Buddhism And "yogism"

[Xangsamhua]

I'm currently reading two books - The Buddha in the Jungle, by Kamala Tiyavanich, and Autobiography of a Yogi, by Paramahansa Yogananda. The first (recommended by Camerata) is a collection of stories about 19th and early 20th century meditation masters in Thailand, together with some observations by western travellers of the time an some interviews with still-living luangphors and luangpus. The second is a rather idiosyncratically written, but nevertheless charming autobiography of the famous Indian yogi who taught Kriya yoga in the US in the first half of the 20th century.

I'm humbled by the evidence of deep spirituality, exemplary practice and inspired teaching of Thai masters like Somdej To, Ajarn Doem, Phra Panya and others, recounted in the Tiyavanich book. I'm also intrigued by the cases of clairvoyance, transkinesis, paranormal transformation and the like recounted by Yogananda - all of which seem to be part and parcel of the Hindu yogi lifeworld.

These yogic powers and practices seem to be part and parcel of the lifeworld of some of the Thai masters also. Ajarn Jaran appears to have some of these powers, one of which - the ability to tame rogue elephants through psychic influence on the animal's thevada - he learned from Ajarn Doem.

Now, I had thought of Theravada Buddhism as something different from the exercise of yogic powers, though I'm aware of yogic methods of meditation, its practice in Tibetan schools and the Mahayana Yogacara school, but didn't really associate yogism with Theravada. So my question is: How has yogic practice become connected with Theravada in Thailand?

Is it indigenous, an autochthonous phenomenon that occurs worldwide, whether in the mainstream religions or the shamanic religions of pre-industrial communities (Africa, Pre-Columban America, Celtic Britain and Ireland, for example) or is yogic practice an integral part of Buddhist meditation and its fruits?

[phetaroi]

This is just a response from a person who hasn't read that much...so it's just a personal opinion.

Buddhism cannot exist with walls around itself, totally set apart from the rest of what is in this world. All that is good in the world is not found only in Buddhism. I see Buddhism as a central focus, but I try to remain open-minded about other spiritual things that I learn (about).

[Brucenkhamen]

There is no difference between Buddhist and yogic psychic powers as far as I know.

My understanding is that "Yogism" was the starting point of Buddhism and was the basis of much of what he practiced before his great discovery. Buddhism uses a lot of techniques and teachings that started in Yogism however from the Buddhist point of view adds the essential part that was missing.

Psychic powers are a well know byproduct of concentration based meditation techniques, in Theravadin Buddhism the main point of difference is that monks are not permitted to claim to unordained

persons to have achieved these powers.

As the story goes I guess the Buddha became very accomplished with these kinds of powers studying with teachers that taught them as an end in themselves. However he realised that they were a distraction, another potential attachment, or a dead end.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Brucenkhamen

[Samuian]

Budddhism, Theravada, Hinayana, Mahayana, Vajrajana, Vadantism, Jainism, Hinduism, Shivaism, Brahmanism, Vaishnavaism, Babaism, Bahaiism, Bhakti, Jnana, Kriya, Karma, Sikhism, Christians, Lutherans, Muslims, Sufism, Taoism, Zen, Judaism, Rastafarians, Tantrism and many, many, many, many more ......

There is only ONE - the rest are fragments of the ONE, like roots and branches of the very tree, there is only ONE - name it, paint it, call it, cast it, as one wishes - it will for eternity remain the ONE!

.....no need to find it, to hunt for it, one has to realize that one is it, what ever path one may "chose" to walk...!

And yes, it's not about "siddhis" - psychic powers, however they come along like leaves and fruits on the tree.

Personally I am yet not too sure what is worse, the siddhis (paranormal spiritual powers) or the ever quarreling, questioning, investigating, jumpingfrom conclusio to conclusion, seemingly never resting mind!

I am only SURE that this, is NOT it - 100%!

...may peace be with us!

Edited December 1, 2009 by Samuian

[Xangsamhua]

Very helpful clarification. My interest was originally sparked a few weeks agao when reading some criticism of the Dalai Lama by Tibetan opponents who claimed Tibetan Buddhism was just "Hindu Yogism". See comments in http://www.independent.com/news/2009/apr/1...ai-lama-matter/ As I said, I had thought that this did not carry over into Theravada, but I can now see the connection.

There is no difference between Buddhist and yogic psychic powers as far as I know.

My understanding is that "Yogism" was the starting point of Buddhism and was the basis of much of what he practiced before his great discovery. Buddhism uses a lot of techniques and teachings that started in Yogism however from the Buddhist point of view adds the essential part that was missing.

Psychic powers are a well know byproduct of concentration based meditation techniques, in Theravadin Buddhism the main point of difference is that monks are not permitted to claim to unordained

persons to have achieved these powers.

As the story goes I guess the Buddha became very accomplished with these kinds of powers studying with teachers that taught them as an end in themselves. However he realised that they were a distraction, another potential attachment, or a dead end.

[camerata]

As I said, I had thought that this did not carry over into Theravada, but I can now see the connection.

It depends what your definition of yogism is. Monks out in the jungle needed protection against elephants, so they developed a mental training they believed could do it. On the one hand they had mental powers developed by Buddhist practice, on the other they used them for practical (survival) purposes.

As a separate issue, the Pali Canon is full of supernatural stuff like monks talking with devas and nagas. If Thai monks do this (as Ajahn Man did) or believe it, I don't see it has anything to do with Hindu Yogism. It fits right in with Classical Theravada Buddhism. The Buddha in the Jungle and Forest Recollections contain a lot of Thai cultural material (in fact they seem to be an attempt to preserve it), but being written for a general audience they are short on Dhamma. For some Dhamma with your devas, nagas and yakkhas, try the biography of Ajahn Man.

