Angulimala
-
Angulimala (Pâli: "Garland of fingers") is an important early figure in Buddhism, particularly within the Theravada school. Richard F. Gombrich, in his paper Who was Angulimala?, has postulated that the story of Angulimala may represent an encounter between the Buddha and a follower of an early form of Saivite or Shakti tantra. Gombrich reaches this conclusion on the basis of a number of inconsistencies in the sutta text that indicate possible corruption (particularly the failure of the verses in the Theragatha to conform to accepted Pâli metrical schemes), and the fairly weak explanations for Angulimala's behaviour provided by the commentators. He notes that there are several other references in the early Pâli canon that seem to indicate the presence of devotees of Siva, Kali, and other divinities associated with sanguinary tantric practices, and that Angulimala's behaviour would not be inconsistent with certain violent practices that were observed in India by Thuggee-like transgressive cults into recent times. If Gombrich's thesis could be conclusively proven, it would establish the Angulimala Sutta as likely being the earliest known documentation of tantric practices in South Asia, about which very little is known before the 7th century CE.
Was his practice enabling him to attain the Dharma of Hinduism in the first place? Why and why not?
-
guess
-
I guess your father is a horny stag... Duh... Come on...If Buddhism is so good, it would have been a globally enforced state religion long long time ago...Originally posted by Cenarious:guess -
Globally enforced?Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:I guess your father is a horny stag... Duh... Come on...If Buddhism is so good, it would have been a globally enforced state religion long long time ago...
No, Buddhists wont stoop so low
-
Most religions employed violent means to spread their message. Buddhism does not use violence, or even evangelical means to spread our teachings. We adopt a more "see it for yourself" stance, but of course not many are truth-seekers, they only want to be believers (of some religions, some beliefs).Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:I guess your father is a horny stag... Duh... Come on...If Buddhism is so good, it would have been a globally enforced state religion long long time ago...
As I mentioned before,Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
In fact Buddhism can be appreciated even better in the Modern world than in the ancient past. Because it is much more compatible than other religions (to modernity). In the modern world, I strongly believe that Buddhism will grow at a much faster rate, and in fact it is growing very very fast in the Western world, having become the fastest rising religion in many many western countries in Europe, Australia, Canada, and the second fastest rising religion in most other Western nations. True Buddhism is also rising very fast in Singapore. Why does Buddhism appeal to the modern world so much?
[b]No fanaticism
Of Buddhism alone can it be affirmed it is free from all fanaticism. Its aim being to produce in every man a thorough internal transforming by self-conquest, how can it have recourse to might or money or even persuasion for effecting conversion? The Buddha has only shown the way to salvation, and it is left to each individual to decide for himself if he would follow it.
- Prof. Lakshmi Narasu, "The Essence of Buddhism"[/b]
Albert Einstein:"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity" -- Albert Einstein [1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]
"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which is based on experience, which refuses dogmatism. If there's any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be BuddhismÂ…"
-- Albert Einstein -
Firstly, Hinduism does not exist in those days but only more than 1000 years after Buddha appeared on Earth. Hinduism is a combination of different Indian sects that holds the authority of the Vedas, only after Islamic invasion of India about 1000 years after Buddha's passing into Parinivana, and Buddha rejected the Vedas and the Caste system therefore Buddhism is of course, not Hinduism.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Angulimala (Pâli: "Garland of fingers") is an important early figure in Buddhism, particularly within the Theravada school. Richard F. Gombrich, in his paper Who was Angulimala?, has postulated that the story of Angulimala may represent an encounter between the Buddha and a follower of an early form of Saivite or Shakti tantra. Gombrich reaches this conclusion on the basis of a number of inconsistencies in the sutta text that indicate possible corruption (particularly the failure of the verses in the Theragatha to conform to accepted Pâli metrical schemes), and the fairly weak explanations for Angulimala's behaviour provided by the commentators. He notes that there are several other references in the early Pâli canon that seem to indicate the presence of devotees of Siva, Kali, and other divinities associated with sanguinary tantric practices, and that Angulimala's behaviour would not be inconsistent with certain violent practices that were observed in India by Thuggee-like transgressive cults into recent times. If Gombrich's thesis could be conclusively proven, it would establish the Angulimala Sutta as likely being the earliest known documentation of tantric practices in South Asia, about which very little is known before the 7th century CE.
Was his practice enabling him to attain the Dharma of Hinduism in the first place? Why and why not?
Furthermore the theory that Angulimala could be from these Indian tantric cults is only a theory, we can never prove it. In any case, such crazy Indian tantric practises are definitely not endorsed but rejected in Buddhism.
Anyway why discuss Hinduism (in fact it isn't Hinduism in the first place)/tantric cults in this forum? -
Whoa, you didn't know Angulimala was a student of such a Verdic sect before he started killing people?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Firstly, Hinduism does not exist in those days but only more than 1000 years after Buddha appeared on Earth. Hinduism is a combination of different Indian sects that holds the authority of the Vedas, only after Islamic invasion of India about 1000 years after Buddha's passing into Parinivana, and Buddha rejected the Vedas and the Caste system therefore Buddhism is of course, not Hinduism.
Furthermore the theory that Angulimala could be from these Indian tantric cults is only a theory, we can never prove it. In any case, such crazy Indian tantric practises are definitely not endorsed but rejected in Buddhism.
Anyway why discuss Hinduism (in fact it isn't Hinduism in the first place)/tantric cults in this forum? -
Of course I know laOriginally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Whoa, you didn't know Angulimala was a student of such a Verdic sect before he started killing people? -
Then do you know why such a student started killing?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Of course I know la -
You mean the violent indian tantric practices? I didn't know that part until you told me. But it is just a theory. And anyway has nothing to do with buddhism, otherwise i would have known.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Then do you know why such a student started killing? -
Ahem, it's not violent... It's the worship of Mother Kali.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:You mean the violent indian tantric practices? I didn't know that part until you told me. But it is just a theory. And anyway has nothing to do with buddhism, otherwise i would have known.