Nirvana.
        Hindus  and  Buddhists  believe  in  a  state  of  Nirvana  or  Nibbana.  
        Nirvana  is  defined  as  a  transcendent  state  in  which  there  is  no  suffering  or  desire  and  no  sense  of  self.  The  origin  of  this  word  is  from  the  Sanskrit   nirvăna   where  nirvă   means  ‘be  extinguished’.    On  attaining  nirvana,  a  person  is  released  from  the  repeated  cycles  of   reincarnation  and  suffering.

Pantheism.
        A  belief  which  identifies  God  with  the  universe,  or  regards  the  universe  as  a  manifestation  of  God.
        This concept holds that the creator and the creation are one and the same, and that the creator is not separate from the creation, and that the creator did not precede the creation.
        Hence the concept of pantheism is consistent with the core beliefs of Hinduism and most New Age practices.

Reincarnation.
        Reincarnation  is  the  rebirth  of  a  soul  in  a  new  body. 
        Incarnation  is   a  spirit  embodied  in  a  living  human  from.  
        To  incarnate  is  to  be  invested  in a  bodily  form.
        The  origin of  this  word  is  from the  Latin  in-  carn-  which  means  ‘into’  ‘flesh’.

Samadhi.  
        Samadhi   is  a  state  of  intense  concentration  achieved  through   meditation.  The  origin  of  this  word  is  from  Sanskrit  samădhi  which  means  ‘contemplation’.
        Samadhi  has  also  been  described  as  a  state  in  which  one’s  consciousness  becomes  in  unity  with  the  atman.  
        Yogis  describe  samadhi  as  a  state  of  supreme  happiness.  Hindus  believe  that  they  can  attain  samadhi  by  meditating  and  looking  within  themselves  in  order  to  ‘self-realize’.  The  devotee is  required  to  disciple  himself  to  a  guru  or  yogi  and  move  closer  to  Nibbana  after  many  years  of  meditation,  chanting  of  mantras  and  ascetic  living. 
        By  the  process  of  Yoga  meditation,  the  devotee  attempts  to  empty  himself  of   all  his  ego  driven  desires,  reason  and  logic.  The  devotee  believes  that  through  practice  and  obedient  following  of  a  Yogi,  he  can  achieve  self  realization.  
        Self  realization  is  defined  as  the  fulfillment  of  one’s  own  potential.   An  Indian  Yogi,  Paramahansa Yogananda  explains  Self Realization  as  the  knowing  that  we  are  one  with  the  omnipresence of  God  in  body,  mind  and  soul. Another  Indian  Yogi,  Sai  Baba,  states  that  the life aim of Hindus is to reach fulfillment through constant spiritual discipline, the fulfillment that comes from the awareness of one's Divinity. Merging with the Divine is the attainment of fullness. 

Samsara.
        Samsara  is  the  cycle  of  death  and  rebirth  in  which  life in  the  material  world  is  bound.  The  origin  of  this  word  is  from  the  Sanskrit  samsăra.  

Sikhism

        Sikhism is a religious belief founded by Guru Nanak Dev 1469 to 1539 in Punjab, India. His writings are compiled in the Siri Guru Granth Sahib
 

       Central in his teaching is the belief that there is one creator God called Satnam Vahiguru or Truth as revealed by Guru Nanak. He saw the universe as a creation of one supreme power, and since the creator was in the world he created, it could not be treated as unreal as proposed in Hinduism and Buddhism.

        His teachings did not include the policy of renunciation of the world or detachment from worldly responsibilities. He denounced the leading of one's life as an ascetic and put great emphasis on hard work and earning a livelihood. For him taking care of one's family and providing food and shelter for them was one of the prime duties of man before God. 

       However, similar to Hinduism and Buddhism, he believed in reincarnation and karma.  Because the theory of re-incarnation has been refuted, I believe Sikhism and Sikh beliefs are false. 

Soul.
        Soul  is  the  spiritual  or  non-material  part  of  a  human  regarded  as  immortal.  The  origin  of  this  word  is  from  the  Old  English, Germanic   sāwol.

Spirit. 
        Spirit  is  the  non-physical  part  of  a  person  which  is  the  seat  of  emotions  and  character;   this  is  regarded  as  surviving  after  death  of  the  body,  often  manifested  as  a  ghost.. The  origin  of  this  word  is  from  Latin  spiritos  which  means  ‘breath’.

Yoga.
        Yoga  is  a  Hindu  spiritual  and  ascetic  discipline,  a  part  of  which,  including  breath  control,  simple  meditation,  and  the  adoption  of  specific  bodily  positions,  is  widely  practiced  for  health  and  relaxation. The  origin  of  this  word  is from  the  Sanskrit  yoga  which  means ‘union’.  

Yogi.
        A  yogi  is  a  person  proficient  in  yoga. 
        An  example  of  a  yogi  is  Paramahansa  Yogananda. 

        Born   Mukunda  Lal  Ghosh  on  Jan  5,  1893   in  the  northern  Indian  city  of  Gorakhpur.  Died  Mar  7,  1952  in  Los  Angeles,  USA.  From  the  age  of  seventeen,  he  was  trained  in  the  yoga  discipline   by  Swami  Sri  Yukteswar  for  ten  years. Paramahansa  considered  his  gurus  as  avatara.   He  was  conferred  with  the  Swami  order  in  1915,  after  graduating  from  the  University  of  Calcutta.  He  founded  a  ‘how  to  live’  school  for  boys  where  yoga  spiritual  training  was  combined  with  modern  educational  methods.  He  went  to  the  United  States,  founded  a  society  called  Self-Realization  Fellowship  in  1920  and  five  years  later  he  settled  in  Los  Angeles.   He  popularized  a  form  of  yoga  called  Kriya  Yoga. He  is  well  known  for  his  ‘Autobiography  of  a  Yogi’  and  an  English  translation  of  ‘The  Bhagavad  Gita’.  In  his  autobiography,  he  refers  to  the part  of  the  brain  above  and  between  the  eyes  as  the ‘Christ  consciousness  center’. His  disciples  have  deified  him  as  an  avatar.

Resource material:

Definitions in italics are based on The Concise Oxford Dictionary,  10^th edition, revised.  2001.

Quotations from other sources are in the Arial narrow font.  

Old  Souls,  the  scientific  evidence  for  past  lives  by  Tom  Shroder, published  by  Simon &  Schuster,  Rockefeller  Center,  1230,  Ave of the Americas,  New  York,  NY  10020.  ISBN  0-684-85192-X). ©1999.

Reincarnation,  Amazing  True  Cases  From  Around  The  World  by  Roy  Stemman (Editor  of  Reincarnation  International),  published  by  Judy  Piatkus  Ltd. Windmill  Street, London  W1P 1HF..  ISBN 0-7499-1708-3 hbk,  ISBN 0-7499-1787-3 pbk  ©1997  (Ref: in  page  38) 

Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramahansa Yogananda published by Self-Realization Fellowship, 3880 San Raphael Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90065-3298 U.S.A.  ISBN 0-87612-082-6. 12th Ed. © 1981

To see my answers to some challenging questions, click on the following hyperlinks.

