Hindu Prana, Buddhist Prana, and Taoist Qi the same energy?

[Agnideva]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

Prayer is okay but it cannot be given nearly the importance of yoga and meditation. We all know prayer does not help you search for God. Talking to God is okay but like worshipping and idol it won't help you find God. God can only be found by gaining knowledge, both by studying science and history as well as searching for God in meditation and yoga.

I believe that prayer, ritual image worship, meditation, chanting, and reading from holy books all go hand in hand. One does not pick one of them and reject the others. They are all part and parcel of the continuing development of oneself into a more spiritual person. If one can’t believe that prayer and worship have merit and will lead to God, then how can one possibly believe that meditation will? Prayer and worship done correctly, with love at heart, can also lead you to the same goal, this is the message of the saints, as I am Free indicated. All paths lead to the same goal, the goal of realization.

I personally don’t see prayer as an illusion. The purpose of prayer and worship is not to dull your mind, but to sharpen your intellect, to make you more focused, more loving, calm and equanimous. All these qualities are crucial prerequisites, as any meditator will tell you. If prayer is only leading to frustration and disappointment, then it is obviously being done wrong.

[Silverbackman]

A month ago I would have said prayer is equally as important as yoga or meditation but I cannot anymore. There is nothing wrong with prayer, and I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but I don't believe it is as effective or as powerful as yoga and meditation.

Just look at the difference between a devout Buddhist or devout Hindu who emphasizes more on meditation in comparison to a Christian or Muslim. The state of mind of the devout followers of yoga and meditation are far more superior mentally and are more in tuned with God than some Christian or Muslims who prays all the time. I tell ya I used to pray a lot when I was younger but it didn't do me as good as if I meditated or did yoga instead.

Sitting down in a quiet area or shrine of a temple and praying is okay, just as long as it is only a mere part of mediation and yoga.

As for idol worshiping, it has to be a reasonable idol you are asking for help and guidance. I don't mind people praying to Jesus, Buddha, or Krishna but when people make up there own God and ask it to help them it doesn't make too much sense. Well....I guess its okay but no matter how much prayer and idol worship you do it can never be complete or equated to yoga/meditation in my honest opinion.

[I am free]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

A month ago I would have said prayer is equally as important as yoga or meditation but I cannot anymore. There is nothing wrong with prayer, and I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but I don't believe it is as effective or as powerful as yoga and meditation.

Just look at the difference between a devout Buddhist or devout Hindu who emphasizes more on meditation in comparison to a Christian or Muslim. The state of mind of the devout followers of yoga and meditation are far more superior mentally and are more in tuned with God than some Christian or Muslims who prays all the time. I tell ya I used to pray a lot when I was younger but it didn't do me as good as if I meditated or did yoga instead.

It seems to me that your dislike for prayer has more to do with how you define prayer. What is prayer according to you?

For me prayer is pure love. Prayer is expressing one's love to God. Prayer is not for appeasing the deity, it is for purification of self. In that sense it is not just beautiful but also a very powerful spriritual practice.

[Agnideva]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

Just look at the difference between a devout Buddhist or devout Hindu who emphasizes more on meditation in comparison to a Christian or Muslim. The state of mind of the devout followers of yoga and meditation are far more superior mentally and are more in tuned with God than some Christian or Muslims who prays all the time. I tell ya I used to pray a lot when I was younger but it didn't do me as good as if I meditated or did yoga instead.

Devout Hindus and Buddhists also perform prayers and worship ceremonies called puja. To me prayer is an expression of devotion, and the puja is an extension of that devotion, and a means to honor the Divine and the divinely ones. I see it like this - if you want to come to the point of realization or enlightenment, you need to be devoted to the cause and to your respective path. When you're devoted, prayers and pujas are not obstacles any more, but come naturally. The path of devotion (bhakti yoga) that we've been talking about is not just sitting and praying for salvation, but vying for direct experience through intense and ecstatic devotion. One thing that separates Eastern religions from Western ones, IMHO, is that the former place a lot of emphasis on the experiencial dimension, and do not ask you to rely purely on faith.

