May I introduce the highest Buddist practice?

[alwayson4]

His point seems to obviously be that the Buddha himself never talks about the rainbow body, so how can it be "the highest practice of Buddhism"? (Buddhism = following the teachings of the Buddha) It was clear from the post, so absolutely no need to call somebody ignorant.

Oliver

But this is not true either

[Tom]

His point seems to obviously be that the Buddha himself never talks about the rainbow body, so how can it be "the highest practice of Buddhism"? (Buddhism = following the teachings of the Buddha) It was clear from the post, so absolutely no need to call somebody ignorant.

Oliver

But this is not true either

Any chance you might elaborate on that, so we know which part you are specifically referring to?

[alwayson4]

The Buddha does talk about the rainbow body

[Tombo]

His point seems to obviously be that the Buddha himself never talks about the rainbow body, so how can it be "the highest practice of Buddhism"? (Buddhism = following the teachings of the Buddha) It was clear from the post, so absolutely no need to call somebody ignorant.

Oliver

But this is not true either

Hi all

I might not have expressed myself well. I was infact only refering to the Buddha. i have not much knowledge about the Dalai Lamas books, I only saw a couple of his speeches, which were very mich in line with what I have read from Buddha

It might be true that my knowledge about Buddhas teaching is limited. I have studied the Sutas quite a bit though (mainly teachings that are directed toward the non-monks). I believe that the sutas are all online available. So yeah, why don't you give us a reference were Buddha talks about the Rainbow body. I'm really interested to read that. I do not want to cause too much dispute in your thread though. It is certainly not in Buddhas sense that we get angry here.

[Tombo]

It started with the Lotus Sutra where Buddha says that being fully enlightened the Theravada way is nice, but once you have enjoyed a few aeons in Nirvana you have to come back and enter the Bodhisattva path and finally get to serious business. The text goes on to say that the Theravada people either fainted or ran away in terror at this point, and so they excluded themselves from the higher teachings which followed from that point on.

Interesting. where can I find that Sutra? can you specify the reference? Maybe it could be found here? http://www.accesstoinsight.org/

Thanks Tom

[Tom]

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/lotus/lot01.htm

The domain name is familiar to me, and I think they are reliable - but it has been a long time since I tried to read it, and back then I went to the actual physical library and got the kind of book you hold in your hands.

[Tombo]

It started with the Lotus Sutra where Buddha says that being fully enlightened the Theravada way is nice, but once you have enjoyed a few aeons in Nirvana you have to come back and enter the Bodhisattva path and finally get to serious business. The text goes on to say that the Theravada people either fainted or ran away in terror at this point, and so they excluded themselves from the higher teachings which followed from that point on.

This Sutra certainly is incompatible with some of the Buddhist schools. As I have researched a bit mor about the background of this sutra it seems it contains parts from various sources and times.

see:

http://books.google.ch/books?id=etpDS3Q ... t#PPR10,M1

This helps to make my point. There is a vast number of texts that can be said to contain buddhist teaching. one could easily spend his whole life reading without even having time to think about it or do any kind of exercises. maybe the Buddha was right when he said that his teachings will only survive 500 years after his death? It seems to me that one could justify virtually any kind of spiritual praxis with certain passages from this huge body of literature. Very much like it is the case also with Christianity or the Islam. i find this a bit alarming.....

So to come back to the topic. I seems in fact a bit ignorant to me to label this rainbow practice as the highest buddhist practice. There are at least 18 buddhist schools which follow different scriptures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Buddhist_schools

Of whom the pali canon is the only completely surviving early Buddhist canon, and one of the first to be written down. I personaly therefore consider it to be the most relevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pali_Canon

It would consider it to be a classy act, If one would at least give more information on where the teachings about the rainbow body origin from and state more exactly in which buddistic schools that is considered the highest practice. (I know some buddhists and they certianly do not consider this practice to be relevant, which shall of course not imply that it is not the highest practice).

The initial post says that there are only two english books even containing information I believe most of the sutras have been translated to english and published, so this seems very odd then. This seems to hint that it is some kind of secret teaching. This seems to contradict the spirit of Buddhism as I have already stated in my first post. Why would anybody want to keep something secret that helps the beings to be happy and makes this world a better place?
Any enlighted being would certainly share relevant teachings with their fellow men to help them. Right?!

KR Tom

[Tom]

Supposedly there was a documented case of someone attaining the rainbow body in Tibet in the 1950s.

[Korpo]

Tombo,

it is a question of the logic one applies.

Some people seem to believe that since Mahayana evolved out of Theravada, and Tibetan Buddhism derives from Mahayana, and so on, that the "latest" branch of Buddhism is the most evolved, implying that evolution always leads to progress. Or you might think that the most complex and elaborate practices denote the best or highest form of Buddhism. And so on.

This is basically a personal belief system issue. If somebody is attracted to esoteric material, complex practices, or anything else the Tibetan culture has added to it, someone will think Tibetan Buddhism is the highest. Others would argue that Theravada is the most pure Buddhism and is most easily traceable to the Buddha himself. And others might argue that the Mahayana schools brought insightful additions, which is basically the Chinese and East-Asian influences.

To me it all boils down to personal belief. Many people will state their belief as fact, quoting incomplete evidence that "proves" something is fact which mostly is based on their personal preferences, biases or beliefs.

It is perfectly possible that the Buddha gave some high-level teachings that were not meant for the public originally. That's what Mahayana rests on. It is not verifiable that he did. That's what Theravada still rests on. Given nobody of us was present, what are we to do to resolve this?

We can only approximate the truth about history.

Oliver

[Tombo]

Tombo,

it is a question of the logic one applies.

Some people seem to believe that since Mahayana evolved out of Theravada, and Tibetan Buddhism derives from Mahayana, and so on, that the "latest" branch of Buddhism is the most evolved, implying that evolution always leads to progress. Or you might think that the most complex and elaborate practices denote the best or highest form of Buddhism. And so on.

This is basically a personal belief system issue. If somebody is attracted to esoteric material, complex practices, or anything else the Tibetan culture has added to it, someone will think Tibetan Buddhism is the highest. Others would argue that Theravada is the most pure Buddhism and is most easily traceable to the Buddha himself. And others might argue that the Mahayana schools brought insightful additions, which is basically the Chinese and East-Asian influences.

To me it all boils down to personal belief. Many people will state their belief as fact, quoting incomplete evidence that "proves" something is fact which mostly is based on their personal preferences, biases or beliefs.

It is perfectly possible that the Buddha gave some high-level teachings that were not meant for the public originally. That's what Mahayana rests on. It is not verifiable that he did. That's what Theravada still rests on. Given nobody of us was present, what are we to do to resolve this?

We can only approximate the truth about history.

Oliver

Very well put Oliver. I agree 100%