Secular evidence for the existence of supernatural reality (Home page)
How I explain supernatural reality.
Bible prophecies have correctly predicted events in secular history.
Predictions about Yeshua (Jesus)
Which religion should I choose to believe in
Why I believe Islam and Islamic belief are false.
Why I believe Hinduism and Hindu belief are false.
Why I believe Buddhism and Buddhist belief are false.
Why I believe New Age and New Age belief are false.
Why I believe Baha'i and Baha'i belief are false
Miracles performed by Jesus Christ
Invitation to spread the message.
Back to home page.

The Eight Wrathful Deities

The most important category of wrathful deities is the group of eight dharampalas. The dharampalas, or defenders of Buddhism, are divinities with the rank of Bodhisattva who wage war without any mercy against the demons and enemies of Buddhism. These eight wrathful deities, which can be worshipped as a group of "Eight Terrible Ones" or individually, are:

1. Lha-mo (Tibetan: “Goddess”; Sanskrit: Sri-devi, or Kala-devi) - fierce goddess of the city of Lhasa and the only feminine wrathful deity
2. Tshangs-pa Dkar-po (Tibetan: “White Brahma”; Sanskrit: Sita-Brahma)
3. Beg-tse (Tibetan: “Hidden Sheet of Mail”)
4. Yama (Sanskrit; Tibetan: Gshin-rje) - the god of death, often shown gripping the Tibetan wheel of life
5. Kubera, or Vaisravana (Sanskrit; Tibetan: Rnam-thos-sras) - the god of wealth and the only wrathful deity who is never represented in a fierce form
6. Mahakala (Sanskrit: “Great Black One”; Tibetan: Mgon-po)
7. Hayagriva (Sanskrit: “Horse Neck”; Tibetan: Rta-mgrin)
8. Yamantaka (Sanskrit: “Conqueror of Yama, or Death”; Tibetan: Gshin-rje-gshed)

History of the Wrathful Deities

Worship of the wrathful deities was initiated in the 8th century by the magician-saint Padmasambhava, who is said to have conquered the malevolent deities in Tibet and forced them to vow to protect Buddhists and the Buddhist faith. Many of the wrathful deities can be linked to Hinduism, Bon (the indigenous religion of Tibet), or folk deities. {2}

Wrathful Deities in Buddhist Worship and Devotion

Images of the wrathful deities are kept in the homes and temples of Tibetan Buddhists to protect them against evil influences and remind them to destroy passion and evil in themselves. In general Buddhist practice, sculptures and thangkas are intended as temporary dwellings for the spiritual beings into which Buddhism projects its analysis of the nature of the world. They are thus not just aesthetic objects but actual dwellings for the energies projected into them with the aid of mantras. The power of those energies can then be directed towards the Buddhist goal. The wrathful deities, though benevolent, are represented in visual arts as hideous and ferocious in order to instill terror in evil spirits which threaten the dharma.

The wrathful deities can also be a focus of Buddhist devotion and worship. "The dharmapalas are worshiped in the mgon khang, a subterranean room, the entrance to which is often guarded by stuffed wild yaks or leopards. Priests wear special vestments and use ritual instruments often made of human bone or skin. Worship includes the performance of masked dances ('cham)." {2}

"External offerings" made to the wrathful deities differ from those provided to tranquil deities and are traditionally six in number: a cemetary flower, incense of singed flesh, lamp burning human fat (or a substitute), scent of bile, blood (usually symbolized by red water) and human flesh (usually symbolized by parched barley flour and butter realistically colored and modeled). {3} Similarly, the "internal offering" or Offering of the Five Senses given to wrathful deities is a skull cup containing a heart, tongue, nose, pair of eyes, and pair of ears. In Tibetan texts, these are human organs, but in actual ceremonies barley-flour-and-butter replicas are used instead. {4}

Iconography of Wrathful Deities

The wrathful protective deities are depicted in sculptures, paintings and masks as figures with stout bodies, short but thick limbs, several heads and a great number of hands and feet. They have scowling faces, a third eye and disheveled hair, and they wear crowns of skulls or severed heads. They are often depicted treading on animals and in the company of a female consort.

The color of their faces and bodies is frequently compared with the characteristic hue of clouds, precious stones, or other natural objects. Thus we often read in the Sadhanas (canonical texts) that one or the other wrathful deity is black "like the cloud which appears at the end of a kalpa (aeon)", blue "like an emerald" or white "like a mountain of crystal". The yellow color is compared to that of pure gold, and the red color of some of them is supposed to be "like the hue produced when the sun rises and its rays strike a huge mountain of coral."

Their faces possess a typical wrathful expression: the mouth is contorted to an angry smile, from its corners protrude long fangs - often said to be of copper or iron - or the upper teeth gnaw the lower lip. A "mist of illnesses" comes forth from the mouth and a terrific storm is supposed to be blowing from the nostrils of the flat nose. The protruding, bloodshot eyes have an angry and staring expression and usually a third eye is visible in the middle of the forehead.

References

1. Wrathful Guardians of Buddhism - Aesthetics and Mythology. Article of the Month - February 2001, Buddha Art. <http://www.buddhart.com/article/wrathful/>
2. "dharmapala." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9030217>
3. "phyi-mchod." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9059852>.
4. "nang-mchod." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9054776>.

Aryan Buddhism

HE GENERAL IMPRESSION that prevails in the world about Buddhism is that it is a philosophy of life which, though counted among religions, does not prescribe to the existence of God. This impression is only partially correct. Even in contemporary Buddhism, it is wrong to say that none of the Buddhists believe in God or gods. Although the predominant sects, Mahayans and Theravadins, are known to believe only in the ultimate inherent wisdom in man which Buddhaas perfected, they too believe in many superstitions and demonic figures which substitute God for them. This impression of the Buddhists' negation of God is also wrong on another count. An exploration of early Buddhist sources as we shall demonstrate, reveals ample proof that Buddhism began like any other Divinely revealed faith with its emphasis on the Unity of God.

As for the position of Buddha (563–483 BC) among the Buddhists, although he is not directly worshipped as a deity, there is very little difference between the veneration shown to the Buddha by the Buddhists and the manner of worship of God found in other religions. They revere him and pay homage to him, bow to his images and statues and prostrate before them like the adherents of any other idolatrous religion in the world.

In fact, despite the denial of God by most Buddhists, deep within their hearts there seems to be lurking a desire to worship something. It is this which is manifested in their veneration of Buddha. The same unquenchable innate thirst for God etched deep upon the human soul urges them to worship Him, or something, if not Him. So it is to fill this void that the Buddhists worship the

Buddha without formally recognizing him to be a god.

It must also be mentioned here that in the Tibetan form of Buddhism not only is the existence of superhuman deities or demons a part and parcel of their faith, but also they certainly believe in communication with them. The selection of a new Panchen Lama for instance, requires many rites and rituals to be performed, to obtain guidance from gods as to which one of the newborn Tibetan children should be the future Panchen Lama.

Among the so-called atheistic Buddhist sects, it is commonly alleged that Buddha himself denied the existence of God. They support their claim by pointing at the hostility shown to Buddha by the contemporary Hindu pundits. That hostility, they maintain, was largely due to the contempt shown by Buddha to their gods. The Buddhists in general do not bother to analyse the real factors at work which generated misunderstandings leading to the persecution of Buddha. It is quite sufficient for them to believe that Buddha must have rejected the idea of God in totality.