I don't mind people praying to Jesus, Buddha, or Krishna but when people make up there own God and ask it to help them it doesn't make too much sense.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

Just look at the difference between a devout Buddhist or devout Hindu who emphasizes more on meditation in comparison to a Christian or Muslim. The state of mind of the devout followers of yoga and meditation are far more superior mentally and are more in tuned with God

Try to remember that Buddhist meditation has no relation to God, we do not believe in a creator being.



To go back to the original post, I am not aware that this "Prana" exists in Buddhism. There is no specific life force, we are here because our deluded minds keep us here.

However, I could be wrong, there is much I do not know about other traditions of Buddhism, and there is a great deal of technicality which I do not find useful, but I have never come accross such a concept.

I am curious to know if any other Buddhist practitioners have any knowledge of "Prana" in Buddhism?

[Agnideva]

Originally Posted by AT5

To go back to the original post, I am not aware that this "Prana" exists in Buddhism. There is no specific life force, we are here because our deluded minds keep us here.

Thanks for taking us back to the original post AT5 , these discussions do go off on tangents a lot. I was wondering about prana myself in Buddhism. I suspect (but I'm not sure) that prana concept is present in Vajrayana. As you know there are a lot of parallels and overlap between Vajrayana and the Agamic or Tantric traditions of Sanatana Dharma. The prana concept is closely linked with the concept of Shakti, and is central to Agamic/Tantric practices in Hinduism. It is also prominent in the Vedic tradition and there is a hymn to prana in the Atharva Veda.

Another thing I was wondering about, since we've already strayed onto the subject in previous posts in this thread, is the role of puja or lack thereof in Buddha dharma. Generally speaking, in Sanatana Dharma, prayer and puja are important to daily practice at the home alter and in temples. I was wondering if you or another follower of Buddha Dharma can comment on the role of puja.

[I am free]

Originally Posted by Agnideva

I was wondering if you or another follower of Buddha Dharma can comment on the role of puja.

While you are at it ATFifth, could you also explain what you and buddhists in general mean by "creator being"?

Originally Posted by ATF

Try to remember that Buddhist meditation has no relation to God, we do not believe in a creator being.

Is God the same as "creator being"? Are you ok with a concept of God who is not a creator? Does buddhism have a concept of God?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,


interesting thread and discussion thus far.

my views are predicated on my understanding, shallow as it is, of the Buddha Dharma and my particular Vehicle upon which i ride.

ATF is correct, Buddhism does not have a teaching of Prana, per se, to be found in the Hinyana or Mahayana. however, the Varjayana has something which, in some sense, could be considered in the same vein.

within the Buddhist Tantric system, there is a thing called the "subtle psychic body" which, for all intents and purposes, is the same as the Sanatana Dharma understanding of Prana. however, the real difference between these two understandings is the nature of Prana or the psychic body, as it were, and its' function.

within the context of the Tantric tradition of the Vajrayana, the subtle psychic body corresponds to the channels and winds which consciousness is interdependent on. (sorry... don't really know how to express this properly!) i mean to be saying that consciousness rides the drops and channels in dependence upon them. they "interare" with each other.

this subject does get, as you may suspect, fairly esoteric fairly quickly

essentially, the idea is that the male/female energies are, for most beings, not integrated with each other, they operate at cross purposes. the subtle body is the medium by which we can, through training and practice, direct the male/female principles to develop our spiritual capacity more quickly than we could through non-tantric means.

if there is interest, i can, perhaps, go into some more depth on what i've said thus far or elaborate further along some ideas.

as for the role of puja in Buddhist practice, the short answer is "it depends" unlike many traditions, Buddhism has three progressively subtle modes of practice which we typically denote as Hinyana, Mahayana and Vajrayana. we need to understand, however, that these terms are mere designations for the sort of practice of which we are possed of the correct capacities. whilst, in the past, there was some derogatory views vis a vie Hinayana/Mahayana, this is more a matter of speaking than a real difference in the nature of the fruit which is reaped.

within the context of the Hinyana practices, Buddha Shakyamuni does teach that one should perform puja, circumambulation and other ritual acts. these are for the express purpose of generating merit, not Prajna, and we need to bear this in mind. the idea behind such teachings for generating merit is to train from the outside in. in other words, before we have an internal realization of Prajna, we need to create the right causes and conditions for such a realization to arise. the most expeident means for doing so, for Hinyana adherents, is through external ritualized actions. this is essentially true for the other two Vehicles as well as they are built on the foundation of the Hinayana. naturally, there are some differences in the approach and, ultimately, the understanding involved in such activities.

