Criticism of Vajrayana

Let us define Karma. Karma means action, means "to do". Immediately we have an indication that the real meaning of karma is not fate because karma is action. It is dynamic. But it is more than simply action because it is not mechanical action. It is not unconscious or involuntary action. It is intentional, conscious, deliberate, wilful action. How is it that this intentional, will action conditions or determines our situation? It is because every action must have a reaction, an effect.

This truth has been expressed in regard to the physical universe by the great physicist Newton who formulated the law which states that every action must have an equal and opposite reaction. In the moral sphere of conscious actions, we have a counterpart to the physical law of action and reaction, the law that every intentional, will action must have its effect. This is why we sometimes speak either of Karma-Vipaka, intentional action and its ripened effect, or we speak of Karma-Phala, intentional action and its fruit. It is when we speak of intentional action together with its effect or fruit that we speak of the Law of Karma.

Karma, be it wholesome or unwholesome, is modified by the conditions under which the actions are performed. In other words, a wholesome or unwholesome action may be more or less strong depending upon the conditions under which it is done. The conditions which determine the weight or strength of karma may be divided into those which refer to the subject – the doer of the action – and those which refer to the object – the being to whom the action is done. So the conditions that determine the weight of karma apply to the subject and object of the action.

2/4

Specifically, if we take the example of killing, in order for the act of killing to have its complete and unmitigated power, five conditions must be present — a living being, the awareness of the existence of a living being, the intention to kill the living being, the effort or action of killing the living being, and the consequent death of the living being. Here too, we can see the subjective and the objective conditions. The subjective conditions are the awareness of the living being, the intention to kill and the action of killing. The objective conditions are the presence of the living being and the consequent death of the living being. Similarly, there are five conditions that modify the weight of karma and they are persistent, repeated action; action done with great intention and determination; action done without regret; action done towards those who possess extraordinary qualities; and action done towards those who have benefited one in the past.

Here too there are subjective and objective conditions. The subjective conditions are persistent action; action done with intention; and action done without regret. If one does an unwholesome action again and again with great intention and without regret, the weight of the action will be enhanced. The objective conditions are the quality of the object to whom actions are done and the nature of the relationship. In other words, if one does a wholesome or unwholesome action towards living beings who possess extraordinary qualities such as the arhats, or the Buddha, the wholesome or unwholesome action done will have greater weight.

As I have posted earlier, these extraordinary qualities is part of what a buddha/arhat is. Depending on the tradition, the purpose of Buddhas and more specifically Bodhisattvas is to aid other sentient beings into fully realizing their potential to become enlightened through teaching the Dharma or giving aid in the form of focused attention on the practices.

3/6

Further on the note of karma, Finally the power of wholesome or unwholesome action done towards those who have benefited one in the past, such as one’s parents, teachers and friends, will be greater. The objective and subjective conditions together determine the weight of karma. This is important because understanding this will help us to understand that karma is not simply a matter of black and white, or good and bad. Karma is moral action and moral responsibility. But the working of the Law of Karma is very finely tuned and balanced so as to match effect with cause, so as to take into account the subjective and objective conditions that determine the nature of an action. This ensures that the effects of actions are equal to and similar to the nature of the causes.

This brings us to the realms. In Buddhism, it is taught that there are various realms, spheres or dimensions of existence. There are thirty -one planes of existence listed, but for our purposes, we are going to utilize a simpler scheme which enumerates six realms of existence. In general, the six realms may be divided into two groups, one of which is relatively fortunate and the other relatively miserable. The first group includes three of the six realms and they are the realm of the gods, the realm of the demigods and the realm of human beings. Rebirth in these fortunate realms is the result of wholesome karma. The second group includes the three realms that are considered relatively miserable. They are sometimes called the realms of woe, and they are the realm of animals, the realm of hungry ghosts and the realm of hell beings. Rebirth in these states of woe is the result of unwholesome karma.

4/6

Wrong assumption.

Bon is Buddhismcized. Tibetan Buddhism is basically later Buddhism + old local myths/rituals that has been Buddhicized. Tantra developed around 3rd century or so in India and it got integrated into both Buddhism and other Hindu religion. So the Buddhism that was transmitted to Tibet (via various stages) was Buddhism+Tantra combined. Tibet didn't invent the Tantric Buddhism.

For example, the sky burials. It a pre-buddhist ritual used to dispose the bodies of the dead in a climate where there are no trees and the l and is dry/cold climate. Buddhicized version of it gave this practice a meaning, to give food(dead body) to sentient beings (vultures). Since the idea of soul is not a Buddhist one, the body is merely seen as flesh.

