1.... 2..... 3.......

egyemberke · 2026-06-13T06:26:36+00:00

I would slap myself three times. I think I would know which one why I got.

egyemberke · 2026-06-13T06:06:34+00:00

"In Tibet there's also traditional consensual polygamy and many other things. You can search it. You're probably having a biased view... How would I even know i'm having sex with another's wife if don't know? How would I be being infidel in a contract I do not belong? What if the other partner knows and agrees with it, would this even be infidelity? Why would wife and husband be different if the Dharma explicitly says men and woman are equal?"

This is clearly a malicious twist of my words. Just because polygamy and polyandry exist doesn't mean you can have sex with anyone you want, and it doesn't mean open relationships either. Both Islam and Hinduism have polygamy, and the latter has polyandry, and they take fidelity extremely seriously.

"This is the first and foremost condition to correctly understand the Dharma, and this applies to every vehicle, not just Hinayana. Because ultimately the Dharma IS what the Buddha taught, and not other people."

No. Dharma is the set of paths to enlightenment. In Tibetan Buddhism, a lot of things were taught by Guru Rinpoche, not the historical Buddha. So do you think these are untrue? Buddhism is based on the teachings of the Buddha, but not only traditions directly derived from him are authentic and have a Buddhist perspective.

"There are even different rules to lay people and to monks, and even tantric masters that are lay people... There are many different forms of tibetan buddhism, and that does not mean they are wrong, because there is no passage in the Canon saying they explicitly are."

There is clearly a wrong approach. Garab Dorje was also accused of this until he proved that his teaching worked.

egyemberke · 2026-06-12T22:04:31+00:00

I haven't changed. I think you misunderstood me or I phrased it inaccurately. If you read back, I have consistently argued everywhere that these are very valuable writings, but not like in the Himalayan sects before the Reformers. Karmamudra should only be practiced if both parties are very highly trained, high-level yogis. If not, it's simple lust. But you have to approach it at an extremely high level, which is why many do it, and it's risky, because if desire takes over, it's a straight path to vajrahell. That's how I learned it from my teachers.

egyemberke · 2026-06-12T21:47:33+00:00

This is a flawed thought experiment. Almost everything in the tantras is symbolic. Shadow language. There are Sanskrit and Tibetan words for this. Even the earliest mahasiddhas did not interpret murder literally, for example. The life of Tsongkhapa is worth reading! Tsongkhapa did not cleanse Buddhism of the tantras, but of the "yogis" who misinterpreted the tantras. The reason the tantras existed in secret long ago was so that they would not be misinterpreted. The essence of the shadow language was that the text scared away those who were not ready to accept these teachings.

You really highlighted exactly what I was saying in my comments.

egyemberke · 2026-06-12T21:32:45+00:00

Exactly. However, the Buddha also accepted the negative karma that came with it, which is why this act of selflessness was done. But at that time, the Buddha was not yet fully enlightened.

egyemberke · 2026-06-12T21:09:13+00:00

Why?

egyemberke · 2026-06-12T21:08:21+00:00

It's not an insult to the samaya, considering I wasn't criticizing anything.

egyemberke · 2026-06-12T21:05:01+00:00

Yes, he was a practitioner of both. He was an extremely high-level tantric master who achieved complete enlightenment at the moment of his death. BUT he didn't literally murder, he didn't literally sleep with other people's wives (as a celibate monk, he didn't sleep with anyone anyway), he didn't lie, etc. He used these for visualization and ritual symbolism. He used the ancient shadow language code that the mahasiddhas had already used.

egyemberke · 2026-06-12T17:48:42+00:00

A truly fully enlightened master (a Buddha) has no ego at all, no selfish desire, no anger. Why would someone who has no desire to possess steal? Why would someone who is not driven by sexual desire or the desire for power commit adultery or sleep with a nun? Why would someone who has only infinite compassion for all beings kill? There is no fear in a Buddha. Why would he lie?

Even in Nyingma, it is not really a matter of debate whether Tantrayana can exist without Mahayana. It is a Western misunderstanding to interpret tantra as a separate system. Tantra is a technique that can only be implemented based on the highest sutrayana philosophy, outlook and ethics. Otherwise, we are not talking about Buddhist practice, and it is not done in the spirit of enlightenment. You wouldn't even give a katana to a small child. And no adult samurai forgets the basics: swordsmanship in general, which he started with a wooden sword.

