condition that I don't make them again. I remember to have compassion for myself, because I am one of the things which lives, joys and suffers in this world. I try hard, and fail in my own ignorance. I don't feel a need for a God in order to feel forgiven; my forgiveness is granted before the action is even taken.

River-Wind

Sorry - but I feel that to be an extremely misleading description of Buddhism.

Compassion emerges from Buddhist metaphysics, their knowledge of reality. Compassion emerges as an inevitable and unavoidable consequence of understanding the truth.

It is not a moral position, or just a result of Buddhist being nice people. Neither does one have to feel compassionate to practice Buddhism, (although either you won't get far or the compassionate feelings will creep up on you as you go).

The middle way is not (not in the way you say anyway) anything to do with reducing suffering.

That's also misleading, but not quite so much I hope. I don't believe that Buddhism can be explained any better than how to ride a bicycle.

Canute

..if canute is my fave poster......yes!

thanks Canute, for your opinion.



The middle way is not (not in the way you say anyway) anything to do with reducing suffering. "

It is my feeling that the eight-fold path and the the message of the lotus sutra refutes this. I am often wrong, however, so feel free to ignore me.


May I ask why you feel the middle way has nothing to do with the reduction of suffering? What is your interpretation of the middle way? Why? (I like learning new things, and one of the best new things to learn is a different view of something I think I already understand). thanks!

Originally posted by river-wind
It is my feeling that the eight-fold path and the the message of the lotus sutra refutes this. I am often wrong, however, so feel free to ignore me.]
I'm sure you're right (and I certainly won't feel free to ignore you). I know very little about the eight-fold path or the sutras.

However I didn't actually say the notion of the 'middle way' had nothing to do with suffering and compassion. I just felt you had over-emphasised the issue of suffering when you listed three core 'faiths'. They are not faiths. They are truths that emerge from other fundamental truths. I suppose I felt you were selling Buddhism a bit short.

Alfred North Whitehead said - 'Christianity ... has always been a religion seeking a metaphysic, in contrast to Buddhism which is a metaphysic generating a religion.' This is kinda what I meant. It's the metaphysics that gives rise to compassion, the compassion has no 'stand-alone' significance.


[May I ask why you feel the middle way has nothing to do with the reduction of suffering? What is your interpretation of the middle way? Why? (I like learning new things, and one of the best new things to learn is a different view of something I think I already understand). thanks! [/B]
Now I'm embarassed. I'm not so misled as to think that I could explain the middle way properly. (I am not even a Buddhist, I just agree with them).

Speaking personally the 'middle way' seems to have endless meanings and applications, and I think I really do mean endless. However underneath it all I take it to refer to (or be a consequence of) the non-dual nature of reality. All its other meanings seem to stem from this fundamental meaning, that the truth is found by seeing beyond the polarisation of opposites, the illusion of things that only exist relatively.

And yes, that's definitely just an opinion.

Regards

Canute

I bow to your understanding. I may have explained my view poorly, let me try again.

It is my understanding that one of the main principals of Buddhism is that there is desire and that desire causes much of the suffering in the world. From my studies (which are still very rudimentary), I have come to the conclusion that life has two types of sufferings. One is not excessive, and can help us learn and live. For example, stubbing your toe will teach you to not kick things for no reason. It can also give you the knowledge of what a stubbed toe feels like, so that when someone else does it, you may help them - you have expirience in the area.
There is also uneducational suffering, which is excessive and doesn't teach much in comperison with the amount of pain it causes. Murder is most often in this catagory.

The middle path, when referencing suffering, suggests that while educational suffering is a part of life, and should be used as a tool to learn and grow, uneducational suffering should be worked on, so that it doesn't happen, or at least happens less often.

One of the major sources of uneducational suffering in the world comes from desire. The desire to possess and to own; be it goods, people, expiriences, feelings, etc. This desire can be removed (and in following, a majority of suffering) by working conciously to reduce your own personal desire. This reduction can be brought about through the eightfold path.