The bones of dead used for ritual music for example is probably pre-buddhist ritual too, but given a new Buddhist wrapping, aka to quell the ego.

Many of the Tantric rituals brought to Tibet can be practiced by monks without any breaking of the monk vows. The "higher tantras" aka ones that break the monk rules are not practiced by monks, if they do, then they'd be disrobed. The some layman lamas however practice the higher tantras.

There are also many tantric rituals that have been "Buddhicized" as well. While original tantric ritual may require eating human flesh, the Buddhicized version changed that to eating non-meat food. There are others that originally require women, but Buddhicized version simply made this into a mental imagery.

Tibetan Buddhism isn't all tantra, its however one of the sole carrier of tantric lineage(Japan is the other). Most tantra aren't weird, small sections are.

Let us look at realm of the hell beings (Niraya or Naraka). There are various hells in Buddhism, and they are principally eight hot hells and eight cold hells. In the hells, beings suffer incalculable and inexpressible pain. It is said that the suffering experienced as a result of being pierced by three hundred spears in a single day in this life is only a minute fraction of the suffering experienced in hell. The cause of rebirth in hell is continuous, habitual violent actions — habitual killing, cruelty and so forth, actions that are borne of ill will. Beings born in the hells suffer the pain of hell until their unwholesome karma is exhausted. This is important because we must note that in Buddhism no one suffers eternal damnation. When their unwholesome karma is exhausted, beings in hell are reborn in a more fortunate realm of existence.

5/6

In contrast, let us look at the heavenly realm. the realm of the gods (Devas) is the happiest amongst the six realms. As a result of having done wholesome actions, of having observed the moral precepts and having practised meditation, living beings are reborn amongst the gods where they enjoy sensual pleasure or spiritual pleasure, or tranquillity depending upon the level within the realm of the gods in which they are born. Nonetheless, the realm of the gods is not to be desired because the happiness of the gods is impermanent. No matter how much they may enjoy their existence as a god, when the force of their karma is exhausted, when the merits of their good conduct and the power of their experience in meditation are exhausted, the gods fall from heaven and are reborn in another realm. At this moment, at the moment of their death, it is said that the gods suffer even more mental
anguish than the physical pain suffered by beings in the other realms. The negative factor associated with birth in the realm of the gods is pride.

This brings us to conducting ourself within the realm of human beings to avoid arriving at any of the other realms. The Five Precepts are the basis of Buddhist morality. The first precept is to avoid killing or harming living beings. On the matter of the first precept, you may ask "But surely it is good to kill sometimes. To kill disease-spreading insects, for example, or someone who is going to kill you?". The answer to that is it might be good for you but what about that thing or that person? They wish to live just as you do. When you decide to kill a disease-spreading insect, your intention is perhaps a mixture of self-concern (good) and revulsion (bad). The act will benefit yourself (good) but obviously it will not benefit that creature (bad). So at times it may be necessary to kill but it is never wholly good.

6/7

Is rebirth in higher realms the results of wholesome karma or the exhaustion of unwholesome karma?

You may wonder that Buddhists are too concerned for lowly creatures, equating them to all beings. However I would say buddhists strive to develop a compassion that is undiscriminating and all-embracing. They see the world as a unified whole where each thing or creature has its place and function. They believe that before we destroy or upset nature's delicate balance, we should be very careful. Just look at those cultures where emphasis is on exploiting nature or people to the full, squeezing every last drop out of it without putting anything back, on conquering and subduing it. Nature has revolted. The very air is becoming poisoned, the rivers are polluted and dead, so many beautiful animal species are extinct, the slopes of the mountains are barren and eroded. If people were a little less anxious to crush, destroy and kill, this terrible situation may not have arisen. They did not take into regard the foreseeable consequences. We should all strive to develop a little more respect for life. And this is what the first precept is saying.

Thus, it is unwholesome to kill, especially those that seek to make the world a better place through teaching the end of suffering. There is no law set in stone that "thou shalt not kill!", its simply a reminder that killing will have potentially negative consequences in this life or the next on the basis of the conditions present as the action is committed. If you end up in the realm of hell, you aren't there forever. Neither will you be in heaven forever. In the end however, whether heaven or hell, the goal of a Buddhist is to escape this cycle of suffering altogether and attain nirvana. To exhaust karma, both good and bad.

7/7

Depending on the tradition. The Mahayana and Tibetan mythologies state that Bodhisattvas accumulate the most merit by staying in the realms of hell and helping all the beings there, thus they are reborn into more favourable realms. So to answer your question, it is both.