in the Mahayana, especially in the Prajna Paramita Sutras, the gathering of merit is turned to a different purpose and, ultimately, a different outcome due to the emphasis placed on Anatta and Shunyata, in my view. some of the differences in these things are due to the various philosophical schools which are found in Buddhism. i suppose that i could attribute all of the differences to this, should i be so inclined, though i would tend to draw some distinctions for discussion purposes.

with regards to a Creator Being and Gods et al. Buddhism teaches that there are beings which are called Gods. in point of fact, one of the titles of a Buddha is "Teacher of Gods and Men". however, there is nothing which can rightly be regarded as the "ultimate ground of being" within the Buddha Dharma. thus, Buddhist thought does not agree with the idea of a Creator Deity, in whichever manner such Deity may be conceived. the Gods, for all intents and purposes, are the same as you and i in that they, too, are subject to karma and eventual rebirth. whilst it is true that their lifespans are significantly longer than a humans, it is not eternal.

i've sort of rambled around on this post and made some claims and so forth which may be confusing and (hopefully not) incorrect. as i say, this is based on my own understanding of the matter, as incomplete and shallow as it may be.

metta,

~v

[Agnideva]

Namaste Vajra,

Thanks for the explanation. Your post, as always, was detailed and very insightful. This is turning out to be a very good thread indeed .

Originally Posted by Vajra

within the context of the Tantric tradition of the Vajrayana, the subtle psychic body corresponds to the channels and winds which consciousness is interdependent on. (sorry... don't really know how to express this properly!) i mean to be saying that consciousness rides the drops and channels in dependence upon them.

So, what is consciousness according to Buddha Dharma? How did consciousness come about, and does that consciousness cease to be at some point?

within the context of the Hinyana practices, Buddha Shakyamuni does teach that one should perform puja, circumambulation and other ritual acts. these are for the express purpose of generating merit, not Prajna, and we need to bear this in mind. the idea behind such teachings for generating merit is to train from the outside in. in other words, before we have an internal realization of Prajna, we need to create the right causes and conditions for such a realization to arise. the most expeident means for doing so, for Hinyana adherents, is through external ritualized actions. this is essentially true for the other two Vehicles as well as they are built on the foundation of the Hinayana.

Does one cease the ritual practices and pujas after realization of prajna as they may no longer be needed?

It appears the reasoning behind the rituals given above is similar to the one given by Sanatana Dharma, wherein rituals are, as said, for the purpose of training from the outside in. However, in Sanatana Dharma pujas and rituals also aid the individual to commune with the Mahadevas and Ishvara, unto whom the rituals are directed, and guide that person toward the state of mind necessary for attaining realization. After realization, one continues to practice dharma, so long as one is still in the body, as it becomes her/his dharma (for most) for the remainder of her/his life to lead and teach by example.

however, there is nothing which can rightly be regarded as the "ultimate ground of being" within the Buddha Dharma. thus, Buddhist thought does not agree with the idea of a Creator Deity, in whichever manner such Deity may be conceived.

Am I correct to say then that according to Buddha Dharma, the universe/multiverse never came to be at some particular point, but always has been, always will be, but is perpetually in flux?

the Gods, for all intents and purposes, are the same as you and i in that they, too, are subject to karma and eventual rebirth. whilst it is true that their lifespans are significantly longer than a humans, it is not eternal.

This is also the case in Hindu Dharma, but applies only to the Devas in the subtle/astral plane. The Mahadevas in the causal plane, by contrast, are never, and never have been, subject to samsara similar to ones who have been liberated (muktas). The Mahadevas are not eternal either - their lifespan is only so long as time, space, and the three planes continue to exist.

