Buddhist Self Deception

[Blue Garuda]

I would say that ritual isn't imbued with meaning.  Rather meaning is assigned to ritual, sometimes more arbitrarily than other times. It is very similar to language in this regard.

It's the old 'chicken and egg' debate.

In the Vajrayana there is a huge amount of symbolism in the visual images of the deities, their mandalas, the mudras in the rituals, the use of mantras and dharanis, bells and other instruments etc etc.

Was there a need for a ritual for which all those precise things were created, or did the ritual exist and have meanings ascribed to elements of it?

The third option, maybe more likely, is that elements were created and then combined differently, and over time different scruptures and cultural accretions added to the process.

We could, of course, have a flash of lightning revelation of the whole meaning of a deity's mandala, or we could study and practise for years and peel back the truth over time.

I'm waiting for the flash of truth, but until then I guess I have to work hard at making progress without getting bogged down in the incredible detail of the rituals.

[lowonthetotem]

I would say that ritual isn't imbued with meaning.  Rather meaning is assigned to ritual, sometimes more arbitrarily than other times. It is very similar to language in this regard.

It's the old 'chicken and egg' debate.

In the Vajrayana there is a huge amount of symbolism in the visual images of the deities, their mandalas, the mudras in the rituals, the use of mantras and dharanis, bells and other instruments etc etc.

Was there a need for a ritual for which all those precise things were created, or did the ritual exist and have meanings ascribed to elements of it?

The third option, maybe more likely, is that elements were created and then combined differently, and over time different scruptures and cultural accretions added to the process.

We could, of course, have a flash of lightning revelation of the whole meaning of a deity's mandala, or we could study and practise for years and peel back the truth over time.

I'm waiting for the flash of truth, but until then I guess I have to work hard at making progress without getting bogged down in the incredible detail of the rituals.

Well, to me it is anything but a chicken and egg debate. I understand what you are saying and can accept its validity in the light of my own experience with faith.

However, given my own study of symbolism and language, I know that there isn't anything that fundemenally links the letters S-M-I-L-E-Y, ( or the symbols : and ) to be more precise) arranged in that order, to    , except that a programmer made it so in a relatively arbitrary manner. There is nothing that fundementally links words to their meanings in a "natural" sense. Even onomatopoeia words vary from culture to culture based on predispositions and even just the existence of different phonemes in different languages. I don't see religious symbols operating very differently. Even the Christian cross isn't an accurate representation of the thing on which Jesus was hung.

I have to wonder at what exactly is the fundemental difference between a Tibetan mandala or tantric practice and a Thai emblem (I hope I am using the correct example) that are sold on street corners as protections and guarantees of luck and good fortune. To me, one just seems older than the other. Hence, this is why I didn't choose to follow the path of Vajrayana or Shingon. Working on the same logic, what makes the Pali canon fundementally different than the rest of the Mahayana canon. Trust me, I understand why the distinctions are made and don't mean disrespect to anyone. I mean, the logic works both ways. All of them can be denounced as equally invalid or exhalted as equally valid. I guess it is that indeterminency that urges me to avoid the mire of it altogether (and yet here I am hip deep in it now). That is, of course, unless it works for ME.

As I mentioned before, I accept the practical aspect of it all and even embrace it to a certain extent. I don't deny that it requires a certain amount of self-deception, or, to be more friendly, suspension of disbelief, though.

[Blue Garuda]

LOL

A mandala is not a charm, it is a representation of the 'world' of a particular deity.

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/advanced/tantra/level1_getting_started/explanation_meaning_mandala_munich_/transcript.html

You sometimes see Buddhists offering a muti-layered dish which ius representation of offering the 'universe' to the guru and buddhas.

At a higher level the mandala diagram includes many deities and even buildings, and is a prompt to us to visualise a particular deity's world.

It's a good example to choose:

We hear a description of a deity's world and then create an image of it, a 'mandala', which can be 3D as well as sand or paper.  That image is then seen by others who have the meaning explained to them and create the mandala to remind themselves of it and then to teach others - and so chicken-egg-chicken-egg.  The mandala is used within the ritual.

Pssst - if you do want to see a charm from a Tibetan text, look for 'Liberation by Wearing' in the new Tibetan Book of the Dead.  You'll want to wear one, you will not resist, we are the Borg !  LOL

[lowonthetotem]

I am familiar with what a mandala is, what they are used for, and what they are "supposed" to be. They are not disimilar from other artistic creations, at least in my mind. Some shakuhachi honkyoku are also intended as represnetations of "all" and given as offerings of sound. Again, I think this depends more on what we bring to them rather than something the contain in a "natural" way. I guess I should say that it is not my opinion that this detracts from their potency, and in fact, it may enhance it, ultimately. In the end, though, it is just sand or sound or whatever. I think that avoiding this amounts to avoiding the real lesson they have to offer, for me anyway. Again, I don't mean any disrespect and certainly appreciate the beauty, as well as the deeper meaing that all artistic endeavors inspire in us.