Ok, so I've been wondering If Theravada teaches the world is real, and Mahayana teaches that it is not, what does Vajrayana have to say?
Thervada does not teach that the world is real. That's an extremely simplistic and innacuarte classification.
The Vajrayana teaches the means of passionate peacefullness. Viewpoints come from that. Theories are adjuncts to that. The Vajrayana is based on Mulamadhiyatmika just as the Mahayana. Dzogchen teaches that all is already Tathagathagarbha or Buddha Nature as it is. Right now. Tantra teaches this, and to remain in the view of all as being the mandala of the Pure land right now. Passionate peacefullness right here, right now. This is the means then of the Vajrayana. All these are not separate views or different things but all together are adjuncts of the way free of extremes.
Tell that to an African mother who just watched her child die from starvation. If it is true, then we need to look for something else, because the world as it is now is capable of improvement in many ways. It is very far from perfect. Depends what you mean by 'real' and 'world'. But Theravada doesn't teach that the world is real.
The Hinayana, or Old wisdom School, split into the Theravadins and Sarvastivadins and other minor extinct schools in about 400 BCE. The Mahayana or New wisdom School started with the Mahasanghikas about 250 BCE. The Mahayana School divided after about 400 years later into the Madhyamikas, the Yogacaras, Vajrayana, Chan, Amidism, and others. The Old Wisdom School maintains that the Absolute, by definition, has no relation to anything. It is not transcendant and not immanent. All things are made of the material and the non-material, they are impermanent, unsatisfactory, and can not be called one's own. The illusion of seperateness can only be dispelled by thought or wisdom, not trance or action. The New Wisdom Schools vary. The Madhyamikas stress the middle way, existence and non-existence, self and non-self, etc. There is only relativity, not ultimate reality or unreality. The illusion can be broken by many methods including faith, wisdom, yoga, tantra, etc. Vajrayana is a form of Mahayana called the Diamond ThunderBolt Vehicle. It uses Tantric methods of attaining liberation and comes from Tibet. Tantra believes that the Ultimate reality is a singular Unity, it is not the world around us. Tantric methods are said to lead to faster liberation than Theravada and other Mahayana methods. There are Left and Right Hand Tantric methods. Left Hand stresses pleasure.
Tantra comes from India. In the Vajrayana there is no 'left' and 'right' tantra. All tantras of the Vajrayana are for liberation, thus there are four types - peaceful, enriching, attracting, subduing. As far, BBB, as your question, I don't waste time arguing semantics when it comes to superlatives. Maybe you think any raison d'etre can explain suffering? If so, let's hear it.
This is a confusion of standpoints. Everyday you see sunrise and sunset, yet I say to you the sun neither rises nor sets. From the standpoint of the sun, there is no rising and setting, from the standpoint of earth, there is. Similarly from the standpoint of buddha nature, all is already tathagatagarbha, but from the standpoint of the world and those in it, tathagatagarbha is a hidden treasure to be discovered.
Yes Chodpa, Tantra has its origins, like Buddhism, in India. And I stand corrected about Left Hand Tantra in Vajrayana except for this quote: Live and Learn
Quotes from web articles on tantra are not even a close aproach to truthfullness but just more sputtering and confused dialectic.
I'm just saying that if by reading about tantra people could know the essence of tantra then almost everyone now would be practicing tantrics without the need for abhisheka, practice, and fruition. It's all like soap. Reading about soap does not clean. Tantra is like taking sticky fat, and sooty ash and combining these two dirty ingredients and getting a surfactant which lifts away samsara.
I don't know what you mean here. But it is surely illogical to say that the world is perfect and then ask for an explanation of suffering. Suffering = imperfection. So as long as there is suffering in the world it can't be said to be perfect. There may be a subjective state of consciousness where the world is seen as perfect, but that only affects the person in the state and leaves the world untouched.
What I'm saying is, don't bother posting under threads on Vedanta, and nondual tantras with some sappy -suffering is so awful- posture. That's a cop-out! You're either on the path for the long haul to remove suffering or you are not. I'm saying that the teachings of the masters are reports of how things really are, which is the only basis for following their teachings. They are not reporting that suffering is the basis for existing and that it is all that we have or will ever get. They are reporting that divinity is the basis of existance and that we either - a- remove obscurations about divity, or -b- accrue the merit and wisdom to develope that. Don't blame me for not accepting the words of the Tathagatha. Blame your own obscurations. I'm not arguing with you. This is the way it is! Buy it, or keep on shopping somewhere else. But with your shitty attitude don't call yourself a Hindutva or Tantric, Buddhist or otherwise. Saying that suffering this and that and suffering so and so is the sure path to remaining in it and creating more of it. I suffer therefore I will make others suffer. Blah. Better, I don't suffer so I will share the joy. You cannot share what you don't own.