However, as we shall presently establish by re-examining some facts of history and some important relevant passages in the Buddhist sacred literature, it can be clearly shown that Buddhaas is absolved from all such allegations. Yet it must be said, at the very outset, that the historical evidence to which the adherents of both view points refer, is in itself meagre. This difficulty, however, can be offset to a large degree by having recourse to other circumstantial evidence.

The Buddhist philosophy, teachings and practices remained to be transmitted only verbally for almost five hundred years after Buddha, except in the case of inscriptions on the rocks and stupas made during the illustrious reign of Ashoka (273–232 BC). Ashoka, it should be remembered, appeared some three hundred years after his spiritual master, Buddhaas. This fact in itself is of vital importance because these writings can certainly serve the purpose of judging Buddha's philosophy and way of life from the vantage point of Ashoka. Moreover, at a time when nothing of Buddhism was committed to writing, it was Ashoka alone who left behind a written account of what he understood to be Buddha's teachings. Again, his authority as a true representative of Buddha has never been challenged. What remains therefore, is simply a case of different interpretations.

As far as the story of Buddha is concerned, although it too was committed to writing many centuries after his demise, it has been unanimously accepted by all researchers without serious disagreement. This knowledge seems to have been passed on from generation to generation. Hence the personality of Buddha and his lifestyle appear to have a continuity, beginning from Buddha himself to the present day.

From this, it is reasonable to conclude, that an understanding of Buddha and Buddhism which accords with these two sources i.e. the life of Buddha and the writings on the stupas, should have the stronger claim to acceptance. Against this, such views as are clearly at variance with them may safely be rejected. However, if the early sources seem to contradict each other, caution has to be applied in accepting one and rejecting the other.

A close examination of Buddha's biography reveals that in his lifestyle, he was not any different from other prophets of God, who appeared in different parts of the world. There is a universality about the character and style of prophets which can also be discerned in the life of Buddha.

Coming to the issue of the fundamental beliefs of Buddhism, the problems begin with different interpretations of what he is known to have said or done. We disagree with the commonly held view that Buddha was an atheist. We maintain that Buddhism was a Divinely revealed religion. We emphasize the fact that the founder of Buddhism was certainly not an atheist, but was a man commissioned by God Himself, to deliver His message in the style that all other messengers were raised.

Most scholars who write about Buddhism are out of their depth in trying to justify the placing of Buddhism among the great religions of the world. To do that they have to change the universally accepted definition of religion so that it also accommodates Godless philosophies and religions. Why should a code of conduct which starts its journey with a denial of God be admitted into the comity of religions, is the question. As far as our view is concerned, no such objection can be raised on this count. We on our part reject the premise that Buddhism had no Divine origin. To support our contention we shall have recourse to the same well-established sources as the Buddhists themselves rely on and demonstrate that our interpretations have a stronger basis for acceptance. We repeat that Buddhism is no oddity among religions; on the contrary, its fundamental characters are at one with the rest of the Divinely revealed faiths.

The erroneous popular belief in the Godless origin of Buddhism was spread largely by the Western scholars of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.. Their knowledge of Buddhism was largely based on the translations of Buddhist literature from the Pali language by Buddhist scholars who had permitted their own biased, godless philosophy to influence their translations. Few among them understood the Pali language, which is the language of the source material. Moreover, instead of drawing their own inferences directly from a study of reliable Buddhist sources, they leaned entirely on the beliefs about Buddhism prevailing among the major Buddhist sects.

ONTRARY TO this general trend of Western scholars, a solitary voice in India was raised by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas of Qadian (1835–1908), who presented a diametrically opposed view. He maintained that Buddhaas had firm belief in the existence of God who Himself had raised him as His messenger with a specific mission to perform. He demonstrated that Buddhaas, like all other prophets of God, also believed in the existence of Satan, as well as in heaven and hell, in angels and in the Day of Resurrection. Hence, the allegation that Buddhaas did not believe in God is pure fabrication. What Buddha rejected was Vedanta (i.e. doctrines and beliefs found in the Hindu sacred books, the Vedas). He rejected the belief in corporeal manifestations of gods as found in Hinduism. He was severely critical of the Brahmans and regarded them to have corrupted their Divine teaching through their distorted interpretation.

The voice of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas was not to remain solitary for long. Soon, other voices from among the second generation of Western scholars and researchers on Buddhism began to follow suit. The most prominent among them was the great French scholar Dr. Gustav Le Bon (1841–1931) who writes:

Unfortunately, the study of Indian monuments has been completely neglected by European scholars. The specialists of Indian studies, through whom we have come to learn of Buddhism, had never visited India. They had only studied this religion in books; an unfortunate twist of fate made them chance upon the works of philosophical sects written five or six centuries after the death of Buddha, these being absolutely alien to the religion practised in reality. The metaphysical speculations which had so astonished Europeans by their profoundity were in fact nothing new. Ever since the books of India have been better known, these have been found in the writings of philosophical sects which had developed during the Brahmanic period.* 1

So far, Dr. Le Bon seems to be perfectly right in his criticism, but as is apparent from the following text, he himself committed the same mistake of not deriving the concept of true Buddhism, strictly as it is presented by the writings on the stupas—which never mention Buddhism as polytheistic. In the words of Dr. Le Bon:

It is not in the books, but in the monuments that one should study what Buddhism used to be. What the monuments tell us differs strangely from what certain books teach us. The monuments prove that this religion, which modern scholars want to see as an atheistic cult, was, on the contrary, the most polytheistic out of all the cults.* 2

It is this last part of his statement which is false as will be presently shown.

After Dr. Le Bon, another renowned scholar, Arthur Lillie drew a completely different conclusion from his careful study of the inscriptions on Ashoka's stupas. He amply quotes them in his book, India in Primitive Christianity. It should be noted that these inscriptions were not etched solely on the stupas which were specifically built for this purpose, they were also discovered upon the faces of huge rocks situated on highways and trade routes. We present below two examples of such inscriptions from Lillie's translations.

On the Eastern bank of the river Katak, twenty miles from Jagan Nath, there is a rock by the name of Pardohli upon which is written:

'Much longing after the things (of this life) is a disobedience, I again declare; not less so is the laborious ambition of dominion by a prince who would be a propitiator of heaven. Confess and believe in God (Is'ana) who is the worthy object of obedience. For equal to this (belief), I declare unto you, ye shall not find such a means of propitiating heaven. Oh strive ye to obtain this inestimable treasure.'3

Is'ana, mentioned in this inscription is the name of ShivDevta—God. (See The Sanskrit/English Dictionary by Shivram Apte).

On the seventh Stupa the same writer quotes:

'Thus spake Devanampiya Piyadasi: "Wherefore from this very hour, I have caused religious discourses to be preached, I have appointed religious observances that mankind, having listened thereto, shall be brought to follow in the right path, and give glory to God* (Is'ana)." '4

From these references it becomes obvious that the early sources portray Buddhaas as a dedicated believer in God (may He bless his soul).

