---Vaj, you're not making sense. Regardless of the purpose, yidam (god) worship is all the same, call it what you want; but much of Tibetan Buddhism is similar to the god-worship of the Hindus. Even the iconography is similar, say Mahakali vs the same Mahakali in Hinduism; Ganesh worship in both religions. There are countless Hindus who regard these "gods" as "wisdom-enhancing" focal points; just as in your erronous rendition of Buddhism.
In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Feb 22, 2007, at 8:57 PM, coshlnx wrote: > > > Actually, Harris is critical of god worship only in the context of > > faith-based religious assumptions; and states that (something like > > this) is OK in his world-view: "When I meditate on Jesus, I feel an > > ecstatic Spiritual epiphany, and therefore you should try it". That's > > an experiential type of statement that can be tested to a certain > > extent; since other people can follow up on the recommendation and try > > it for themselves. > > And of course, such an experiential approach similar to this might be > compatible with Buddha-dharma, albeit with a number of caveats. > > > > > But the idea of no-god-worship doesn't even make sense in the context > > of Buddhism since Tibetan Buddhism > > In regards to Tibetan (or other types of Buddhism) this is a false View. > > > (apart from some Gurus like Vaj's > > Chogyal Norbu Rinpoche); is heavily involved with god-worship; i.e. > > the > > Tibetan Buddhist counterpart of the gods: yidams or whatever. There's > > Chenrizig, the Green Tara, the White Tara, MahaKali, numerous Dharma > > protectors, etc. > > But if these are worshipped as gods, then it isn't really Buddha- > dharma, sorry. Now if they are used for Wisdom-consciousness > realizing emptiness, that's a different story. But a yogin > worshipping a god or gods or goddesses is not part of the ethic of a > mantra Bodhisattva. > > Even in the outer tantras (e.g. kriya-tantra) where this may appear > to be the case, that is certainly not the intention nor is it the > correct View of the practitioner. >