Regards.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Agnideva,

thank you for the post and the kind words

Originally Posted by Agnideva

So, what is consciousness according to Buddha Dharma? How did consciousness come about, and does that consciousness cease to be at some point?

the most direct answer is that "consciousness is that which knows". consciousness, per se, is like all other phenomena in our universe, interdependent. in a certain sense, consciousness and the universe et al, arose in mutual dependence upon each other. there is a fairly detailed explanation of this process to be found in the Tipitaka, but it isn't often of much concern in our daily spiritual practice.

consciousness, or at least what we normally call consciousness, is a finite thing and is a conditioned sort of thing. thus, the conditioned aspects of consciousness do, indeed, end. there are three more subtle levels and, even there, the 8th (Alaya Consciousness) is eventually left behind as well. the other two are a bit difficult to really explain.. suffice it to say that there are several views on this to be found in the Buddha Dharma. as such, this is more a matter of personal instruction.

Does one cease the ritual practices and pujas after realization of prajna as they may no longer be needed?

well... yes, but it also happens before that as well. essentially, once the correct causes and conditions have been assembled, the phenomena manifests. at this point, we could say that this is a realization of Prajna, however, it is still a conditional sort of realization.

It appears the reasoning behind the rituals given above is similar to the one given by Sanatana Dharma, wherein rituals are, as said, for the purpose of training from the outside in.

all the Dharma traditions share quite a bit of practice and doctrine, in my experience. the more that i've studied the more i've come to the conclusion that beings adopt a spiritual practice which "resonates" within them in a certain manner which others do not. from the POV of Buddha Dharma, this is why we say that there are 84,000 Dharma Doors which correspond to the variety of beings and their capacities for spiritual practice.

Am I correct to say then that according to Buddha Dharma, the universe/multiverse never came to be at some particular point, but always has been, always will be, but is perpetually in flux?

correct, we share the Indian view of time and it's cyclical nature. this universe is simply the current one, which is influx and constantly changing, when it finally ceases to manifest, a new one will arise.

the Buddha gave a few different responses to this sort of question, depending on the spiritual capacity of the beings posing the question. on some occassions, he explained that this is completely unimportant and refused to discuss it. in other instances, he explains it very succiently and directly. in yet other instances, he alluded to it and left it open for the individual being to discover for themselves.

This is also the case in Hindu Dharma, but applies only to the Devas in the subtle/astral plane. The Mahadevas in the causal plane, by contrast, are never, and never have been, subject to samsara similar to ones who have been liberated (muktas). The Mahadevas are not eternal either - their lifespan is only so long as time, space, and the three planes continue to exist.

Regards.

thank you for the information

metta,

~v

[Silverbackman]

I am free,

I don't dislike prayer I just think it should never be equated to yoga/meditation. I don't mind people pray at all, in fact the more I think about it is okay but prayer should be done with uttermost faith and people cannot expect God to just do whatever they say. It's not that simple .

Your defination of prayer;

""For me prayer is pure love. Prayer is expressing one's love to God. Prayer is not for appeasing the deity, it is for purification of self. In that sense it is not just beautiful but also a very powerful spriritual practice.""

I agree with this defination as effective. The problem is that Abrahamic Faiths tend to emphasize the appeasment their deity abd expect God to help them. As a result many people have left their Abrahmic faiths because God never helped them. Obviously this realiance on God helping them, will not help. If prayer is done in the fashion you are describing it I don't have any problem with it. In fact I would encourage your defination.

Again however I do not think it should ever be considered as important as yoga/meditation.

[Silverbackman]

Originally Posted by Agnideva

Devout Hindus and Buddhists also perform prayers and worship ceremonies called puja. To me prayer is an expression of devotion, and the puja is an extension of that devotion, and a means to honor the Divine and the divinely ones. I see it like this - if you want to come to the point of realization or enlightenment, you need to be devoted to the cause and to your respective path. When you're devoted, prayers and pujas are not obstacles any more, but come naturally. The path of devotion (bhakti yoga) that we've been talking about is not just sitting and praying for salvation, but vying for direct experience through intense and ecstatic devotion. One thing that separates Eastern religions from Western ones, IMHO, is that the former place a lot of emphasis on the experiencial dimension, and do not ask you to rely purely on faith.


Can you explain what you mean by this?