The second source material in order of credibility and authenticity, is such Buddhist literature as came into being five hundred years after Buddha. This too contains enough evidence to indicate that Buddha was neither an atheist nor an agnostic but was indeed a believer in God. We specifically refer to the Theravada texts known as Tripitaka (Three Baskets), which as the name suggests, are divided into three sections. The first part is called Vinaya-Pitaka (Rules of Conduct), the second is called Sutta-Pitaka (Discourses on Truth) and the third is called Abhidhamma-Pitaka (Analysis of Religion).

In Sutta-Nipta there is The Chapter on Going to the Far Shore,5 in which the goal of conquering death is expressed. Buddha explains that birth and death do not mean anything to those who have overcome their ego thus becoming at one with God. These passages may have been misunderstood and confused with the Brahman concept of Mukti (redemption), but it is not right. Buddha clearly speaks of only those who have already reached the other side of the barrier here on earth before their death. This simply means that according to him, no man could have access to the hereafter, unless he had experienced it during his life here on earth, a teaching close to the Quranic precept. He preached that by being at one with God, man rises above life and death and becomes eternal.

At the end of the chapter, Pingiya, a follower of Buddha describes the excellence of his master which becomes instrumental in converting him to Buddhism. Having already expressed that he was enfeebled by old age and close to dying, Pingiya concludes his discussion with the following statement:

'Assuredly I shall go to the immovable, the unshakeable, the likeness of which does not exist anywhere. I have no doubt about this. Thus consider me to be one whose mind is so disposed.'6

This illustrates the hope and expectation of a disciple of Buddha, that after his death he will meet his Lord, who is described as immovable, unshakeable and without likeness. This is a description of God in full agreement with that found in other scriptures.

There is another interesting account giving further information about Buddha's beliefs found in Sutta-Pitaka—the second part of the Tripitaka texts, subdivided into five books containing many of the Buddha's dialogues. The president of the Pali Text Society of London, Mrs T.W. Rhys Davids has translated some of these dialogues into English and her translation can be found in a series of books entitled Sacred Books of the Buddhists. Dialogue number thirteen of the second volume entitled Tevigga Sutta, deals specifically with the question of how man can be led to God.

In response to this question, Buddha first rejects the suggestion that anyone among the Hindu clergy of his time was capable of leading man to God, then he answers the question as he understood it himself. The background of how and where this dialogue took place is quite interesting.

It is said that once upon a time there used to be a famous Brahman village by the name of Manasâkata. This village was situated at a most scenic spot of the country beside a beautiful river. Its fame had reached far and wide because it was the centre of Brahmanic religious controversy. Five of these Brahmans were especially distinguished and led the school of their respective religious ideology. It so happened that Buddha also alighted by the same river along with his chosen disciples. The news spread and people began to pay him visits to enlighten themselves on Buddha's doctrine and hear about Buddhism from his own lips. Once, Vasettha and Bharadvaga of the same village, while taking a walk after their bath in the river, began to debate a religious doctrine. Neither of the two could convince the other of the correctness of the opinions of their respective gurus. Vasettha, the young Brahman, suggested that it should be taken to the court of Buddha. This agreed upon they proceeded to present the issue to Buddha seeking his wise counsel. During the meeting, Bharadvaga, the young Brahman, remained silent and Vasettha asked the questions. Before responding to the question, Buddha posed some counterquestions.

First he asked, 'Did any Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas, ever see Brahmâ face to face?' The answer was 'No'. Then Buddha asked Vâsettha if any of the Brahmans or their pupils of the previous seven generations had seen Brahmâ, and the answer was again, 'No'. Then Buddha asked them if they themselves claimed that they had ever seen Brahmâ. Again the answer was, 'No'. Then he asked Vâsettha that if a man, born and brought up in Manasâkata was asked the way to Manasâkata, would that man be in any doubt or difficulty in answering that question. Vâsettha answered:

'Certainly not, Gotama! And why? If the man had been born and brought up in Manasakata, every road that leads to Manasâkata would be perfectly familiar to him.'

At this point Buddha expounded:

'That man, Vâsettha, born and brought up at Manasâkata might, if he were asked the way to Manasâkata, fall into doubt and difficulty, but to the Tathâgata,' (the fully enlightened one, meaning himself), 'when asked touching the path which leads to the world of Brahmâ, there can be neither doubt nor difficulty. For Brahmâ, I know, Vasettha, and the world of Brahmâ, and the path which leadeth unto it. Yea, I know it even as one who has entered the Brahmâ world, and has been born within it!'7

Buddha's argument was that the residents of Manasâkata should clearly know the roads leading to Manasakata. Any claimant belonging to God, must also know the path leading to Him, but it would only be possible if he had come from God and had known Him personally. But the answers to the counter questions of Buddha clearly showed that none of the gurus had either seen God or had any personal knowledge of Him. Hence, the identity of God was completely outside and beyond their understanding. Up to this point of the dialogue, Buddha's arguments may have been misunderstood by some to mean that Buddha was declaring there was no God because nobody had met Him. Indeed, the translator in her introduction has suggested that the whole line of argument followed in this discourse is:

'... only an argumentum ad hominem. If you want union with Brahmâ—which you had much better not want—this is the way to attain to it.'8

But this analysis of the discourse shows a total failure on the part of the author to understand what Buddha positively proves. It illustrates how some researchers have been influenced by the beliefs of the Buddhist monks who had misread Buddha's heroic campaign against his contemporary order of the Brahmans. What he categorically rejected were their superstitious beliefs in godlike figures, which they had neither seen nor heard from. But Buddha's answer did not end there. He went on to claim that for the Tathagata, there could be no such difficulty in pointing out the way to God. He went on to claim that he himself was the one who could lead man to God because he had been in communion with Him and had come from Him.

It should by now have become obvious that Buddha did have faith in the existence of one Supreme God and it was from Him that he claimed to have come. He knew Him better than the villagers of Manasâkata knew their own village or the roads leading to it. Here Buddha asserts for himself a life of constant communion with God, a state which stands higher in order of nearness to Him than mere revelation. Many great prophets have made similar claims of witnessing a life of eternity with Him here on earth, even before death transports them to the otherworldly life. They, all the Divine messengers, share this eternal state of communion with Him, Buddha being no exception. Buddha referred to God as Brahmâ, because this was a familiar term to the Hindus, who applied it to the Supreme God among their gods. As the dialogue continues, the position is made even clearer.

'When he had thus spoken, Vasettha, the young Brahman, said to the Blessed One:

'So has it been told me, Gotama, even that the Samana Gotama knows the way to a state of union with Brahmâ. It is well! Let the venerable Gotama be pleased to show us the way to a state of union with Brahmâ, let the venerable Gotama save the Brahman race!'9

Having heard Vasettha, Buddha does not reject his prayer and aspirations with reference to Brahmâ as unreal and meaningless; a definite proof of his approval of whatever he spoke of the Brahmâ and His communion with His chosen ones.

For people who respond to the call of God, irrespective of their caste, the path to God is made easy for them. For one who fears God, all human passions such as anger, jealousy, prejudice etc., cease to dominate him. When one transcends them, one is likely to imitate Godly attributes and acquire them. This whole dialogue is worthy of special attention by those who want to understand Buddha's attitude towards Him.

