Comments on: Vajrapani mantra

By: mondo

mondo — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 13:01:26 +0000

Please let me apologize for going off on tangents. Like I said, ‘Nice to know what Alexandra said about Phat. The pronounciation I’ve heard from my Guru and his Guru sounded to me as ‘Hut. Reflecting into my ‘this life’ past, I recall distinctly when an officer came into the barracks in the Marine Corps the first person to see him would exclaim, “Ten-Hut!” That HUT sound is also used frequently in American football as the signal to snap the ball. Hut just seems unique to me besides it being how I heard it from my Master. But, you might consider that although were ‘hear sounds’ chances are many people hearing the same enunciation can hear it differently. Indeed I have talked with some of Master’s other disciples here in Chengdu and they do hear it differently although some hear it just as I do.
Hate to use the word ‘I’ but sometimes we have to go with what we’ve got, or what’s got us.

By: Bodhipaksa

Bodhipaksa — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:33:38 +0000

Sorry. I didn’t mean to sound like I was jumping on you. The original poster used a Tibetan name, so I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that he/she was practicing in a Tibetan lineage. Still, while David-Néel’s observation is interesting, it would be better to consult a Tibetan teacher about the pronunciation.

By: Cezar

Cezar — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 06:04:54 +0000

To Bodhipaksa/mondo:
The fellow has only asked about the pronounciation. He didn’t say he was willing to take whatever answer he gets on the net over his guru’s instructions. You guys got way ahead with assumptions attributed to me, which I have not made.
A while ago mondo also replied to him regarding what he heard as far as the Phat pronounciation. I know one should listen to one’s guru; about that pronounciation I also dared to give a quote – not from a sacred text, from the first Westerner who got there and witnessed quite a bit. It was probably just a bit more than the “I heard that” level. You don’t have to shoot me. It was at this level only – discussion… over the internet. That was all. I didn’t suggest to take this over his guru’s. Peace and be good.

By: mondo

mondo — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 02:11:46 +0000

Right On Bodhipaksa! Emptiness is where all of ‘This’ is coming from. Even ‘The Buddha’ is Emptiness. You’re Emptiness, I’m Emptiness and all else. From the universe to the smallest atom, all is emptiness and and emptiness is all…vajra. In ‘looking for one’s mind’ emptiness is all that can be found. Except for this ‘looking’. Hence Awareness. Emptiness is Aware. Yet we seem to be aware of ‘our life. This is the initiation of metaphore…or ‘Selfishness’. Next step ‘down’ is the evolution of ‘I-ness’ mine-ness and ‘others’. All illusions, dreams, etc.. And true, tathagata garbha is easily seen as ‘something’ which it is not. It is just a metaphore for Emptiness. Now, when was any Emptiness born? Not. When does any Emptiness get born? Not. Emptiness simply is and always has been and will be although of course time is emptiness too. Looking at time: the past is gone…emptiness. The future hasn’t arrived yet… emptiness. And even now is totally impermanent…emptiness. I really like the metaphore of Space. Sace simply is and all that we think is as objects in this Space is moving IN space. Space is perflectly still and it is Emptiness. Of course it is a concept which is why The Diamond Sutra is so well akin to The Heart Sutra … our words are only what this illusion of our ‘self’ can use to speak with and they are all at source Empty yet with a touch of Awareness although oftentimes confused.
When Vajrapani comes down to the mountain top where the sages are there to greet him, such as we’ve been chatting about are touches of the Dharma teachings he gave the sages. Why is Vajrapani dancing in flames with a vajra in his hand? The energy of Emptiness: Vajra. It is from Emptiness where the power of Vajrapani’s Mantra originates. It resonates with our ‘own’ emptiness and empowers ‘our’ awareness of which none is ‘our’s’. Vajra-pani: emptiness energy; Vajra-sattva: emptiness being and Vajra-dhara: emptiness awareness; the three vajra-brothers. Great metaphors.

By: Bodhipaksa

Bodhipaksa — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 19:22:58 +0000

The Heart Sutra is an early favorite of mine as well, although it was 1982 before I encountered it. At the Buddhist center I was attending it was frequently chanted, and so I have it memorized. In fact the first Dharma talk I ever gave was about the Heart Sutra…

Both body and mind are empty! The sutra runs through the five skandhas, of form, feeling, apperception, habitual formations, and consciousness, and states that each one is empty. Empty of what? Empty of a self, or anything that could be the basis of a self. Empty of permanence. Empty of separateness.

Emptiness, here, is a restatement of the Buddha’s recurring observation about the skandhas: “This is not me; this is not mine; I am not this.” He encouraged us to become aware of anything and everything that we might identify as a permanent and separate self, or as the basis of a permanent and separate self, and to cultivate that reflection in order to cease clinging to the notion of a self. It’s a radical approach, and one that was too much for some Buddhists, which is why we’ve ended up with the Vedic/Buddhist hybrid that we call Tathagatagarbha.

Oy, oy, oy!