As I explained earlier I don't mind prayer in the Eastern sense (although I disagree praying to a particular deity) but I strongly do not like the Western Blind Faith and "God do this, I worship you" type prayer . For spiritual experiance I don't see the problem with it, but I do not think it should be equated to yoga/meditation which gives a deeper experiance.

[Silverbackman]

Originally Posted by Awaiting_the_fifth

Try to remember that Buddhist meditation has no relation to God, we do not believe in a creator being.

To go back to the original post, I am not aware that this "Prana" exists in Buddhism. There is no specific life force, we are here because our deluded minds keep us here.

However, I could be wrong, there is much I do not know about other traditions of Buddhism, and there is a great deal of technicality which I do not find useful, but I have never come accross such a concept.

I am curious to know if any other Buddhist practitioners have any knowledge of "Prana" in Buddhism?

Who says Buddhist don't believe in a creator? Be careful, don't let Western ignorance make you believe Buddhism is an atheistic religion .

Buddha never denied the existance of God. Then again he never really talked about it. But to assume he did not believe in God is utter nonsense, Buddha was a Brahmin and merely if anything created a philosophy for spiritual experiance. In a sense it is a philosophy of Hinduism, Buddha needed to mention was that there is a Brahman, but he didn't. It doesn't mean he did not believe in it. Buddhism is very much like Hinduism, different only in a few aspects.

[Silverbackman]

Vajradhara,

To my knowledge Shaolin Monks are Buddhist monks and do believe in some kind of force (shaolin monks actually call it Chi). However I'm not sure whether their concept of the mystical force to shaolin monks was an influence of Taoost Chi. Did Buddha ever discuss such an existance? If meditation does exist in Buddhism, I would expect the acknowledgment of a mystical God-like force such as the prana or chi (qi) to exist.

""Am I correct to say then that according to Buddha Dharma, the universe/multiverse never came to be at some particular point, but always has been, always will be, but is perpetually in flux?"" by Agnideva

""correct, we share the Indian view of time and it's cyclical nature. this universe is simply the current one, which is influx and constantly changing, when it finally ceases to manifest, a new one will arise."" by Vajradhara

This is interesting. There are actual scientific theories such as the cyclical universe theory. According to it the universe has been big banging and big crunching for eternity, although receant scientific evidence is showing that the universe will in fact continue to expand, but the cyclical universe theory is still very much accpeted by many scientists. Are you two aware of the theory? How similar is to Budo-Hindu view of the universe?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Silverbackman,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

Who says Buddhist don't believe in a creator? Be careful, don't let Western ignorance make you believe Buddhism is an atheistic religion

Buddha Shakyamuni says this. there is no Creator Deity in Buddhism. now, if you mean "atheistic" in the sense of denying that deity exists, this would be correct. we do say that deities exist, thus, we are not atheistic in that sense. we do say that no Creator Deity exists, thus, in that sense we are atheistic.

Buddha never denied the existance of God.

it depends on how you are defining the term "god". if you mean a Creator Deity, this is denied. if you simply are referring to deities, this is affirmed.

Then again he never really talked about it.

actually, this is only partially correct. the Buddha Shakyamunis response to this query is directly dependent upon the spiritual capacity of the being asking the question. remember, the Buddha Dharma Sutta/Sutras are not "all encompasing". each one of them is expounded to a particular group of beings predicated on their spiritual maturity and capacity.

But to assume he did not believe in God is utter nonsense,

actually, it is absolutely correct.

Buddha was a Brahmin and merely if anything created a philosophy for spiritual experiance.

actually, Silverbackman, Buddha Shakyamuni was not a Brahmin, he was a prince and princes and Brahmins are different sorts of beings.

more to the point, there is not a single philosophical school in Buddhism, there are several of them, actually.

In a sense it is a philosophy of Hinduism, Buddha needed to mention was that there is a Brahman, but he didn't.

actually, this is not correct. Sanatana Dharma, too, has more than one philosophical school, as does the Buddha Dharma.

It doesn't mean he did not believe in it. Buddhism is very much like Hinduism, different only in a few aspects.

actually, Buddha Dharma and Sanatana Dharma share many concepts, but they are not the same. should we pick only one feature of Buddha Dharma to make this clear, it is my view that it is no more clear than as presented in the teaching of Atman and Anatman.

metta,

~v