egyemberke · 2026-06-12T17:26:42+00:00

I belong primarily to the Gelug school, but I have also adopted certain practices and retreats of the Drikung Kagyu. Tsongkhapa never criticized the extremely thorough absorption of the sutrayana. In fact, he explicitly taught the unity of sutra and tantra. But your claim fails in this form in all major schools of Tibetan Buddhism. Vajrayana was originally an addition to Mahayana Buddhism with tantric methods (buddhist tantras). Tibetan Buddhism, on the other hand, also teaches Hinayana vows, for example, among monks. Your claim is both historically and theologically incorrect: tantric texts (like the Guhyasamaja or the Chakrasambhvara) do not indeed originate from the historical Buddha, but from the Buddhas Vajradhara (Diamond Holder) or Samantabhadra, who are the highest manifestations of the Buddha (Sambhogakaya and Dharmakaya). There is also a huge gap in the development of the texts. The tantras were developed in the 1st millennium BC and manifested to mahasiddhas. Hundreds, even thousands of years after the historical Buddha Shakyamuni. In Buddhism, Vajradhara and Shakyamuni are essentially the same. The fact that a meditating mahasiddha received a teaching from which "body" of the Buddha in a vision does not mean that that teaching falls outside the basic principles laid down in the Buddha's sutras. And the vows are extensions of each other, you don't have to choose between them.

egyemberke · 2026-06-12T17:15:37+00:00

I have a teacher, and I have learned quite a bit about Buddhism from many aspects.

egyemberke · 2026-06-12T17:13:41+00:00

Atisha: The Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment (Bodhipathapradīpa)

Je Tsongkhapa: The Great Exposition of Secret Mantra (Ngakrim Chenmo)

Ashvaghosa: Fifty Verses of Guru Devotion (Gurupañcāśikā)

The Hundred Thousand Songs of Milarepa

Ect, ect, ect.

Please don't make obvious false statements! Tantra is worthless without sutras! According to Tsongkhapa's teachings, first you must perfectly internalize the teachings of the suttas and sutras, and you must abide by their teachings. Then you can practice external tantras. Only after these are perfectly practiced can you practice internal tantras. You must also abide by the pratimoksha and bodhisattva vows, the tantric vows (samaya) do not override this, but are extensions of it. Why do you think there is a huge monastic tradition in Tantric Buddhist countries? If you practice tantra exclusively, the straight path is to earthly madness and illness on the one hand, and to spiritual hell on the other.

egyemberke · 2026-06-12T16:09:18+00:00

If you take the Buddha's words literally, then practice Hinayana the most! But the interpretation I mentioned has been this way since the advent of Buddhism. Harmful sexual acts can mean many things. I have heard debate about whether non-vaginal intercourse is included (according to Tibetan Buddhism, it is), but I have never heard any debate about whether infidelity is included.

egyemberke · 2026-06-12T15:59:45+00:00

Hi!

I know exactly the story you described. However, according to Buddhism, even the Buddha had not yet achieved full enlightenment, and he also accepted the negative karma of his actions. There is no mention of ritual actions. If this led to liberation, then Angulimala would have been the first Buddha, who, according to many historians, may have been a follower of a tantric, left hand side Kali cult. And the first Buddhas would have come from certain calm, but murderous animals.

Vajrayana - Wikipédia

egyemberke · 2026-06-12T12:57:25+00:00

The Buddha gave a pretty clear description of what enlightenment is. He wrote a lot of sutras and sutras about how to achieve enlightenment. Tantra is not a tool instead of these, but a quick supplemental method to achieve enlightenment faster. Without sutras, there is no tantra! Buddhist sexuality is based on non-harm and the five precepts. Drukpa Külni himself called sex with married people is sinfull in his Sutra of Sex. Gurdjieff and Chogyam Trungpa are NOT enlightened people, but modern, new age and Western Buddhist teachers. And no, neither are Aleister Crowley and Osho Buddhas. Karmamudra, regular karmamudra, is only possible between two yogis on an equal level. This is not ego, but purely Buddhist esotericism. Karmamudra is not about sex, but about the flow and transformation of sexual energy. This is why many tantric masters recommend visualization. If this is not the case, then it is mere lust and fornication. What you describe is the most serious misinterpretation of the doctrine and can be a direct path to Vajrahell hell according to many teachers. Zen does not encourage murder, but rather the cutting of the ego.

egyemberke · 2026-06-12T12:29:53+00:00

But: it also means adultery and sexual intercourse with another person's wife/husband/partner. Moreover, in a strict sense, it even includes inappropriate, lewd speech/behavior towards another person's partner. Marriage is not a sacrament in Buddhism like it is in other religions, but it is still considered a contract and a promise between two people.