By: mondo

mondo — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 10:00:23 +0000

Sorry about the speculations, but my degree is in philosophy and speculating is a habit. For me, my first reading of The Heart Sutra was way back in ’69. Something about it left me with a feeling it was so deep. The ‘Form’ and ‘Emptiness’ interplay of course got to me at first. What the heck was Avalokitesvara trying to tell us. Since that time…many years later I dwelled on the next line where he goes into ‘no this’s and that’s'; particularly the ‘no birth and no death’ feature. And also I see where ‘Form’ can mean ‘Body’ and ‘Emptiness’ cam be translated as ‘Mind’. That’s where I’m coming from. Plus a favorite of yours and mine, Manjusri explains in Saptasatika translated by Conze that if he were to take someone out of samsara, then no one would be taken out of samsara. Deep Manjusri is indeed. To me at first glance he seems to be saying something about the oneness of Samsara and Nirvana. So I can see you and for that matter, everyone seeing this life as The Life in that we are here right now. The past is gone and the future ain’t yet. Meanwhile The Dharmakaya is…as The One. I don’t know, i’ll have to reread the Parinirvana Sutra over and over again. My first philosophical event occured reading Plato’s DIALOGUES OF SOCRATES and in it The Apology rang true for me and to find Buddha saying the same thing again rang true. Yes, in it those gathered around him were shocked when he spoke of just his body dying but he would live on. Then he explained how this teaching would be shown by the coming Buddha soon to follow. That next Buddha was Padmasambhava who has clarified the ‘Siddhi’ approach to Tathagata Gharbha. Oh well…still here and sometimes now.

By: Bodhipaksa

Bodhipaksa — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 22:26:00 +0000

You’re getting a bit carried away with your speculation about my views, Mondo.

The Parinirvana Sutra, and the other Mahayana Sutras, are clearly sutras. They weren’t taught by the Buddha, but they’re inspired works that obviously come from a deep level of practice, and in many cases (particularly with regard to the teachings on shunyata, they take the teachings of the Buddha to new depths). Buddhism is a ongoing exploration of the path to Awakening, and it would be silly to dismiss the achievements and insights of later writings just because they weren’t written by the Buddha himself (and much of the Pali canon is not the teaching of the Buddha, either).

As for the Tathagathagarbha doctrine, I’m afraid, yes, that’s not something I can swallow. I see it as a step back from the radicalness of the Buddha’s teaching on anatta, and in fact it’s remarkably similar to some fo the views that the Buddha argued against. The Buddha would not have agreed at all with the language of “the Real You.” I’ve seen through the illusion of my own self enough to know that there is no “real me.”

The word “hinayana,” by the way, means “inferior vehicle,” and was a polemical term invented by the Mahayanists in order to denigrate other schools and to demonstrate their own superiority. It’s time the term was retired, I think.

And the Buddha (according to the Pali canon) implicitly said that it was acceptable to believe that there was only this one life. Who am I to disagree with the Tathagata? :)

By: mondo

mondo — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 11:44:23 +0000

I guess you agree with the Hinayana view that the Parinirvana Sutra is not a sutra. And with your view I suggest you never read The Parinirvana Sutra which parallels Socrates’ Apology almost verbatim. And Lord knows, stay away from anything by Maitraya. You need not even consider there is a buddha garbha within you which is The Real You. You must know the sravaka/ Hinayanist even go so far as to refute Nagarjuna and say his Prajnaparamita Sutras are not real sutras. In them if read carefully you’ll see Manjusri expaining about how we never die and it’s because we’ve never been born. The Heart Sutra says as much also despite the Hinayana putting this Sutra into the not real sutras class too. One life…one death…actually neither nor.

Maybe this ‘One Shot’ is the last straw before conceptuality dissolves. Good luck with that.

By: Bodhipaksa

Bodhipaksa — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 04:33:10 +0000

You, know, I think that’s one of these thing where the Buddha’s teaching on speculating thinking comes in. We need to concentrate on this life and on pulling out the poisoned arrow, not on speculating on what’s going to happen after we die.

For the record, I’m a “this is your one shot, and even if you get enlightened you’re still going to die and that’s it” sort of a fella.

By: mondo

mondo — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 03:52:32 +0000

Nice to know the Alexandra David-Neal information, but your own personal Guru is the key. I’m wondering about the semantics of Phat. My meager understanding about the mantra is for one’s trip to the bardo afterlife and being helped there by your Guru to be led to a pure land. But I’m wondering…if you’re lucky enough to manage the Rainbow Body upon the sequence of dying events, then is going to a Pure Land even necessary? Which is to say…There’s essentially 5 Pure Lands: Amaghosiddhi’s, Akshobia’s, Ratnasambhaba’s, Amida’s and Vairocana’s with Vairocana’s also being Samantabadhra’s too; Akanista. Most Gurus say they want to take you to Amida’s pure land. Why not Akinista? Supposedly The Buddha is there. And from my limited viewpoint…it seems to me once this ‘Enlightenment’ ever happens…when you come out of it, you’re right here on Earth again yet with a different view; Earth as Pure Land. Perhaps I’m terribly confused…that would’nt supprise me at all. The mind can twist things around.