This was the main topic of the Buddha's first talk to his fellow ascetics after having become enlightened, and deciding that asceticism wouldn't bring about the cessation of suffering. the eightfold path is explained well here:
http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/eightfoldpath.html

Much of the rest of Buddha's sutras (from the snippets I have thus read) deal with the reduction of suffering in others, due to great compassion. Stories of Buddha's compassion in his early days, slowly resolving to a contentment in the later days:
"
"Why must you kill the rabbit?" asked Buddha
"Because it is my nature" the hawk replied.
Buddha considered this, and cut strips of flesh from his own body. These he fed to the hawk, so that the rabbit could live, and the hawk would not go hungry.
"
later story
""Why are you crying?" the buddha asked one of his deciples.
"because you are dying" the student replied.
"why be sad for that? I am soon to be free of this world of suffering, free of pain and sadness. Be joyous for me."
"

One a seperate note, most of the Gods of Buddhism seem to be either Hindu or invented. The source of Buddism, from what I know, is specifically not from a god pantheon or spiritual worldview.
At one point, Buddha was approached by one of one of his students who said something to the tune of
"Why have you not explained to us if there was life after death? why have ou not explained to us what the end of the world will be like? why...blah blah blah a bunch of why haven't you explain everything to me. I will not follow you if you do not explain these things."
The Buddha simply answered
"I have not told you if there was life after death, nor have I told you what the end of the world will be like, etc,etc,etc. Be as mindfull of what I have not told you as you are of what I have explained."

This tells me that either Buddha simply didn't kow the religious end of things, such as gods and prayers, or he didn't fell they were important. Either way, for me, a cosmology beyond the hand you see typing your reply is not needed to reduce suffering.

And important note: this is extremely different from Tibetan Buddhism, which has a pantheon of buddhas, gods, prayers, chants, etc. much of Tibetan Buddhism pulls directly from hinduism for it's cosmology. I tend to follow Zen Buddism more closely, which has less reliance on gods, and more acceptance of nature as it exsists. It seems more in tune with the sutras, which I feel are as close to being there as you can get. sort of like how the New Testement in is as close as you can get to being there. In both cases, translation has effected the original, but by reading different versions of the same text in different translations, you can get a pretty good idea of what the original really meant.

Again, this is my opinoin. there are many who disagree with me. Including an entire culture north of India.

River Wind

I agree with the first part (slight quibble about Gods but no matter).


Originally posted by river-wind
This tells me that either Buddha simply didn't kow the religious end of things, such as gods and prayers, or he didn't fell they were important.[/B]
The Buddha knew the answers to the questions. He also knew that it was pointless and almost certainly counterproductive to try and explain them. Personal insight and experience is the only way. The truths of Buddhism cannot be taught ex hypothesis.


[Either way, for me, a cosmology beyond the hand you see typing your reply is not needed to reduce suffering.[/B]
Agreed. But a metaphysic may be necessary to motivate a person to act to reduce suffering (unless they're just a nice person).


[And important note: this is extremely different from Tibetan Buddhism, which has a pantheon of buddhas, gods, prayers, chants, etc. much of Tibetan Buddhism pulls directly from hinduism for it's cosmology.[/B]
Yes, but Buddhist ontology is founded on emptiness, not Gods.


[I tend to follow Zen Buddism more closely, which has less reliance on gods, and more acceptance of nature as it exsists. It seems more in tune with the sutras, which I feel are as close to being there as you can get. sort of like how the New Testement in is as close as you can get to being there. In both cases, translation has effected the original, but by reading different versions of the same text in different translations, you can get a pretty good idea of what the original really meant.[/B]
I'm afraid I don't know much about all the different versions of Buddhism.

I suspect all these Gods were added in by people who didn't understand what the Buddha was about, but I might be misunderstanding something. (More than likely in fact). I understand the ontology but not the cosmology. I shouldn't have used the word, I meant cosmogeny.

We see Buddhism in very different ways, which is interesting. I see it as a non-dual ontology, and you see it as a set of teachings for living or way of life. Is this right or hopelessly wrong?

Canute

I'm not sure how to answer the question, but is sounds pretty on-target. I see Budhism as a method of daily living which stems from observation of the universe followed by logical thought on which actions are most likely to bring about a desired outcome in the world: a reduction in the suffering of all living things.

I didn't know what ontology was, so I looked it up. Now I don't know what a non-dual "branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being" is. ;) could you explain what you mean for my benifit?