So why should Buddha have been misunderstood by his own followers? An answer to this question may lie in earlier Buddhist history and the conflict between the newly emerging religion of Buddha and the older religious order of Brahmanism. They attributed to Buddha their own views, not a rare phenomenon with religious clergy, or they might have misunderstood him in good faith. When Buddha waged war against the prevalent idolatry, to which the Brahmans of the time were entirely dedicated, he was accused of denying the existence of God. This propaganda, carried out by a powerful class of Brahmans, was so loudly proclaimed that the voice of Buddha was drowned in their tumultuous antagonism.

Considering the difficulties of communication and lack of writing facilities, it is not at all unlikely that this propaganda not only found favour with the Hindus, but also influenced the followers of Buddha. Ultimately, they themselves began to believe that Buddha's rejection of the Hindu gods was total. Thus Gotama Buddha's denial of the gods of the Brahmans was overgeneralized and led many to maintain that he did not believe in any God.

As far as their allegiance to Buddha is concerned, it remains untouched. They had accepted Buddha as an all-wise teacher, so kind, so loveable, so humane. We are talking of an age when literacy was at its lowest level. The common people would often make their decisions on hearsay, hence the followers of Buddha themselves could have been carried away by this Brahmanic propaganda. But it created little effect upon their loyalty to him. For them it was sufficient that Buddha was the perfect source of wisdom. As such they revered him and continued to follow him with all their heart, as their beloved and all-wise master. Slowly and imperceptibly, however, this so-called Godless master of theirs began to be revered as God himself.

It had not happened for the first time in the history of religions. How often oracles had been transformed into gods and humans raised to the level of deities! In the case of Buddha however, all the forms of their love and attention remained centred upon Buddha as a human paragon of perfection and he was not literally raised to the mythical concept of godly figures. For them, it was sufficient to place the Brahmans on one end of the spectrum and Buddha on the other. To them the Brahmans stood as oracles of legends and myths, while Buddha personified truth, wisdom and rationality. Thus, gradually Buddhism acquired a character where the belief in a legendary god had no role to play. Whatever the urge in human nature there is for believing in God, it was progressively filled with the image of Buddha. So Buddha, who in the eyes of his followers of the fourth century, had started his journey as just a source of absolute wisdom, began to rise to a status much higher than can be filled by an ordinary secular philosopher. In his case, he did not remain a mere symbol of mundane wisdom for long, but began to command such high respect and veneration as is commanded by God, or gods, among religions.

We are not talking here of a short period of a few years. It might well have taken centuries for the shadow of atheism to have cast its ominous spell over a large part of the Buddhist world. Again, it may also have taken centuries for the Buddhists to ultimately build a god out of Buddha, without naming him so. The manner in which we suggest the transformation of Buddhists took place from believing in God to a Godless people, is not merely conjecture. A study of Buddhist sources, as we have demonstrated, fully supports the view that Buddhaas was a believer in One Supreme Creator. What he rejected was polytheism. This is the true image of Buddha which survived untarnished for the first three centuries despite the best efforts of his enemies. Here we take the reader's mind once again to the age of the great Buddhist monarch Ashoka, who ruled a vast Buddhist empire which extended beyond the boundaries of India covering the whole of Afghanistan. It is he who possesses the most authentic and unquestionable authority on the teachings and the ways of Buddha's life. There is no shadow of doubt that what he portrayed Buddha to be was simply a messenger of God who founded his teachings upon Divine revelation. Whatever he conveyed to mankind was only what he was commissioned to, by their Supreme Creator. It is this verdict of Ashoka which is indelibly etched upon the rocks of history.

sceticism or Escapism

Renunciation of the world and the severing of worldly ties is considered as the ultimate means in Buddhism for the complete liberation of self from anguish and misery. It takes an ascetic to understand the problems associated with the conflicts between the soul and the mundane temptations of life. Unless one is endowed with exceptional qualities of patience and resolution, this challenge seems insurmountable. But in this lies the only hope offered by Buddhism. A total renunciation of all that life is made of and a total withdrawal from the allurements of life is the only path to Nirvana, the eternal peace.

The complete denial of all passions is therefore claimed by the Buddhists to be the absolute truth. The greed for material wealth, for power, or even for the love of others, when unfulfilled, results in the agony and frustration of the deprived. Similarly, hatred also plays havoc with one's peace of mind. All these forces weaken the spiritual powers of man. This also emphasized that because man's intrinsic nature cannot be changed and his lust for ever more cannot be stilled, full contentment and satisfaction can never be achieved without severing all ties with matter.

This for the Buddhists is a starting point upon a long journey of denial to reach the ultimate goal of redemption. He has to deny all that life requires for its comfortable existence in a material sense. It is a struggle of denial relating to all the five senses. A denial of what the eyes require, and what the ears crave for, a denial of touch, taste and smell, a denial of all which agitates human hearts. They seek to avoid all dangers of addiction by avoiding all situations in which there is a threat to man becoming involved and enslaved by material influences. In short, the Buddhist concept of peace through denial is simply another name for escapism. To live is the problem, to die is the solution.

Rather than attempting to struggle and conquer the baser motivations and to bring them under the command of the soul, the soul is advised to beat a retreat and vacate the arena of life on earth. All that is born out of desire to satisfy one's ego, is lowly, materialistic, ignoble and should be sacrificed for the sake of the ultimate good of the same ego. The peace achieved through such an escape amounts to little more than death i..e., the negation of life.

Peace can be of two types. Death can also be classed as peace; to draw a line between peace and death is not an easy task. For instance, a compromise with defeat and resignation to a state of dishonour can serve as a case in point. The contentment of victory and the calm of surrender, though similar, are in reality poles apart. One is life and the other is death. The identification and classification of religions, at times, becomes difficult because of this attendant confusion. Each religion seemingly invites to the same ultimate goal of peace and contentment. Yet there are some which prefer a peaceful surrender to death rather than to die for a noble cause and there are those who raise the banner of a holy war to be fought against evil at all costs. All challenges to absolute morality are taken on bravely and roundly defeated. The calm that ensues is the true Nirvana.

Religions such as the decadent form of Buddhism admonish their adherents to find peace in the haven of escape. They teach escapism from all temptations which may lure them to their natural desires, urges and cravings. A Buddhist would withdraw to the safety of his inner self—a state described vaguely by some as an emptiness—by others as something which is eternal and possesses the qualification of being without substance. Are they talking of God? One may wonder! But opinions differ. Most believe that it is a state shared and understood only by those who reach it. If it is not an ultimate return to God, and most Buddhist scholars will refrain from admitting the existence of God in any form, then the only valid definition for this emptiness is absolute annihilation and total death.

In short, all natural urges related to the five senses which constitute life are denied with a finality for gaining absolute peace or Nirvana. Of course, all the adherents cannot reach that goal simultaneously, but all true adherents are required to continue to endeavour to achieve it step by step, as they advance to the precipice of annihilation.

To illustrate this point further, let us relate an episode which we find so befitting in helping the reader to understand the specific point we are raising. There used to be a beggar in Kashmir, who was half mystic and half beggar. He begged for the barest necessities of his life and no more. He was often found lost in contemplation and reverie, delving deep into his own self in search of something. Once a sage walked past him and suddenly noticed that he was no longer the same person, because he was bubbling with joy and dancing with ecstasy.