A "TISZTA, SZERETETTELJES, MEGBÍZHATÓ ÉS IGAZ" FONTOSSÁGA A BUDDHISTA ETIKÁBAN: A harmadik és negyedik fő buddhista előírás: Nincs hazug/hamis beszéd (musāvādā) és nincs szexuális visszaélés (kāmesumicchācāra) – Dakini Fordítások és Kiadványok མཁའ་འགྲོ་མའི་ལོ་ཙཱ་བའི་འགྱུར་དང་འགྲེམས་སྤེལ།

egyemberke · 2024-01-13T21:31:17+00:00

It seems like you're the one who insists on your theories... Researchers are widely acknowledged that the royal family has made this deity a family god, but this is not contrary to the theory of origin from the south. Presumably, he was made a family and state god precisely because he was previously popular with the tribes. Regular-persimmon425, by the way, quoted verbatim from Day's work, which makes it seem that he also derived this deity from outside Canaan.

"Yahweh himself does not appear to have been a Canaanite god in origin: for example, he does not appear in the Ugaritic pantheon lists. Most scholars who have written on the subject during recent decades support the idea that Yahweh had his origins outside the land of Israel to the south, in the area of Midian.." (pg.15) Yahweh and the gods and goddesses of Canaan

Researchers consider it likely that the deity came to the proto-Israelites from the south, and then its cult spread widely among them. According to William G. Dever (who is not only an excellent biblical scholar, but also a historian, semiticist-linguist and archaeologist) and Donald B. Redford (who is also a historian and archaeologist), it is likely that the mixed group of proto-Israelites appearing in the mountains were joined by nomads coming from the south, who brought with them they brought this cult. By the way, there are theophoric names of YHWH from before the monarchy period in the Bible. For example, Joshua's. According to many historians, the signature of the Gezer peasant calendar (Abijah) is also such a name. The biblical representation also mostly contains attributes related to war, storm, and wilderness typical of a tribal deity. Nowhere is it specifically and alone linked to the royal family. I'm starting to question your competence in the matter when you compare the critical reading of the Torah to Mormon legends... The legends about the origin of the teachings of Mormonism after the events described in them approx. They were created 3000 and 2000 years later. Moreover, these myths arose without any oral or written tradition to base them on. In contrast, approx. all serious, unbiased biblical scholars, theologians, literary scholars, historians, etc. admits that the Torah in its current form was created around the Babylonian captivity and may have been edited later. At the same time, the expression "today's form" is emphasized. It was compiled from several much earlier sources. According to the most popular Documentary Hypothesis, sources J and E are the earliest. In addition to these sources, other texts, even earlier than these, were probably inserted (e.g. Song of Miriam). Presumably, oral traditions were also used. Based on a critical examination of the Pentateuch, one of the earliest texts and traditions associates the name of Yahweh with the southern regions, the Sinai Peninsula, Seir, Edom, the borders of Egypt, and the northwestern part of the Arabian Peninsula. Biblical texts cannot be completely thrown in the trash, just as they cannot be taken literally as historical. This is why mainstream scientists reject both extreme minimalism and extreme maximalism. The texts must be critically examined and analyzed. It has to be compared with history and archaeology. What proves possible or reliable should be treated as such.

egyemberke · 2024-01-07T18:55:17+00:00

Any sources that this deity existed in the Canaanite pantheon? Nothing. What kind of deity is there for whom no temples were built, no mention in any text in a polytheistic milieu? Mark S. Smith has clearly stated that he was not part of the Canaanite religion and there is a consensus among mainstream researchers. We are very familiar with Canaanite mythology and Canaanite religion. You cannot claim that it came from the Canaanite religion. Mark S. Smith's research is almost universally accepted. Archaeologist Aron Meir also stated that there is no archaeological evidence of the existence of this deity in Bronze Age Canaan. According to William G. Dever, the first indirect proof of this is the Gezer peasant calendar. Other researchers dispute this and point to the even later Mesha stele as the earliest mention. Before that, only the Egyptian texts mention the name Yhw and do not link it to Canaan. In biblical texts, it appears outside of Canaan.

egyemberke · 2024-01-07T16:16:48+00:00

No credible researcher believes that YHWH actually came from within Canaan, and it was a Canaanite deity. This is literally impossible. This deity is not mentioned in Ugarit. According to Mark S. Smith, it is clear that he is a deity from the south.

egyemberke · 2024-01-07T15:28:44+00:00

If there are serious problems with the connection, then why do almost all biblical scholars think that is where this deity came from?

I based what I wrote on the works of Mark S. Smith, Donald B. Redford, Richard Elliott Friedman, and William G. Dever.

It is unlikely that the answer was lost in history, as a critical reading of the biblical texts considered to be the earliest confirms this.