Thanks again!
BTW: this is one of the best conversations on this topic I think I've had in a long time. I'm very excited for your reply.


edit:
"Agreed. But a metaphysic may be necessary to motivate a person to act to reduce suffering (unless they're just a nice person). "
If we are defining the word "metaphysic" the same, then I think that using buddhist ideals as a method for living and understanding will bring about compassion. At which point metaphysics is not needed, because you become a nice person. Your external actions can create a new internal self over time and through effort, IME.

Is this kind of well- wishing possible in Buddhism? Can I ask the Buddha, these kind of things? I mean I can, I need not the permission. What I want to say is that is it normal in Buddhism?
In my version of Buddhism, which seems a bit different than Canutes, I would say yes, you can do this, but you wouldn't be asking anyone or anybeing for the person's well being.

You would simply be thinking "I hope that person is doing well, and that all of his/her family is happy in their lives." If I thought this, and it didn't seem to fit the situation, ie, they did not appear happy, or somehting seemed wrong, I would go up to them and ask if everything is alright. If something indeed *is* wrong, and they are ok in talking about it, then maybe I can help them somehow. And if not, at least they know that someone noticed that something was wrong. Often times, that seems to be enough.

In Tibeten Buddism, from what I know, praying to the buddha/buddhavistas is a common practice. The little colorful flags you see hanging from strings, blowing in the wind, are prayer flags, the text written on them are generalised prayers. Also, many followers of Tibeten buddhism have prayer shalls which they work through their hands as they pray. Others have prayer beads which are worked through the hands as the individual prayer is spoken. IMO, all are focusing methods for meditation, and are not required. But again, my version is different than other versions, and mine doesn't include anyone or anything to pray *to*.

Originally posted by river-wind
I'm not sure how to answer the question, but is sounds pretty on-target. I see Budhism as a method of daily living which stems from observation of the universe followed by logical thought on which actions are most likely to bring about a desired outcome in the world: a reduction in the suffering of all living things.

I didn't know what ontology was, so I looked it up. Now I don't know what a non-dual "branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being" is. ;) could you explain what you mean for my benifit?
I've spent many happy hours trying to write an explanation of non-dual philosophy, and have never even come close. It's the craziest thing to explain that there is, for it's completely inexplicable ex its own hypothesis. I can't even explain that. However I'll wander around the subject aimlessly for a bit.

In physics a particle-wave is a fundamental dual entity. Let's suppose that underlying this dual entity is a singular entity that gives rise to the two totally contradictory aspects of it that we observe. You cannot say it is a wave, for that is to make a semi-false statement. Neither can you say it is a particle, for that is equally semi-false.

Similarly in non-dual ontology existence is underlain by a fundamental something/nothing that is non-dual. Hence Buddhists (esp. Advaita adherents) find themselves in the position of not being able to explain it, for nothing true or false can be said about it. Only its contradictory aspects can be discussed, and only in falsehoods. Every time you make an assertion about it you have to immediately contradict yourself.

This may sound like an epistemelogical problem connected with the way we reason rather than an ontological one connected with what is really true about reality. In fact it is both. It is the final synthesis of epistemology and ontology. At a fundamental level of reality the non-dual explanation of reality becomes precisely isomorphic with what it explains, and thus ceases to be an explanation. (Sorry - this is the way it always goes).

In Buddhism this entity/non-entity can be known through introspection but cannot be perceived, conceived or proved, since these activities involve giving this something/nothing dual attributes, and it does not have any.

This thing is emptiness/fullness, experience/non-experience, bliss/no-bliss, intemporal/eternal etc., etc. It is something that exists and yet does not exist.

Sounds crazy I know, but that's the problem. Underneath the muddle it's really quite a simple idea, too simple. It's simplicity is the source of much wry humour in Buddhist writing since it's regarded as a kind of cosmic joke that something so completely simple should be so impossible to explain.

As mathematician Robert Kaplan says in his 'The Nothing that Is - A History of Zero':

“The world may not only be more singular than we think, it may be more singular than we can think."

This is what non-dual philosophy asserts.

It all relates to Plato's cave and the shadows on the wall, the limits of our reasoning when it comes to understanding reality. Karl Popper famously argued the same, as have numerous other Western philosophers. However they generally regard it as a barrier to ultimate knowledge. Buddhists do not, since it is perfectly easy to know things that cannot be proved within the system of reasoning (as Goedel has mathematically proved). It is just a question of overcoming dual thinking and relying instead on experience.