'Baba why this great transformation? You do not seem to be the same pauper any more. Whatever have you achieved?' were the questions. 'Have you chanced upon a treasure?'

'Yes,' was the answer. 'A priceless, peerless treasure! Why should not one exult at the fulfilment of all one's desires?'

Having received this reply, the sage inquired, 'You are clothed in the same rags and tatters, covered from head to foot in dust like you ever were, how then can you claim that all your desires are fulfilled?'

The beggar dismissed him with a wave of his hand, staring at him with a gaze of profound wisdom and said, 'Remember this, that one's desires are only fulfilled when he is left with no desires. Such is my great moment of liberation. Off you go and leave me to dance.'

A beautiful answer, leaving the sage absolutely nonplussed. But looking at it once again, one is bound to admit that the answer of the beggar was as beautiful as it was empty. No change had taken place beyond the confines of his limited personal world. The world around was the same miserable world of sorrow, suffering and pain. The world around him was the same world of tyranny, oppression and despotism. He still needed something to live by—food, water and air were as indispensable to him as they ever were. Of desires one may get rid, but not of needs.

Whatever change was brought, was brought about within himself. But who knows whether it had come to stay forever. Maybe it was just a brief moment of triumph. Maybe on a chilly night with freezing cold, he would desire to have some warmth around, some clothes, some shelter, some hearth. Maybe if he fell ill, he would feel the need of a healer and pray for one. With what surmounting resolve would he conquer such challenges of the hard realities of life? Only a Buddhist sage would know the answer. It was only a subjective feeling of fulfilment and no more. In truth it was an absolute resignation to the state of helplessness—call it peace or call it death, by whatever name you may, it is not entitled to be called true Nirvana..

The search for peace through complete denial of all that relates to life and supports it, seems to have taken hold in both the major Indian religions, Hinduism and Buddhism. This is tantamount to denying the struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest. In application to the human pursuit of peace, this can only mean surrender and acceptance of defeat.

Here we are not discussing the teachings of the founders of Hinduism or Buddhism, but are merely examining the philosophies that have resulted after thousands of years of decadence. Both have moved far away from their Divine origin. In fact they have followed the same course as is followed by mysticism or Sufis in other major religions of the world. In their case, the latter do not break their ties with a belief in God; instead within the framework of a Divine religion, they carve their own domain of subjective spiritual experiences which result from inspiration rather than revelation.

In the case of yogic philosophy in Hinduism and Buddhism, both are completely broken away from their traditional teachings without a trace of the original to be found in them. As against revelation, which was the ultimate source of enlightenment of Buddha, the emphasis during the later ages kept shifting from revelation to inspiration, contemplation and reverie. In a strange way, despite the fact that Buddhism at its beginning was at complete odds with Hinduism, both joined forces later in the philosophy and practices of yoga.

It is amazing that the first mention of yogic teachings is only found in the Tantras, the so-called religious documents, which were compiled at least five hundred years after Buddhaas. These documents were only for the eyes of a few who comprised the supreme Buddhist hierarchy and were kept under strict secrecy from the common people. To doubly reassure their secrecy they were written in such cryptic language and terminology as would be impossible for an ordinary person to understand. Much later, the contents of the Tantras became accessible to scholars who were horrified to find this so-called sacred literature to be extremely profane and indecent. There are mentions of demons and frightful phantom images.. They are also full of vulgar language speaking of obscene and sexual desires in a manner as jars the human sensibilities. As such, the yogic teachings as contained in the Tantras have no connection whatsoever with the holy words of Buddhaas.

Maybe all the talk of demonic nonsense and sexual vulgarity are symbols and allegories. Perhaps no living monks share the secret of such cryptic language. Maybe the Buddhist hierarchy of two thousand years ago were the only people who invented this jargon and understood its meaning. But they are long dead and with them has died the age of the Tantras. Yoga however, has outlived the cryptic in the Tantras. There are scholars who still understand and implement the subtle science of yoga contained in the Tantras.

It is hard indeed to draw a clear-cut line between the yoga as understood and practised in Hinduism and the yoga as understood and practised in Buddhism. If there are any minor differences, they merely belong to nomenclature. Call them Hindu hermits or Buddhist ascetics, the reality of their withdrawal from the world, for the sake of God, will not change. Give them any name possessing the same meaning, it would not make the slightest difference to their holy identity. Whatever they find and whatever they consider enlightenment to be, neither has ever been able to change the face of the world with their subjective experiences. It is a dishonour for Buddhaas and Krishnaas to be counted in this category. They were revolutionaries—like all other prophets of God, whose philosophy of the spiritual and moral revolution sprang forth from the fountainhead of revelation. They gave a call for a noble struggle against falsehood and evil. They sounded the bugle for a heroic strife in life which was not just subjective. It was an outward, outgoing holy war, which came into headlong clash with the forces of darkness. A dire struggle for the survival of the fittest ensued. The life histories of Buddhaas and Krishnaas clearly present them as belonging to this category. They are only warriors, not suicidal escapists. Their faiths were products of revelation. Their teachings gave birth to inspirations, but were not born out of them.

The understanding of the majority of present day Buddhists appears to be that their religion is just a wisdom, budhi, discovered by Buddha through meditation. All that is claimed of their philosophy is that it was an inspiration of Buddha.

From the vantage point of those who believe in God, inspiration is nothing but a psychic experience in which many a time one feels spiritually elated.. During this phase of elation, one experiences a sense of peace which seems to be the very ultimate of tranquillity. Returning from this ecstatic state to normal life, one has a strong impression of having gained something which might well have been the very purpose of life—the goal which mankind is striving to reach.

This psychological experience is all that they can boast of as spiritual enlightenment and redemption from the bondage of matter. Even at its very best, it cannot change any objective realities or reform the wicked people. It cannot transfer a jot from the world of the unknown to the world of the known—it cannot change darkness into light. Never has inspiration been able to retrieve the unknown events buried in the graves of history, nor has it ever been able to leap into the future to catch a glimpse of events to come.

If the philosophy of absolute self-negation is followed to its logical conclusion, it will inevitably lead to the extinction of the human race. To ascribe this inspirational jibberish to the Divinely enlightened wisdom of Buddhaas does him no honour; this is not the Divine cup of revelation from which he drank deep and became immortalised!

A group of people was once traveling through a desert, when it so happened that three of them strayed away and got lost. Tired and thirsty this trio wandered around the desert in the hope of finding some respite. Finally their quest came to an end when they discovered a high well. The first man rushed to it, looked over the wall and found it full of delicious ambrosial water. He immediately exclaimed in a gesture of frenzied euphoria and jumped into it never to come back. The second too did the same. The third man finally walked over quietly over to the well, peeped over its high wall and then turned around and went back, returning to the desert to search for his other fellow travelers, to help guide them to this paradise.