Birth in the three lower realms is undesirable for obvious reasons, because of the intense suffering and because of the total ignorance of the beings who inhabit these realms. Even rebirth in the realms of the demigods and the gods too is undesirable. This is because, although one experiences a certain degree of happiness and power, existence amongst the demigods and gods is impermanent. Besides, because of the distractions and pleasures in these realms, beings there never think of looking for a way out of the cycle of birth and death.

The human realm (Manushya) is the most favoured of the six realms because as a human being one has the motivation and the opportunity to practise the Dharma and to achieve enlightenment. One has this motivation and opportunity because the conditions conducive to practising the path are present. In the human realm, one experiences both happiness and suffering. The suffering in this realm, though terrible, is not so great as the suffering in the three realms of woe. The pleasure and happiness experienced in the human realm is not so great as the pleasure and happiness experienced in the heavens. As a result, human beings are neither blinded by the intense happiness experienced by the beings in the heavens, nor distracted by the unbearable suffering that beings in the hells experience. Again, unlike the animals, human beings possess sufficient intelligence to recognize the necessity to look for a means to achieve the total end of suffering.

So to answer your question, it is both.
Alright. I kinda imagine it as inertia towards something "bad" (lower realms) that can be stopped by A) no longer applying force towards that direction (in due time it will stop) or B) Applying force in the opposite direction

Is secular buddhism a contradiction?

Since they dont believe in things like souls or continuous self what do they mean by rebirth and how can Lama's reincarnate?

they love the ethical part, being liberal and all
youtube.com/watch?v=LgN3MT6m4zI

Not sure if you wrote this all on your own specifically for this thread but thank you regardless. It was a blessing to read.

>Was that in all schools or was it more a problem with the Nyingma ?
All Tibetan schools stress the ability to reach enlightenment in this rebirth alone. Although it has always been somewhat perplexing to me as it isn't about reaching full enlightenment so much as becoming a Bodhisattva.

It's bullshit

Bump

Reminder that bodhisattvas are bullshit, because if you've cast off all worldly concerns you'd have no reason to stick around teaching.

cracks me up how westerners see buddhism as a sort of 'atheist' religion, when in reality there's like a billion realms, ghosts, hells, gods.

lol

You both Buddha didn't believe in souls or the self either, right? This isn't some modern liberal thing.

All the mystical, religious wankery is just as much a corruption of the Buddha's teachings as any western attempts to liberalise it.

You're making the "western" mistake of treating a vast variety of seperate traditions as one coherent "Religion".

In truth Buddhism was often blended in with local cultures and adapted many of their deities. In reality if you look at the Buddha's philosophy itself he is largely unconcerned with the existence of god or gods. He doesn't make a committment one way or another and considers it something that can't be answered so you shouldn't worry about it too much.

There's a habit of rightly pointing out the bs western understanding of Buddhism but still falling into the trap of trying to understand it through the mold of a Western religion a la christianity and Islam. IMO, it is better to seperate Buddha the historical person from the various traditions "based off him" centuries later.

Buddha is far closer to Plato or Aristotle than Muhammad or Jesus.

You're dead wrong.

Local gods/deities and rituals in Buddhism are purely cosmetics. These deities usually play the role of protectors of Buddha or protectors of religion. They dont serve any other special role in Buddhist religion itself. So there is absolutely a unified coherent religion called Buddhism.

>buddha is far closer
I'd steer clear of such comparison. There are many dimensions to these individuals and these sort of talk are drivels unless you intend to expand upon it.

bumpoo

It's full of D&D tier stuff

Can you please explain further that comparison between Bhuddha and Aristotle and Plato? I am genuinely curious about that

The three were old, wore robes and had pupils

Oh, okay, thanks. But is there similarities between their philosophies though?

Similarities exist when you take a superficial view to things. One could say Buddha/Jesus/Muhammad were similar too.

Core of Buddhism is ofcourse vastly different. The superficial stuff like "do good, avoid bad" are abundant in most ethics/religious systems.

You could make your own comparison around specific doctrines, the four schools of vajrayana and the doctrines they follow. Shentong vs rangtong, how they follow shunyata, etc.

Nice

DUDE THE BUDDHA CAME BACK AFTER HIS PARIBBANNA AND TOLD ME THE SECRETS TO THE BEST TRAINING , TRUST ME ON THIS LMAO

Unironically this. Vajrayana claims that Buddha taught tantra when he was not a tantric himself, plus that he "manifests" as some deity to teach some tantra despite he not existing anymore

Bump

yes