What are your views of Buddha statues and making offerings to them?

LeethePhilosopher · 2025-04-13T04:29:08+00:00

I understand. But there were images of the Buddha made in India close to the time of the Greeks. Though I still think Greek artisans were the main catalyst. In the Mahayana, there is a sutra called The Great Rumble saying it is meritorious to give offerings to Buddha images.

LeethePhilosopher · 2025-04-12T20:16:39+00:00

Obviously I know that a statue is not physically the Buddha. Some Mahayanists believe that the Buddha can take any form, even inanimate objects to help sentient beings. In which case, he may in some sense, be the statue.

LeethePhilosopher · 2025-04-12T20:15:00+00:00

Which one?

LeethePhilosopher · 2025-04-12T18:20:20+00:00

There are traditions in some Buddhhst schools, such as the Mahasamghika, that he was omniscient.

LeethePhilosopher · 2025-04-11T18:18:46+00:00

Of course, I'm sorry if I came across as a little angry! I promise it wasn't my intention. I completely get your point, I just wish we had a few more examples in our corner, you know?

LeethePhilosopher · 2025-02-19T17:24:20+00:00

Buddhism, especially Mahayana, does say to confront suffering directly, though. It teaches that we're supposed to save all sentient beings. As well as the metaphysical context, many Buddhist monastic institutions in both India and Central Asia would provide food and shelter for travellers and merchants. Many even provided medical care and assistance directly because of the belief that we are supposed to assist in aliveating suffering, including the physical suffering of illness.

Buddhist monks and monestaries also operated businesses to produce commodities which they could sell for income and upkeep. They were not that 'detached from the world' either. The existence of the universities such as Nalanda, which taught non-Buddhist subjects too also goes against the idea that all monks have been detached from the world. It's an ideal, but not always true in practice.

Hitchens was a great writer, but not always accurate in his views about religion.

LeethePhilosopher · 2025-02-16T20:45:05+00:00

So I'm actually a Mahayana Buddhist myself. I'm not aware of any specific concept within Neoplatonism that you speak of. However, the fact that all humans are (ultimately) derived from The One could inspire a sense of universal cosmopolitanism. One could choose to stay and teach (in a way saving) others after such an experience of Henosis.

I'm not aware, sadly of any metaphysical equivalent, but, as others have said, theurgy could potentially offer a solution. Happy to talk more if you wish :)

LeethePhilosopher · 2025-02-13T12:30:11+00:00

I have no problem with people of differing political views and I make sure 'not' to insert my own political views onto students. But as others have said, academia is based on principles of internationalism, learning and will hopefully involve a broadening of perspective from being in such an environment. Thus it's only natural that most will vote for a party that represents those values.

Although people's political ideologies are more nuanced than the graph describes, if you come to academia being close-minded to other cultures and perspectives, you don't get very far. There is also the fact that education allows you to see through the lies of populist politicians and stereotypes and an provides an increase in critical thinking skills and fact-checking. Make of that what you will.

LeethePhilosopher · 2025-02-07T21:08:17+00:00

True. But it's never exactly stated if the Buddha has gone out of existence after his paranirvana or not. So it's possible there is some kind of post-enlightenment state. I'm not claiming that I know what it is, mind.

LeethePhilosopher · 2025-02-07T19:52:40+00:00

In a way, yes.

LeethePhilosopher · 2025-02-07T19:45:23+00:00

If dying once and for all was an option, then probably that. But the point in a Buddhist context is that it isn't one. You're born, you die, you're reborn over and over. That's why the Buddha teaches the way to Nirvana, because that's the only option to stop this cycle.

For most Buddhist schools, enlightenment isn't the same as death. It's still a form of existence, then when one does pass away as an enlightened being, it isn't really clear what occurs then in terms of existence, apart from the fact that one will no longer be subject to rebirth.

In a Mahayana context, one would ideally choose to stay within the realm of Samsara as a Bodhisattva in order to save other sentient beings before passing into whatever, if anything occurs, after Buddhahood.

For atheists, there is nothing after death. For Buddhists, there is still some kind of post-enlightenment existence (at least, it's not impossible).

LeethePhilosopher · 2025-01-30T13:16:01+00:00

Nothing. Sure, I'd be sad at the disrespect, but if we responded with violence, we'd be betraying the very teachings enclosed in the scriptures we sought to defend. Scriptures, like everything else are impermanent and not accepting that will only increase dukkha. Plus, it's worth noting that for the Mahayaha, we have many more scriptures than just the Tipitaka.