The life of a bodhisattva too is made of similar stuff. In strictly canonical terms a bodhisattva is defined as an individual who discovers the source of the Ultimate Truth better known as nirvana, but postpones his own enlightenment until he has guided all his fellow beings to this same source of fulfillment. A formidable task to say the least. The path of the bodhisattva is thus one of extreme self-denial and selflessness. According to the Lankavatara sutra (4th century BC):

" A bodhisattva wishes to help all beings attain nirvana. He must therefore refuse to enter nirvana himself, as he cannot apparently render any services to the living beings of the worlds after his own nirvana. He thus finds himself in the rather illogical position of pointing the way to nirvana for other beings, while he himself stays in this world of suffering in order to do good to all creatures. This is his great sacrifice for others. He has taken the great Vow: "I shall not enter into final nirvana before all beings have been liberated." He does not realize the highest liberation for himself, as he cannot abandon other beings to their fate. He has said: "I must lead all beings to liberation. I will stay here till the end, even for the sake of one living soul."

The word 'bodhisattva' itself is prone to a rich etymological analysis. It is composed of two words 'bodhi' and 'sattva' both of which connote deeply spiritually meanings. Bodhi means "awakening" or "enlightenment," and sattva means "sentient being." Sattva also has etymological roots that mean "intention," meaning the intention to enlighten other beings. Thus the composite word bodhisattva signifies the very essence of the divine beings it refers to.

Buddhist aesthetics, very much like its literature, brings home spiritual truths in the simplest manner graspable by all. The various bodhisattvas too dominate the spectrum of Buddhist art, illustrating this abstract conceptualization in as hard hitting a manner as do the various myths surrounding them. The most prominent bodhisattva in this regard is Avalokiteshvara.

The word 'Avalokiteshvara' is derived from the Pali verb oloketi which means "to look at, to look down or over, to examine or inspect." The word avalokita has an active signification, and the name means, "the lord who sees (the world with pity)." The Tibetan equivalent is spyanras-gzigs (the lord, who looks with eyes). The text known as Karanda-vyuha (8th century AD) explains that he is so called because he views with compassion all beings suffering from the evils of existence. It is interesting to note here that a dominant feature in the description of Avalokiteshvara is his capacity to "see" the suffering of others. No wonder then that he is often represented with a thousand eyes symbolizing his all encompassing ability to view with compassion the suffering of others, thus sharing in their sorrows, a first step towards their ultimate alleviation. Not only that, he further has a thousand hands too which help in the mammoth task of delivering innumerable beings to their ultimate spiritual fulfillment.

The mythology associated with Avalokiteshvara is as interesting as his iconography:

Once by his sustained efforts, Avalokiteshvara was eventually able to deliver all sentient beings to enlightenment, managing salvation for everyone. Enthused, he reported the success of his efforts to his spiritual father, Amitabha. Amitabha asked him to look behind himself. Turning back, Avalokiteshvara saw the world again being filled with new sufferers who awaited their escape from the constant cycle of birth and rebirth. Sinking into despair, the eyes of

Avalokiteshvara shed tears of compassion. He wept so pitifully that his head burst. Amitabha attempted to assemble the pieces but did not entirely succeed. In the ensuing confusion he put together nine complete faces, each with a gentle expression. Above this he placed the demonic head of Vajrapani that functions to ward off evil, and finally at the very top he placed his own head to ensure that in the future such a happening did not recur.

He thus sits on guard at the top of the rows of heads of Avalokiteshvara making definite that Avalokiteshvara in his infinite compassion doesn't get carried away, leading to his own destruction.

In addition to Avalokiteshvara two other important bodhisattvas are:

Manjushri

Once at a meeting of numerous bodhisattvas at the house of Vimalakirti, the lay disciple of Buddha, a debate developed on the meaning of nonduality, an essential precept of Buddhist thought. After many bodhisattvas had finely expressed their opinions on the subject and their success at understanding its essence, it came to Manjushri's turn. He got up and announced that all the previous speeches were themselves conditioned by linguistic limitations and were subtly dualistic. When Manjushri turned to Vimalakirti and asked for his views, Vimalakirti just maintained silence, thus demonstrating the truth of Manjushri's statement.

This story is a beautiful reflection on the irony of scholarship attempting to express itself through a medium (speech/language), which contains within itself a contradiction of the very fundamental ideals which it proposes to expound. In this particular case Manjushri identifies this sublime and intrinsic inconsistency. An exalted individual may wax eloquent upon the virtues of non-duality and his grasp of this abstract concept, but the very language used to expresses these views is inherently dual as it is composed of word and it's meaning, two exclusive entities. This subtle, nonetheless significant gradation brings home a profound truth taking the wind out of any sense of achievement derived out of purported scholarship. Verily thus Manjushri carries in his two hands a book and a sword.

This sword is there to cut of fetters born not out of ignorance but those which arise through knowledge, signified by the book. This is not a negation of bookish knowledge, but only an assertion of the realization that unless we gain it we cannot know the futility of it in the quest towards ultimate spiritual truths.. Manjushri appropriately suggests not the path of renunciation but that of righteous karma. A Zen story illuminates this aspect:

Once the chief cook of a temple on Mount Wutai (the favorite mountain of Manjushri), was busy making lunch. Manjushri repeatedly appeared sitting above the rice pot. This chief cook, who later became a noted Zen master, finally hit Manjushri with his stirring spoon and drove him away, saying, "Even if old man Shakyamuni came, I would also hit him" In Zen temples the position of chief cook is highly esteemed. This story denotes the priority of taking care of everyday life, beyond attention to high-flowing rhetoric. Caring for the details of daily life is sometimes seen as more important than spending time in studying sutras or in concentration in the meditation halls, and indeed many monks perhaps including this chief cook, have been encouraged to abandon any preference for meditation over ordinary work.

Reconciling Manjushri's actions with his status as a bodhisattva we realize that here we see a rare but distinctly significant affirmation in Buddhist thought of an existence composed of normal and 'ordinary' family life rather than that of denial. The carrying out of one's duties is as spiritually fulfilling an activity as any other 'bodhisattvic' deed. Consider for example the activity of cooking. The Bhagvad Gita says that one who cooks for others acquires the highest merit, while that who selfishly cooks food only for his own consumption commits a sin. Likewise the temple cook was engaged in an effort of the highest merit. Indeed for contemporary times this is an ultimate tribute to those women of the house who diligently provide us with sustenance which fulfills not only our physical needs, but also nourishes us spiritually.

Maitreya

According to some Buddhist traditions, the period of the Buddhist Law is divided into three stages: a first period of 500 years is of the turning of the Wheel of the Law; a second period of 1,000 years is of the deterioration of the Law, and the third period of 3,000 years is the one during which no one practices the Law. After this, Buddhism having disappeared, a new Buddha will appear who will again turn the Wheel of the Law. This future Buddha known as Maitreya is beloved to be still in the Tushita heaven, in the state of a bodhisattva. It is believed that Gautama Buddha himself enthroned him as his successor.

The word 'maitreya' is derived from the Sanskrit word for friendliness. Thus this bodhisattva is fundamentally said to embody the qualities of amiability and an attitude of well-meaning sympathy.

According to a legend there once descended to the earth from Maitreya's Tushita heaven a Chinese layman and teacher named Mahasattva Fu, widely regarded as an incarnation of Maitreya.