[LazyYogi]

Very helpful clarification. My interest was originally sparked a few weeks agao when reading some criticism of the Dalai Lama by Tibetan opponents who claimed Tibetan Buddhism was just "Hindu Yogism". See comments in http://www.independent.com/news/2009/apr/1...ai-lama-matter/ As I said, I had thought that this did not carry over into Theravada, but I can now see the connection.

There's some funny comments to the article you linked. The one you mentioned has no idea what he's talking about. Tibetan Buddhism is deeply rooted in the Madhyamaka philosophy of Nagarjuna. The big difference between Tibetan Buddhism and Hinduism is emptiness. "Hindu yogism" and every other non-Buddhist system in the world will fall into either the extreme of substantial existence or the extreme of nihilism.

The Buddhist view of non-self that avoids both existence and nothingness is very difficult to understand. So, yes, many will incorrectly think that Tibetans believe the Dalai Lama is a "god" who's soul reincarnates from body to body. Actually it is an ever-changing stream of consciousness and chain of cause-effect that leads to the becoming of a new being upon the death of an old one. The only difference between the DL and other high lamas and regular people in this regard is that the well-trained lama will be able to exert some conscious choice over how and where the re-birth takes place. Ordinary people on the other hand are completely bewildered at the time of death and are carried away by their previous positive and negative actions to a new existence.

When talking about yoga and Buddhism in general, it is not correct to say that it is all just the same. There is Dhamma and there is non-Dhamma. The Dhamma taught by the Buddha leads to complete liberation. Other things don't. Most Hindu yogic systems if followed correctly would probably lead to rebirth in the brahma realm or some non-material plane of existence for a really, really long span of time, but not a permanent end to suffering.

[moe666]

These extra gifts that one can aquire with prolonged meditation and work are just that, gifts from god that one can use or not.

[Samuian]

Very helpful clarification. My interest was originally sparked a few weeks agao when reading some criticism of the Dalai Lama by Tibetan opponents who claimed Tibetan Buddhism was just "Hindu Yogism". See comments in http://www.independent.com/news/2009/apr/1...ai-lama-matter/ As I said, I had thought that this did not carry over into Theravada, but I can now see the connection.

There's some funny comments to the article you linked. The one you mentioned has no idea what he's talking about. Tibetan Buddhism is deeply rooted in the Madhyamaka philosophy of Nagarjuna. The big difference between Tibetan Buddhism and Hinduism is emptiness. "Hindu yogism" and every other non-Buddhist system in the world will fall into either the extreme of substantial existence or the extreme of nihilism.

The Buddhist view of non-self that avoids both existence and nothingness is very difficult to understand. So, yes, many will incorrectly think that Tibetans believe the Dalai Lama is a "god" who's soul reincarnates from body to body. Actually it is an ever-changing stream of consciousness and chain of cause-effect that leads to the becoming of a new being upon the death of an old one. The only difference between the DL and other high lamas and regular people in this regard is that the well-trained lama will be able to exert some conscious choice over how and where the re-birth takes place. Ordinary people on the other hand are completely bewildered at the time of death and are carried away by their previous positive and negative actions to a new existence.

When talking about yoga and Buddhism in general, it is not correct to say that it is all just the same. There is Dhamma and there is non-Dhamma. The Dhamma taught by the Buddha leads to complete liberation. Other things don't. Most Hindu yogic systems if followed correctly would probably lead to rebirth in the brahma realm or some non-material plane of existence for a really, really long span of time, but not a permanent end to suffering.

Well explained, but doesn't change a grain on the fact that buddha is mentioned the 9th Avatar in the Puranas and sowith can be understood as a reincarnation of Vishnu!

There are hundred of branches to a big tree and "Hinduism" is a giant tree!

The mentioned "difference" of emptiness, is nothing new at all!

What is the brahman to be understood as?

In which relation is the Atman and the brahman to be understood?

Waht does "Tat twam asi" indicate?

Or "Aham Brahman Asmi"?

what is the Sanskrit root of "Buddhi", "Bodhi"?

One may see the Buddha as a reformer to Brahmanism, their complex ritualism and

their exquisite position in society.

Buddha was to Brahmanism, what Jesus was to Judaism!

Nothing new at all, may be with one exception that the "new path" opened the way to "enlightenment" for all....

still, it needs to be gone,

as well as it was a sweep against established "religious Hi-So" and Priestdom.

Edited December 4, 2009 by Samuian

[LazyYogi]

"buddha is mentioned the 9th Avatar in the Puranas and sowith can be understood as a reincarnation of Vishnu!"

Something Buddha would have refuted, and obviously construed much later after his death as an attempt to swallow Buddhism under Vaishnavism in medieval India.

""Hinduism" is a giant tree"

Yes, but the Buddhadharma is another tree altogether.

"In which relation is the Atman and the brahman to be understood?"

Neither are posited by the Buddha, so this question is irrelevant.

"what is the Sanskrit root of "Buddhi", "Bodhi"?"

The root is budh. The singular verb form is bodhati "he knows". How is this relevant?

"Nothing new at all"

If you insist on viewing Buddhism through the lens of Hinduism--accepting the validity of the atman, etc., then of course you'd see it that way.

But if you actually take the time to explore what the Buddha taught, take the time to read the Suttas, and make the effort to understand their meaning without bias; then you'd realize the unique message of the Buddha.

Instead of "thou art that", we have "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self".

[Samuian]

Instead of "thou art that", we have "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self".

The difference is only in the perception of the quotes!

Fodder for the intellect.

There simply can't be a difference!