Experience is the only way to actually know the truth (or otherwise) of non-duality/Buddhism. Nothing but muddle ensues if you try to explain it, as I'm sure you've noticed from Buddhist writings, which are endlessly self-contradictory. Many people mistake this for a sort of fake mysticism. There's nothing mystical at all in them really, they're written by people trying their hardest to be helpful, but inevitably failing again and again. If anyone makes a positive assertion about a non-dual substance then they're lying.

Usually the ultimate metaphysical truth underlying Buddhism is understood via meditation (not thinking) or attention (a different way of not thinking). But these days we have more ways of talking about it (Goedel, Quine, Popper, etc). This doesn't help in knowing the truth, but at least it makes it seem a bit more plausible, a bit more worth the effort of exploring it.

It is from this metaphysical truth that all the rest of 'Buddhism' logically arises. A sense of compassion is an inevitable consequence of understanding your own nature, and thus the nature of existence itself (umm, or is that non-existence itself).

The particle-wave thing is interesting for another reason. There is a complete system of reasoning built on the fact that it is a wave, and another quite contradictory system of reasoning built on the fact that it is a particle. Physics has resolved this controversy by treating them as complimentary or equivalent explanations. Non-dual philosophy generalises this technique to include all conceptions and perceptions, in fact everything except one thing (or no-thing). All thinking is dual and therefore based on only one aspect of the underlying entity. (Hence Western metaphysics is simply a dusty repository for undecidable questions about contradictory dual aspects).

Non-dual philosophy is about seeing that there are logically always two ways of looking at things that are each equally true and equally false, that experience (ultimately) is the only thing that is not two things, and about learning to experience it as not two things.

One example so it doesn't sound quite so crazy. How can something simultaneously exist and not exist? It can if it is immaterial and thus does not exist by one meaning of exist, and yet nevertheless does exist by a different (and subjective) meaning of exist. That's over simplifying but you get the idea. Non-dual philosphy is not irrational, it just goes one metaphysical step beyond dual philosophy, which just happens to be the most important step that there is.

All this is waffle of course, since all evidence for any of these assertions is circumstantial and will never be more.


[If we are defining the word "metaphysic" the same, then I think that using buddhist ideals as a method for living and understanding will bring about compassion. At which point metaphysics is not needed, because you become a nice person. Your external actions can create a new internal self over time and through effort, IME. [/B]
I hope I've partly answered that.

Phew

I think I should have done this unstoned.

Canute

Stoned or not, I think you did an admirable job. I completely understand what you mean, and I completely agree. These "contradicting" items are a large barrier for many people when first reading up on Eastern religions. They are, in fact, what got me interested in Doaism to begin with.

I try pathetically to explain these dual realities by the idea of the "scope" of one's view. It's pretty much the same thing as their 'perspective', but it encompasses more than just the angle at which they view the thing in question. It also include the field of view of the surrounding situation, and the time frame in which the item is viewed. By changing one of those factors, the perceived definition of the item can change drastically, even though the object itself has not changed at all.

You can look at a grain of sand, which is small and insignificant.
Or you can expand the scope of your view, and see the rock that the sand came from, the lava it once was, the roots which hold it in place, the animals that eat the plants, the people who eat the animal, the fungus which binds that sand to the same matter as that person as he decays. The oyster that creates a pearl around the sand grain, and the necklace that is created out of it. The matter which comprises the atoms of the sand grain, millions of years from now, incorporated into a black hole, the same matter, millions of years ago, hot and expanding outward, spinning in a plasma as is coalesced into a semi solid which is our planet. That insignificant sand grain has seen and effected everything in the universe, by bumping into the stuff next to it, and that stuff bumping into that stuff next to it, etc, etc. That sand grain has effected this universe as much as you ever will - infinitely.

Then pull you scope back to the now and the here, and it's just a common sand grain, sitting amongst millions on a beach somewhere on a world out in the middle of nowhere.

The two differing views are both correct, but are defined by the scope of the viewer. Freedom, IME, comes in when you can arbitrarily choose the scope of that view, instead of allowing it to be defined by your past experience. That's where the philosophy of Zen Buddhism, for me, because a practice in living.