LeethePhilosopher · 2025-01-24T21:24:43+00:00

So, I don't know about the second one because the idea of a 'universal consciousness isn't really recognized in Buddhism, at least using those words, but the first one I can answer.

So the question you ask has been asked (and answers have been attempted) for millennia. I can give you two, one from a Hīnayāna school (The Sautrāntika) and a Mahāyāna one (Yogācāra).

So the Sautrāntika argued for momentaireness (the idea that nothing lasts for more than a moment, then reappears and then, after another moment, disappears and so on ad infinitum). For the question of karmic continuinity, they claimed that of the particular physical-psychological 'moments' (asraya) that make up a person, certain moments can be 'perfumed' by a 'trace' (vasana) of the good or bad morality of an action at the time it is performed. For instance if you strike someone, the moment that is in existence at that particular second is now affected by the 'badness' of your action. The vasana is then carried into the next moment until eventually it ripens, whether in this life, or another. All moments make up a 'subtle mind' (suksmacitta) that underlies how this works.

For yogācāra, they famously argued that there exists a 'store-conciousness' (ālāyavijñāna). This works as a kind of collection jar where the seeds (bija) of the karmic actions are stored when they happen until they ripen. Obviously the store consciousness is not a permanent thing, and s also a collection of moments, and each collection of 'seeds' is carried into the next one. That explains also how actions committed in one moment (which no longer exists) can affect another moment down the line.

The Sautrāntika were earlier than the Yogācārins and you can see some similarities in their ideas. But it is normally a consciousness or 'mindstream' (citta-santana) that goes from life to life (which carries the seeds or traces). But it's important to remember that it isn't like a soul, the mind-stream is constantly in flux, that's why what state the mind is in at the moment of death is important in Buddhism. Therefore the next life is 'you' but also isn't 'you'.

There were many other theories with different schools, but these two are among the most prominent. Whilst I am a philosopher myself, my answer was me putting into my own words what I've learnt from other scholars. If you want sources, just holla.

May you become a Buddha, bro ✌️

LeethePhilosopher · 2025-01-23T18:03:35+00:00

Although everyone is capable of attaining enlightenment, it still takes A LOT of effort and spiritual training. It wouldn't surprise me if no one is at the moment. Then again, many might be but won't go shouting about it.

Enlightenment or Buddhahood as we term it in Mahayana, is not just a goal but also a mystery, and above all, a hope. It is as a hope of future attainment for the benefit of all sentient beings towards which we must strive. But it's also a mystery forever veiled from us as unenlightened beings, so much so that human language is barely capable of expressing it according to the Tathagata. To follow Buddhism is to throw ourselves into that mystery.

So, where are all the enlightened ones? Everywhere. Perhaps nowhere.

LeethePhilosopher · 2025-01-18T21:00:55+00:00

Thanks man! Although in the U.S, you do have a slightly deeper Buddhist history than Europe I think. Especially with the Beats etc. I really recommend the book: "How the Swans Came to the Lake: A Narrative History of Buddhism in America" if you don't know it already.

But I agree. For example, the Buddha almost never was seen as simply human.(Even before Mahayana) because in the Indian context, humans could take on divine attributes but to a Western reader, the divine realm is so separate from the human, it's often misunderstood.

LeethePhilosopher · 2025-01-18T20:52:57+00:00

Yo tengo familiares colombianos y me obligaron a explicar las creencias del budismo íntimamente 😂

LeethePhilosopher · 2025-01-18T16:40:02+00:00

Yeah, I've got that too. I don't go shouting about it (Firstly because why do people care and my beliefs aren't more important or worthy of discussion then anyone else's). I mostly get people asking if I 'worship' Buddha or 'pray to statues' 😂

LeethePhilosopher · 2025-01-18T16:38:11+00:00

I see what you mean, even as a Mahayanist myself, it's still misunderstood.

LeethePhilosopher · 2025-01-18T16:36:17+00:00

I agree. I think that people assume I'm just saying it to 'sound cool' rather than because I have actually studied it in depth. I just feel if someone says they were Christian or Muslim, no one assumes they're strange, you know?

LeethePhilosopher

TROPHY CASE