FreeSangha - Buddhist Forum

Schools of Buddhism => Vajrayana => Bon => Topic started by: sahaja on October 23, 2013, 01:06:04 am

Title: Why is Bon hidden away?
Post by: sahaja on October 23, 2013, 01:06:04 am
Why is Bon hidden away under :
Free Sangha - Buddhist Forum » The Academy » Seeker's Corner » Comparative Religion and Philosophy » Bon
Instead of under the Tibetan Connection with Dzogchen? I just discovered it by accident when tracking down Comparative Religions. I've seen them classified as Vajrayana but i don't know the Bonpo view of that. Even the Dalai Lama has accepted them as a recognized school of Tibetan Buddhism. Doesn't Free Sangha? They certainly were in Tibet before classic Buddhism and practicing forms of it. Perhaps it's because they follow a different Buddha?
.
Title: Re: Why is Bon hidden away?
Post by: t on October 23, 2013, 04:05:57 am
Quote
I've seen them classified as Vajrayana but i don't know the Bonpo view of that. Even the Dalai Lama has accepted them as a recognized school of Tibetan Buddhism.

The Bon tradition is commonly associated with the kingdom of Zhang Zhung, which existed around Mount Kailash and the region to the west of Tibet until the time of the seventh century Tibetan King, Songtsen Gampo.

We Tibetans regard Bon as the ancient, indigenous religious and cultural tradition of our ancestors, which is the source and embodiment of many aspects of the Tibetan way of life. With the advent of Buddhism in the Land of Snows, most Tibetans became Buddhists.

Nevertheless, Bon remained and has experienced periods of growth and revival since the eleventh century, so that prior to the Chinese occupation it was practiced in many parts of the country.
A Letter from HHDL (http://www.bonfoundation.org/letter.html)

H. H. the Dalai Lama's recognition of Bon as the native religion of Tibet and one of its five core spiritual traditions is an important acknowledgement of Bon's significant role in Tibetan history and current affairs. About Bon and Menri (http://www.bonfoundation.org/aboutbon.html)

Notice the difference between native religion of Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism?
 
Bon and Tibetan Buddhism (http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/study/comparison_buddhist_traditions/tibetan_traditions/bon_tibetan_buddhism.html)
Title: Re: Why is Bon hidden away?
Post by: sahaja on October 24, 2013, 01:04:14 pm
I just recently became familiar with this because of the thread "Where is Shambhala?" in the Tibetan Connection. I used a bit in my post  « Reply #26 on: September 18, 2013, 

I thought there must be more to the history of Shambhala than the Kalachakra Tantra. Didn't take me long to find it, in the ZhangZhung-Yungdrung Bon.

We Tibetans regard Bon as the ancient, indigenous religious and cultural tradition of our ancestors, which is the source and embodiment of many aspects of the Tibetan way of life. With the advent of Buddhism in the Land of Snows, most Tibetans became Buddhists.
.....

Notice the difference between native religion of Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism?
 
Bon and Tibetan Buddhism ([url]http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/study/comparison_buddhist_traditions/tibetan_traditions/bon_tibetan_buddhism.html[/url])


No i don't see a vast difference between Buddhism and Bon. All the traditions and schools within them are different from one another.

There are those who don't accept the Bon as Buddhism even now. And there are those who, like me, consider it as a form of Buddhism long before the Buddhists invaded Tibet. That would probably make Bon the oldest school on the planet.

A quicky from the wiki_

....a syncretic religion that arose in Tibet and Nepal during the 10th and 11th centuries, with strong shamanistic and animistic traditions. This shamanic indigenous religion is not Buddhism, but is sometimes regarded by scholars as a substrate form of Buddhism.
a set of popular beliefs in which local shamans try to heal people using ideas sometimes ascribed to Bon. Shamans may divine deities' wishes, have supernatural fights with deities, or be possessed by deities. These shamanic practices are common in the Tibeto-Burman speaking ethnic groups, such as Magar, Tamang, Tibetan, etc.