But as you say, once you define it, you have to contradict yourself. “The dao that is spoken is not the true dao”

edit: after re-reading this post, I've realized that I have a very well-defined metaphysical belief system which I just never labeled as metaphysics before. I will have to go back, and pick out the items which fall into that classification. Thank you very much!

The sand grain example is certainly about different points of view, but it isn't actually a metaphysical question unless you extend your timescale all the way.

The question is what is the sand grain made out of - and what is that made out of - and what is that made out of - etc etc ad infinitum.

Or what was the sand grain before it was a sand grain - and what was that before it was that - etc etc. ad infinitum.

For physics these are unanswerable questions since they are simpy infinite regressions. They belong to metaphysics, the study of what lies beyond science.

What lies beyond science is the axioms on which science is built. These axioms are actually merely the arbitrary answers that science (and generally religion) gives to questions that according to science cannot be answered, which is a bit ridiculous when you think about it. Non-dual philosophy claims they can be answered but not with yes or no answers, because they're actually the wrong questions.

Hmm. Just had a thought. I suppose the undecidable in principle questions of Western metaphysics are to non-dual philosophy what scientifically meaningless/trivial questions are to science.

Canute

Originally posted by Canute
The sand grain example is certainly about different points of view, but it isn't actually a metaphysical question unless you extend your timescale all the way.

Well, that is part of it, yes. In both directions. infinatly large, infinatly small, and everything in between.


What lies beyond science is the axioms on which science is built.
an interesting statement. I'll have to consider this.

Originally posted by letitbe2
There, a priest - may God bless him- said to decrease stress while you are caught up in a traffic jam, or wating in queue pick some one and pray for him/her. Like, O God protect that man from falling or give that woman a good husband or any thing like that.
Is this kind of well- wishing possible in Buddhism? Can I ask the Buddha, these kind of things? I mean I can, I need not the permission. What I want to say is that is it normal in Buddhism?
I have some of the sayings of Shakiamoni Buddha, I read them every day. They are absolutely helpful. They are in Farsi.
"Finding good friends is hard" is one of them. Thanks
And one thing else, What is... Ten directions?
Sorry I was unclear. well when you are praying these kinds of things you are not really praying to the Buddha, you are actually "channeling" your positive, compassionate energy (thought) to the particular person. And you are right prayer can also be used as a tool to connecting to another enity which at the end you will find that the entity is you and all people merged into one. Unfortunately I can't help you with the 10 directions, but any other questions you can count on me. bye

Originally posted by spookz
Is this kind of well- wishing possible (leitbe)

religions are irrelevant. all you need is a consciousness and a will to make something happen. we create our worlds. label it prayer if it fits into the comfort zone.

I think you are right, spookz. Religions are irrelevant. We are living the lives our "spirit" creates--not church. Whatever you call "it," our spirit creates us. I also believe in the concept of the One Spirit of God (whatever your perception of your higher power is), there is only One. So the spirit that incarnates our Earthsuit is just a small part of the whole. Creative visualization, prayer, meditation, magick, miracles, whatever, nothing.... Whatever works for you. Even if you did nothing (which I think is humanly impossible because we have a brain), your spirit would work on autopilot.

Hey, this forum is so nice, unlike the religion forum which has turned into a barroom brawl. Just as I suspected, those religious zealots don't have any clue about spiritual life. They're all spiritually dead.

Medicine Woman

You might like this.

"Spiritual seekers are lost children in a conceptual forest created by their own imagination."

Wu Wu Wei - Adavaita master

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
magick

Pray, don't tell me you are a Crowley fan? :D

Originally posted by exsto_human
Pray, don't tell me you are a Crowley fan? :D

No, actually, I've never read anything by him. I'm pretty much independent in my beliefs. That's not to say that others haven't already made these same beliefs known, I just don't follow anyone else that I know of.

Buddha actually believed in god...except god was "nothingness". Buddha was hindu, and his teachings weren't originally meant to be a new religion. Buddhism and Hinduism are very similar, and they also have their differences. Hinduism teaches the impersonal god (Brahman) to be un-material, non-physical , nothing and everything. People created different versions of Buddhism over time, and the philosophy changed. Buddha believed in god and there are many scriptures which have quotations of him talking about god.

Here's an article that talks about this http://reluctant-messenger.com/God_buddha.htm

Not very impressed by that article. It certainly doesn't make an argument for Buddha asserting the existence of God, it just interprets his words in a particular way. Looking at it another way, the author seems to be redefining the term 'God' to make it fit his thesis.

Still, I'm a bit confused about why Gods turn up in some forms of Buddhism. Can anyone here explain that?

Originally posted by Canute
Still, I'm a bit confused about why Gods turn up in some forms of Buddhism. Can anyone here explain that?

Buddhism is originaly a branch of Hinduism. But more technicaly, The wheel of Samsara incorporates 6 realms, where the beings essence is incarnated according to what karma they have accumulated.

The first three are unfortunate births with no direct chance of self realization: The realm of hell beings, the realm of hungry ghosts, the realm of animals. The next three are fortunate births, realm of humans, demi-gods, and gods.
However these gods have limited power in our world, they are not omnipotent or omniscient and they are mortal, they have life spans comprizing of many thousands and hundreds of thousands of years.
Indira is mentioned as the head God, it's no coincidence that Hinduisms head god is Indira, and infact ALL of the gods mentioned in hinduism occur in buddhism.

I hope that explains it.


Personaly, I believe Buddhas original message has been distorted and missinterpreted over the years, it's the same with Jesus. The 'emptyness' described in Buddhism I find correlates very well with the view of a universal singularity from which all countless creation and phenomenon manifest- Atman, The creator, The great intelect, The source, God. And we are this great singularity experienceing itself, we have the capability to experience complete merger (of our astral essence) with the ONE, a process described as Nirbana, enlightenment.
But you will probably call this a personal opinion, and you may very well do so.

Exsto

Thanks. I'm not convinced that your description isn't of a very popularised form of Buddhism. (Gods for easy understanding etc). I must practice harder and find out.

I slightly disagree about emptiness being 'One', 'God' etc. since I suspect it is one step beyond such concepts. Still, the word are slippery.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/theravada.html

Spookz

Thanks for the link. Theravada (and Advaita) seem the 'cleanest' teachings to me, and neither make mention of Gods.

I'm with you Canute, I'm not one for Gods either.

But I think the idea (or perhaps the semantics) of the word GOD has been degraded by our western perspective. When we hear 'God' we tend to picture a controler or judge, a person, however in the east they have a much more abstract perspective of the concept. Perhaps 'God' is too missleading a word to use, the concept being waaaay beyond words, a word that is utterly ambigous would suit the position better (maybe TAO ;)).

We controll our own lives, we are the ones who judge ourselves. Everything that we are and that happens to us was decided by ourselves at some point.

The 'Singularity' I refer to just IS.

Nicely put ;)

Explanation: I was reading the thread and didn't realize there were two more pages. This is in reference to Letitbe2's questions on page 1 of the thread.


The "sayings of Shakiamoni Buddha" that you have are most likely koans. They are sayings that are to help you become more introspective. But as has been said before Buddhist don't pray. There is chanting and mantras but praying per se would be to a God to which Buddhism does not agree. Part of the Mahayana Buddhism is to have compassion on all sentient beings. That compassion can translate into well wishing, but in reality the suffering that we go through is the payment for the past Karma that we have acquired. My suggestion to you would be to get some introductory books about buddhism. Reading about Buddhism won't neccessarily take you to enlightenment, but it can put you on the path to enlightenment.

There are many paths within buddhism so try to focus your attention to one then if you are interested investigate others. Zen is quite popular in the west. But there are also Tibetan, Mahayana, Theraveda, Sri Lankan, and other branches.

Buddhists don't pray, they simply meditate in an effort to achieve enlightenment and forge a stronger relationship with the Buddha. But they don't pray.

Greetings all - I realize this thread is quite old, but if anyone is still viewing it or receiving replies on this subject, I thought I'd add what I can.

On the website A Buddhist Library dot com (no caps or spaces)

on Jason's page (my page) you can find An Anthology of Buddhist Prayer, almost 400 pages, with many examples of prayer in the different Buddhist Traditions.
There are also essays introducing Buddhism, Buddhist Prayer and a few thoughts on what is distinct about Buddhism in the West. These are articles form the introduction to the Anthology, and are also separate articles on Jason's page -
listed as numbers 1, 2 and 3. Feel free to contact me if you have comments or questions.

My best wishes to you all.

Jason.

You did not read #52before posting.

Buddhists don't pray