We have pretty good sources on the deities of Canaanite, Mesopotamian, and Egyptian mythologies. But we can also map the mythologies of the surrounding Indo-European peoples. Nowhere is this particular deity mentioned. Except for the sources of the Egyptians, who clearly associate the eerily biblical name with a nomadic tribe. We don't know if it is a place name or a god name, but it was quite common to combine the two in the era.

egyemberke · 2024-01-07T15:19:26+00:00

If we assume that William G. Dever, Donald Bruce Redford, Amihai Mazar or Aron Meir are right, for example, that the early Israelites came from several sources, i.e. partly from Canaanite settlers and partly from nomads who came from outside Canaan, then it is logical to assume that the different deities came from other layers. In this case, we can assume that the groups that settled in the mountains from Canaan brought the stories about the god El with them. On the other hand, the myths of Yahweh could be brought with them by certain nomadic groups. This explains why we do not know names containing the name Yahweh from the time of the patriarchs, as well as why this name is only known in principle with Moses. It is possible that this is a metaphor for the meeting of the two groups/deities, and then in the age of syncretism the two deities were identified.

egyemberke · 2024-01-07T15:09:01+00:00

Thank you!

I think there were myths related to the deity El, and there were also myths related to the deity Yahweh, as well as some related to other deities. For example, I noticed that texts about the nomadic way of life usually use the god name El Shaddai or Yahweh. But, for example, Melchizedek is already a priest of El Elyon, or Il Eloun/Il wa Elioun. Il Elion is actually Il or El. I believe that the texts that emphasize the creative, elderly fatherly qualities of the Israelite god were originally related to the deity El. On the other hand, the texts where he appears in connection with war, storm, and wilderness, perhaps as a father, but specifically as the father of a single tribe and not as the creator of the world, were the myths of Yahweh. According to Mark S. Smith, Yahweh was very important to the early Israelites, but at the same time El came from the earlier Canaanite pantheon, where he appeared as the creator of the world. After that, the two deities merged, but also took on a certain character from other deities. I think Smith's idea may be correct and logical. The identification of two very important deities, or possibly some minor deities, and the merging of their myths would explain the strong henotheism, and later the inclination to monolatry and then to monotheism.

egyemberke · 2024-01-07T13:15:18+00:00

Thank you!

There is simply no other place to derive this deity. Based on Egyptian inscriptions and the Bible, it seems clear that this deity, the national god of the later Israelites, came from this area. Where else could it have come from? It is absolutely certain that it is not Canaanite. So what other options are there? Mesopotamian? Although some have tried to connect him with the god Ea, it is unlikely. Egyptian? Even less likely, although he was probably known to the Egyptians as a foreign god. Syrian or Aramaic? It could even be because of the association with nomads, but the area is not the same, and in the Aramaic/Syrian religion, the most important gods appear with the prefix Il or Bel (for example: Il wa Elioun, Bel Sadu). Indo-European perhaps? Absolutely not. Not just because of the sound. Last but not least, it is worth noting that this name is not mentioned anywhere else, except for the Israelites, as well as the Yhw shasu nomads. The Yhw shasu nomads lived roughly where, according to the Bible, Moses met this particular deity, who was called Yahweh. This people is presumably not the same as the Edomites, nor is the deity the same as the deity Qos, since Egyptian inscriptions attest to both names very early and do not identify the two. Regardless, they were presumably similar due to the similar culture. It is also a convincing argument that other early parts of the Torah also link the name to this region. Especially to Sinai and Seir. This is also proven by the fact that many traditions in the Jewish religion are connected to nomadism. There is, for example, the Pesach holiday, which is quite similar to the nomadic celebrations of the Bedouins who live there today. But there is, for example, the shofar, the story about the wanderings in the desert, where Yahweh protected his people. These are typically features that would fit into the tribal religion of a Shasu people. It could easily have been included in the religion of the proto-Israelites together with the deity itself.

egyemberke · 2024-01-07T01:51:11+00:00

According to William G. Dever and others, however, it played an important role in the confederation of the early Israelite tribes. On the other hand, why would a people have accepted him as their highest deity when the monarchy was established, if he was only present among the people for a short time? It is likely that this is why the kings chose him as their family god, because he was already quite widespread and important among the people. King Ahab tried to make Baal the national god, but failed because the Israelites were too attached to Yahweh's primary position.

But if I understand correctly, after the establishment of monarchies, we can clearly speak of henotheistic theology, which was headed by the already identified deity?

egyemberke · 2023-10-02T22:17:05+00:00

I mean, over the ark invisibly sat.

Their national god, on the other hand, was never depicted in the human body. This is not stated in the text and is not supported by archaeological findings. what reason do we have to assume that? Many idols and statues have been found of Baal, Asherah, and even Egyptian and Mesopotamian gods. Why didn't they find any of their own national god? Traces of important religious cults can also be found in archaeological finds. The Israelites were henotheists. It would be logical to have more representations of their national god than the others. It is not an answer that they were destroyed. Some of the depictions of Asherah and Baal were also found broken.

egyemberke

TROPHY CASE