However, other scholars do not accept the tradition that separates Bon from Buddhism. Christopher Beckwith calls Bon "one of the two types of Tibetan Buddhism"[4] and writes that "despite continuing popular belief in the existence of a non-Buddhist religion known as Bon during the Tibetan Empire period, there is not a shred of evidence to support the idea... Although different in some respects from the other sects, it was already very definitely a form of Buddhism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bon)

I've just downloaded  the Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present by Christopher I. Beckwith. It's  one of the references given and i found a few more related to the subject on scribd.com but haven't had a chance to look at them.

As far as Berzin goes i'm not at all impressed with his vision as he lacks breadth, depth, and most importantly, insight.
Title: Re: Why is Bon hidden away?
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha on October 24, 2013, 03:37:57 pm
there might have been a difference between Bon and Buddhism like 1400 yrs ago.........But as it stands today Bon is unrecongizable from the rest of Tibetan Buddhism.

it is safe to say Bon is a sect of Buddhism
(I know a dude from the Bon tradition,and you would not be able to tell any difference between his views and other Tibetan traditions views)
Title: Re: Why is Bon hidden away?
Post by: sahaja on October 24, 2013, 05:55:52 pm
there might have been a difference between Bon and Buddhism like 1400 yrs ago.........But as it stands today Bon is unrecongizable from the rest of Tibetan Buddhism.

it is safe to say Bon is a sect of Buddhism
(I know a dude from the Bon tradition,and you would not be able to tell any difference between his views and other Tibetan traditions views)

I sure agree with this. So why does Free Sangha keep it so well hidden as my original question asked?
.
Title: Re: Why is Bon hidden away?
Post by: Dharmakara on October 24, 2013, 08:03:26 pm
Sahaja, if I recall correctly, the Bon category was placed within the comparitive religion section by mod members who were practioners of Tibetan Buddhism, but I agree with you and Namu that it should be moved into the Vajrayana section as a child board.

I'll notify Hakan and let him know about this, so please allow a day or two for the changes to occur.

Metta.
Title: Re: Why is Bon hidden away?
Post by: sahaja on October 24, 2013, 08:19:28 pm
Thanks Dharmakara.
As long as i'm researching the BON a bit, i might find something interesting to post. Would be nice if i could find the Bon section to put it.
 :)
.
Title: Re: Why is Bon hidden away?
Post by: Dharmakara on October 24, 2013, 08:22:39 pm
Sahaja, I really don't know much about this particular teacher, but his site might be of interest:

http://vajranatha.com/articles/traditions/dzogchen.html (http://vajranatha.com/articles/traditions/dzogchen.html)
Title: Re: Why is Bon hidden away?
Post by: Lobster on October 25, 2013, 02:55:20 am
Bon is part of the Rime movement. Very welcome here. Do you have any Bon-bones to rattle our way? I hope so :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rim%C3%A9_movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rim%C3%A9_movement)
Title: Re: Why is Bon hidden away?
Post by: t on October 25, 2013, 07:11:48 am
And there are those who, like me, consider it as a form of Buddhism long before the Buddhists invaded Tibet.
Ah yes, similarly with many who regard Taoism as a form of Buddhism long before the Arhats Kasyapa Matanga & Gobharana allegedly set foot on Chinese soil... of course, to actually see if such a statement has any evidence from many perspectives is another, like the claims on what Bon is... just by merely sharing some wardrobe and words doesn't mean much by the way... 
Title: Re: Why is Bon hidden away?
Post by: Dharmakara on October 25, 2013, 09:16:08 am
Actually, the Sutra of Forty-Two Chapters (or The Sayings of the Buiddha) is attributed to both Kasyapa Matanga and Gobharana and it's been long considered as the first official Buddhist literature composed for the Chinese, so it's a little bit more than an allegation:

http://archive.org/stream/Buddhist_e-booksCollections_3mahayana/TheSutraOfFortyTwoSections_djvu.txt (http://archive.org/stream/Buddhist_e-booksCollections_3mahayana/TheSutraOfFortyTwoSections_djvu.txt)
SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal