Largest Buddhist monument undamaged in Indonesian quake

[Mehtab Singh]

Around 4600 people have died so far, but this monument stands out unaffected.

http://www.samachar.com/showurl.htm?rurl=h...amaged~in~quake

Largest Buddhist monument undamaged in Indonesian quake

Sunday, 28 May , 2006, 00:17

Yogyakarta: The Borobudur temple, the largest Buddhist monument on earth, was not affected by the powerful earthquake on Saturday that left thousands dead, local officials said.

A mass of forbidding black stone, Borobudur was built in the 7th century by the Javanese rulers of the Syailendra dynasty and is one of Indonesia's most popular tourist attractions, drawing millions of people every year.

Lying 40 km northwest of the city of Yogyakarta, which was badly damaged by Saturday's magnitude 6.2 earthquake, Borobudur appeared to escape damage, said Kuntung.

But a number of shrines in the Prambanan temple compound, 36 km to the southeast, did suffer damage, said Lt. Yulianto, a local police officer and media reports. It was not immediately clear how badly.

Borobudur was abandoned for centuries - the reasons remain a mystery - and lay hidden under layers of volcanic ash and jungle growth until it was discovered in 1814 by Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles during the English occupation of Java island.

A massive restoration was carried out in the 1970s under the guidance and financing of UNESCO. The Prambanan temple was built in 850 B.C. and is the largest Hindu temple compound in Indonesia. Not long after its construction, the temple was abandoned and began to deteriorate.

The reconstruction of the compound began in 1918 and is currently unfinished. Like Borobudur, Prambanan is also an UNESCO World Heritage Site.

[Guest]

vah ji vah , what a great news.

who can damage dharamsala of Vahiguroo?

[Singh47]

vah ji vah , what a great news.

who can damage dharamsala of Vahiguroo?

Vahiguroo? you do realize that Buddhism is an atheistic religion... so it is anything but a "dharamsala of Vehiguroo".

[Mehtab Singh]

Vahiguroo? you do realize that Buddhism is an atheistic religion... so it is anything but a "dharamsala of Vehiguroo".

Singh47 veerjee, we had a discussion on this issue in the past. Buddha was not an atheist.

Taken from: Why Buddhist are atheist??

When anyone questioned Buddha about God he would keep silent. What could he say? Contradictions cannot be spoken about. If he were to say, "I know," he would be making a mistake, because who can say that he knows? And if Buddha were to say he did not know, he would be making a false statement, because who knew more than he!

Early one morning a very learned pundit came to Buddha to ask about God. Buddha remained silent. Soon the pundit left. Ananda asked Buddha why he had not answered, since the pundit was a man who knew a great deal and deserved an answer. Buddha said, "Just because he is deserving, it is all the more difficult to give him an answer. If I said I have known Him, it would be wrong, because without knowing Him completely how could I claim to know Him at all? I I said I did not, that too would be false. All claims derive from the ego and the ego can never know Him. Since he is deserving and intelligent and understanding, I had to keep silent. He understood. Did you not see him bow before he left?"

Then Ananda remembered how the pundit was so grateful that he bowed reverently at Buddha's feet. "How wonderful! Did he really understand? That never occurred to me."

Buddha replied, "Horses are of three types. The first type you hit with a whip and they will move, inch by inch. The second type you need not whip; just threaten them and they move. For the third, you need not even crack the whip; just the shadow of the whip sets them going. The pundit belongs to the third type. I had only to show him the shadow and he started on the journey."

Taken from The True Name by Osho, posted here by Pheena jee.

[Guest]

Singh47, you must be out of your mind by saying mahatama budda was a atheist, fine if you wish to say about his followers but mahatama budda was not a atheist.

Probably that's why buddh is mentioned in japji sahib.

[Guest Javanmard]

Here we go again...

[Dynamic_Banda]

and the whirling devishers go round and round. one hand up and one hand down..

[Singh47]

Bhai Mehtab Singh Jee, it is a very big misconception that Buddhism is a theistic religion. I know and realize that Buddha is a very respected figure in the world. I respect him too. But the fact remains that the Dhamma like Jainism is a Naastic faith belief. Although they believe in the existence of Devtas and Rakshasas(demons) but they do not believe in Brahman or Vaheguru, so to call a Buddhist temple a "Dharamshala of Vahiguroo" is a HUGE blunder. In fact Buddhism even denies that the universe was created by God. Nor do they believe in the existence of the "self".

For more info please visit the following sites:

http://www.darkfiber.com/atheisms/atheisms/buddhism.html

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/buddhism_atheism.html

N30 Singh, I think that you should do little bit more reading on Buddhism before commenting. I suggest you should read some puraatan Nirmala Sikh literature to begin with. According to them Buddhism was started because long ago when the Demons (Rakshas) defeated the Devas, the Devas ran to Vishnu for help. In order to help them, Vishnu incarnated as Goutam Sidhart (Buddha) and started a Naastic faith called Buddh Dharm in order to weaken the Demons. I don’t know if this story is true or not but this is what puraatan Sikh Nirmala literature has to say about Buddhism.

[Guest SAdmin]

God and Buddhism writer: Pat Zukeran

It may have occurred to the reader that in our discussion thus far no mention has been made of God or an eternal deity. It is clear that Gautama, the founder of Buddhism, did not claim to be divine. He claimed to be the one to point the way to Nirvana, but it was up to each individual to find his own way there.

The concept of a personal God does not fit into the Buddhist system of religion. Today there are many sects of Buddhism. Many differ in their concept of the divine and of Buddha. In general, Buddhists are pantheistic in their view of God. Many view God as an impersonal force which is made up of all living things and holds the universe together.

Here are what some of the most prominent of scholars say of the Buddhist view of God. Dr. John Noss states, "there is no sovereign Person in the heavens holding all together in unity, there is only the ultimate impersonal unity of being itself, whose peace enfolds the individual self when it ceases to call itself 'I' and dissolves in the featureless purity of Nirvana, as a drop of spray is merged in its mother sea."(7)

Here is what the late Dr. Suzuki, one of the greatest teachers of Zen Buddhism, says about his concept of God: "If God after making the world puts Himself outside it, He is no longer God. If He separates Himself from the world or wants to separate Himself, He is not God. The world is not the world when it is separated from God. God must be in the world and the world in God."(8)

Since Buddhism in general does not believe in a personal God or divine being, it does not have worship, praying, or praising of a divine being. It offers no form of redemption, forgiveness, heavenly hope, or final judgment. Buddhism is, therefore, more of a moral philosophy, an ethical way of life.

Professor Kraemer describes the Buddhist system as "a non-theistic ethical discipline, a system of self training, anthropocentric, stressing ethics and mind-culture to the exclusion of theology."(9)

Since Gautama's death, many sects have developed within Buddhism. Many of these sects differ in many fundamental ways and comparing them to one another is like comparing two separate religions. Many sects have developed their own unique concept of God. Some are pantheistic in their view of God. Others are atheistic. Still others have developed a polytheistic system of gods. Some have combined pantheism and polytheism. Several sects have elevated Gautama (or Buddha) to the level of a savior or divine being although it is clear he never claimed to be a deity. Other sects have combined some of the doctrines of God from other religions with Buddhism.

Since Buddha never emphasized his concept of the divine, Buddhism is left with some life's deepest questions unanswered, questions such as the origin of the universe and the purpose of man's existence.

[Guest Javanmard]

Buddhism is as diverse as any other religion is. There are in Buddhism schools that admit the principle of an Absolute that is the origin of all things and other schools that not ony deny that but also deny the very existence of the soul.

Theravada Buddhism denies but an Absolute and the soul whereas certain schools in Tantrik Buddhism such as the Kalachakra and Shingon clearly believe in a Primordial Buddha or Adi Budhha who is the Divine, Absolute, origin of all, manifesting Himself not only in the millions of universes but also in the different Prophets, Avataras and Buddhas of human history.

Pat Zukeran's statement is only true for a particular brand of Buddhism namely Neo-Vedantic Zen. Other schools do seem to have the notion of a Personal Divine in the shape of the Adi Buddha.

So instead of speaking of "Buddhism" and improvise yourselves into scholars of Buddhist studies take a closer look at realit and realise that there are "Budhhisms". The monument of Borobodur is actually a Mahayana temple in a mandala structure with the Adi Budhha in the middle and it is highly probable though not absolutely certain that this Adi Buddha was perceived as the Divine as theistic Shaivism and Vaishnavism influenced indonesian Buddhism a lot.

Budhhism does not stop at Siddhartha Gautama's texts as later on sutras were reveald by heavenly Buddhas such as Amitabha or the Adi Budhha himself. The tendency to reduce Buddhism to its historical origins is a mistake that many Anglo-German Buddhologists commit. By taking a phenomenological approach one realises that Buddhism is much more diverse than that.

[Singh47]

Lalleshwari does present some good points. Some Buddhists do seem to worship Amitabh like a God like figure. But even Amitabh was an actual historic figure who lived in Gandhara which many say is the birth place of Mahayana Buddhism. But later innovations and deviations from the original path as shown by the historic Buddha is not my concern here. Point is Buddhism as shown by Shakyamuni Buddha does not believe in Brahman like Vedanta does. So I still dont understand how a Buddhist temple can be a DharamShala of Vahiguroo.

[Pheena]

Vahiguroo? you do realize that Buddhism is an atheistic religion... so it is anything but a "dharamsala of Vehiguroo".

What is the state of Nirvana implying?

If one does not speak of God, does that mean they lack the realization of God? If one does not point a finger and say here is your God? Does that mean they don't know where God is?

Does Silence equate to not knowing?

[Guest]

Singh47, i went to buddhist temple here in mississuaga with one of nirmala singh who lives in montreal. i read bits of history of their lama's in the library upstairs. They observed celibacy and did hardcore tapaysa and were masters of kali chakra

This dharam sala believed in tibetan buddhism.

Also i have one buddhist freind at work, once long time ago we were talking about nirguna upasana, i told him we got Gurmantar- Vahiguroo, bij mantar- ikongkar, parbola mantar- satnaam and mool mantar. Our mantars were both about nirgun and sarguna form of Vahiguroo.

He told me that they have mantar given by their masters, with that mantar they also do nirgun upasana. He even gave me the mantar, which dummy me - have forgot now..i do recall i have mentioned this mantar on sikhawareness forum before.. i ll try search for it.

[Guest Javanmard]

The Kalachakra school believes in Adi Buddha. The text defines it as being the "Primordial Being, Pure, Self-Existing,Origin of All and Eternal." In other words the Divine. Kalachakra is a manifestation of the Adi Buddha.

[Pheena]

Neo was it, "Budham Sharnma Gatshaamee"

[Mehtab Singh]

Budhdham Sharnam Gachchaami

Dhammam Sharnam Gachchaami

Sangham Sharnam Gachchaami

[Pheena]

nice!! thanks for expanding on that...translation??

[Mehtab Singh]

I read the translation ages ago in childhood...lol...let me still try and someone please elaborate or correct me.

Sharnam comes from sharan, meaning to take refuge. So basically its loosely translated as "I take refuge in the Buddha, I take refuge in the Dhamma, I take refuge in the Sangha". I may go wrong in translating Dhamma and Sangha, so someone else please be my guest .

[Guest Javanmard]

I take refuge in the Buddha

I take refuge in the Dharma

I take refufe in the Sangha

Mehtab has confused the Pali "Dhamma" with the Sanskrit "Dharma'. The three vows as described here are in Sanskrit. ,But Dhamma and Dharma are the same thing.

[Pheena]

I take refuge in the Buddha

I take refuge in the Dharma

I take refufe in the Sangha

Mehtab has confused the Pali "Dhamma" with the Sanskrit "Dharma'. The three vows as described here are in Sanskrit. ,But Dhamma and Dharma are the same thing.

so then what does it mean to take refuge in Buddha, Dharma and Sangha?? Please do share more..

[Mehtab Singh]

Mehtab has confused the Pali "Dhamma" with the Sanskrit "Dharma'. The three vows as described here are in Sanskrit. ,But Dhamma and Dharma are the same thing.

See I told you I don't know . But thanks for clearing it up veerjee .