Fu attracted many students to his Dharma lectures. Living in a time of great hardships and famines for the peasants, he sold all of his possessions to feed the local villagers, and also fasted to give away his food to the needy. Fu once undertook a long hunger fast to protest against the king's treatment of the poor. He announced that he would finish the fast with a fiery self-immolation, as an offering to benefit all suffering beings. At the culmination of his fast, many of his followers offered to burn themselves in his place, some going to the extent of burning their fingers or cutting off their ears as offerings and engaging in other ascetic extremes. They finally convinced Fu to abandon his plan.

The notion of a bodhisattva sacrificing his complete physical self or at least parts of it conforms to a similar notion expounded in ancient Buddhist texts. For example the 'Shat-sahasrika Prajna-paramita' (5th century AD) says: "Besides wealth and material objects, a bodhisattva should be ready to sacrifice his limbs for the good of others, his hand, foot, eye, flesh, blood, marrow, limbs great and small, and even his head." Indeed in the Jataka tales which are legendary stories about bodhisattvas, there abound numerous instances where they are shown sacrificing parts of their bodies or even their lives to save that of another.

A persistent paradox regarding Maitreya is his visualization as an entity of the future. This presents a contrast to much of Buddhist practice and teaching which emphasizes the importance of the present, the current moment. This is sometimes referred to as the timeless eternal. According to the Buddhist viewpoint time does not exist as some external container, but is the vital expression and enactment of our own being right now. Time does not exist separate from our own presence.

As a bodhisattva associated with the future, as against the fundamental stress Buddhism places on the present moment of time, Maitreya presents a wondrous amalgamation and a complex composite on the plane of time. Buddhist esoteric thought achieves this is in a skillful manner by associating him with children. Children are but the 'present' of our 'future.' A number of stories abound which illustrate his loving-kindness for children:

Once in his incarnation as a spiritual poet, Maitreya was asked by a relative to help in dealing with his son, who was becoming a delinquent. The poet (Maitreya) visited the family and stayed the night without saying anything to the son. The next morning as he prepared to depart, he asked the boy's help in tying up his sandals. As the lad looked up from doing so, he saw a tear roll down the poet's cheek. Nothing was said, but from that time the boy completely reformed. The easy camaraderie with children and attention to young people shown by Maitreyan figures amply justifies the 'friendly' origin of his name as described above.

In China too, Maitreya is synonymous with his supposed incarnation as the tenth-century Chinese Zen monk Hotei, popularly known as the Laughing Buddha. Hotei is legendary as a wandering sage with supernatural powers who spent his time in village streets rather than the security of temples. His image is recognizable as the fat, jolly Buddha, whose statue can be seen in all Chinese Buddhist temples.

Hotei's name means "cloth bag," and

he is believed to have carried a sack full of candies and toys to give to children with whom he is often depicted in play.

This scruffy, disheveled Buddha adds to our understanding of Maitreya's warmth and loving-kindness. Hotei's fat belly and affinity with children reflects yet another aspect of Maitreya in popular folk religion, that of a fertility deity. He indeed is worshipped by those wanting to have children, This ritual is especially popular in Korea.

Conclusion

The Samadhiraja-sutra (4th century) explains why a bodhisattva does not feel any pain, even when he mutilates himself for the good of others. When Buddha was asked how a bodhisattva could cheerfully suffer the loss of his hands, feet, ears, nose, eyes and head, he explained that pity for mankind and the love of bodhi sustain and inspire a bodhisattva in his heroism, just as worldly men are ready to enjoy the five kinds of sensual pleasure, even when their bodies are burning with fever.

A bodhisattva should regard every action and movement of his body as an occasion for the cultivation of friendly thoughts for the good of all creatures. When he sits down he thinks thus: "May I help all beings to sit on the throne of enlightenment." When he lies on his right side, he thinks thus: "May I lead all beings to nirvana." When he washes his hands, he thinks thus: May I remove the sinful propensities of all creatures." When he washes his feet, he thinks thus: "May I take away the dirt of sins and passion from all creatures." In this way the body can be converted into a holy vessel of benediction. Blessed indeed is he who loses his physical existence in doing good to others. A bodhisattva can never love the body for its own sake, if he cherishes it, he does so only because he will gird himself up to save someone sometime somewhere on some occasion in the moment of tribulation.

By conceptualizing the lofty ideal of a bodhisattva, Buddhism sets a high standard of virtuous conduct for us ordinary mortals to emulate, thus striving for a spiritually enriched life radiant with the glow of selflessness, indeed the foundation for a meaningful and fulfilling existence, both for the individual and for the world around him, of which he is but a microcosm.

Tibetan Buddhism
Dalai Lama

Art Gallery

Tibet added to "tantrism" the primitive animistic religions of the Tibet, the magic "bon", and some "Mahayana" doctrines to create the most openly occultist of all Eastern religions.

- On top of it created the super-authority of the "Dalai Lama", a god- on-earth, heading a hierarchy of priests, destroying the "religion without authority" that Gautama the Buddha proposed... however this Dalai Lama, the best recognized figure of Buddhism, only represents 6% of Buddhism, and most of it scattered around the world, because many monks followed the example of the Dalai Lama who fled the Communists in 1959 to India, in Dharamsala, taking 110,000 refugees with him.

- The theory of the reincarnated Lamas (bodhisattvas), is that the soul of a death Lama passes to a new boy. The current Dalai Lama, the 14th reincarnation, was chosen at age two.

- The huge monasteries in Tibet are now mostly empty, for tourists attractions... so, nobody knows how many are left of the 6 million citizens who adored the Dalai Lama as a god-king, bowed before the sight of his portrait and prostrated outside his Jokka Temple.

"Bon":

The native religion of Tibet, was largely magical, with many rites of redemption from demonic forces, with animal and human sacrifices, and many superstitions, divinations, witchcraft... and it is basic to Tibet Buddhism.

-Buddhism came to Tibet in 600 AC, during the reign of Sron. Tantric master Padmasam subdue the Bon spirits and demons to the service of Buddhism. In 1042 AC Buddhism became the dominant religion with the arrival of the Indian master Atisa... The growing monastic establishments acquired temporal power, and intense rivalries arose... and in the 17th century the political war ended with the victory of the Mongol Kahn forces, who awarded the country of Tibet to the Dalai Lama as a religious gift.

The "sems":

The Tibet Buddhism is centered on the "sems", the mind element which is exalted in a "body of sublime knowledge". The diamond body of Tantrism may take many years to obtain, under a teacher, without which the teachings would be lost. The students are promised "instant enlightenment" and Buddhahood after completing "only" seven future rebirths.

- The hand drum, the bell, the hand prayer wheel and the 27 bids rosary are used to unite with the god and goddesses and to expel the demons...

- The "Tibetan Book of the Dead" or "Bardo Thobal" has had great influence among American's youth: It is an occult guide to expel demons, spirits and powers of witchcraft, and to obtain hallucinogenic visions similar to those of LSD.

- The Tibetan Crown Ceremony performed by His Holiness Gyalwa Karmapa in America consisted of his holding a black hat over his head for 2.28 minutes...and the youth got crazy!...

- The first Western Buddhist University is in Boulder, Co. led by the Tibetan exile Rimpoche.

Buddhism