Wow - I don't actually call myself anything on that level - it would be meaningless to do so IMO. I am simply a human - I'm not interested in ism's. Often the need to label oneself is a function of some insecurity. You accept the words of the masters - but that's only someone elses vision, and perhaps a partial vision which moreover isn't really suited to the present needs of humanity. And the masters of different paths, even within Buddhism, contradict each other in many ways. But actually, I'll post whatever I like here or anywhere else. As to removing suffering - you said the world is perfect - therefore there can be no suffering. This is pure nonsense. You only have to look around to see the huge imperfections. As for joy - I experience my own share of it. I'm not a depressive type of person nor am I a pessimist. I just think many of these mystical doctrines don't hold water when subjected to a closer analysis. Mainly, my criticism is that what is being spoken of is a subjective psychological state, which has no effect whatsoever on the bulk of humankind. Just to bliss out in one's personal 'perfect' universe is the real cop-out. Clearly I've irritated you Chodpa - I'm not going to apologize because if your path is so wondeful, you wouldn't be irritated or need to resort to stuff like saying someone who you don't know, or at least have only very scant info about has a shitty attitude. What you mean is I don't agree with you, and hence must be wrong in your view. This is a common reaction among religious folk, and one of the factors which holds us back from any meaningful progress. The thing is, everyone has a right to express their opinion here - it's not as though I've acted like a troll - my critique is based on my own knowledge and experience of various paths and their adherents.
I actually did not say that there was no suffering, or that the world was perfect. I will quote my own words here so that you may see them again, and then see how your assumptions differ from what I said. Thus, according to my path, and other nondual paths, divinity is everything, right here and right now. This is what I said. Now as for your notion of the idea that suffering cannot coexist with divinity, for that, I suggest you broaden your vision. This is what I said, this is what I maintain. The rest is up to you. Peace. I also did not say that the world was not perfect. Maybe I will chose to say so later. Finally, I made presumptions about you based on the fact that you post in the Buddhist and Hindu sections of this forum as if you're an expert on them. That was silly of me. Sorry.
I don't claim to be an expert - however, many here who post in the said forums are clearly on the 'novice' level. Generally, I haven't had any big problems coming back from people regarding my posts...I also think that it is limited in the extreme to imagine that anyone with any knowledge of these paths has necessarily to identify with any of them and claim to be a hindu a tantric or whatever. I never said divinity and suffering can't co-exist. If that were so, there could be no divinity, since clearly enough suffering does take place. That is the statement to which I was responding. Two things - first, I don't think it's correct, and second, if it were, then why should we seek to change things in any way? How could any action or will of ours improve on perfection? Such a view seems to me to be at odds with the very great need we see in every sphere of modern life for radical change. It would be a good one to space out on, but not very useful for mankind on earth which is what primarily concerns me. My attitude is that such views may be ok for a few monks sitting in a monastary living their lives, as they think. detached from the world. It can't really help the ordinary person much. And given the multiple factors which lead to stress, anxiety etc in life, it also seems like an idea which is unlikely to gain general acceptance. If there is a possibility of perfection existing in this world, it something for which we have to work. But first, we have to acknowledge what is wrong. And by perfection I don't mean individual illuminism but a collective transformation.
You keep equating 'tathagatagarbha' with 'perfection.' This shows a flaw in your thinking. One which I never addressed. The Buddha Nature is not some fairy tale land of perfection and orgiastic self immolation, but merely means - awakened nature. Thus all that one can know is already the awakened nature of the Buddha free of the extremes of mental elaboration and free of dualisms. You can chose to disagree with Dzogchen and the Mahayana Uttara Tantras if you chose, but it merely means that you really don't know what you're talking about.
BlackBillBlake I take it that your view that the world is not perfect as it is also lies within YOUR subjective opinion as well, please correct me if I understood this wrong. If this is so then can you not leave it at that that is your opinion and respect that someone else may have their own perception.
No problem there. I never said anything else. Everything that gets posted here is subjective opinion in the end. I agree that others have the right to believe anything they want, and likewise I have the right to disagree and state my disagreement. If others can't handle that without some emotional reaction, that is their problem. Some Buddhists - a minority of them as far as I know - have this view. Others of other schools don't take this line, so it's actually not just me throwing a spanner in the works. Yes - and it would be nice if others would do the same rather than simply repeating what they've read as if it were objective fact, and lambasting anyone who differs. This is supposed to be a discussion forum - without disagreement there would be no discussion. But some people seem to get quite wound up if you disagree with their view, and even start to indicate that they are 'authorities' in some way.
