A Buddhism quandary

No Guru padmashabhava had a few consorts and sex was and is used as a for of meditation to the end of enlightenment. The idea behind tantra was the idea that worldly pleasures can lead to enlightenment.

Hence all of the deities being in union with their consorts in all of the mandalas

Frankly the fear of talking about sex in religion is a little off puting I dont get it procreation is a beautiful and spiritual thing. Why we feel we cant talk about it i dont know.

but thanks

Vajrasattva

Here is an example. What if you are destined for a human birth, yet for some reason no humans want to have sex? Or if all the humans are wiped out. Your karma would allow for you to take a human birth yet there is no option to. Therefore karma is not justified because it can not fulfill the "reward" of obtaining the human birth.

I would agree with you, but that is not what DT even says, nor do I think most whom support the idea of karma and rebirth would say is possible. It is why DT says that human life should be "treasured" because it is the only way in which we can "obtain" or "reach" nirvana. If you could by any other realm of existence then being a dog in your next life isn't such a bad thing because you could still reach nirvana. I have never seen this claim ever made within the Buddhist circles. It is only a human birth which allows a being the opportunity for enlightenment.

So if you can not obtain a human birth, then you can never escape the rounds of Samara. No humans, no human birth? Or would you spontaneously spring into being? Would you take a human form but as the offspring of some primate parents?

How could you be destined for human rebirth if humans do not exist in the first place? If there are no humans, or if no humans procreate, then it is impossible to be destined for human rebirth. It's that simple.

I recall in the sutras, as the Buddha teaches, that the birds in the trees obtain enlightenment.

We are not in disagreement here, it is what I was saying IF a human birth is required for enlightenment. So IF you can ONLY reach enlightenment while in a human form then by all means you would need to acquire a human form. But if there are no human forms available then how can you take a human form? It would be a bottle neck in the karma scheme. That is all I was pointing out.

The only thing that comes close to this is the explanation of the Buddha lands which says that there are birds that sing dharma songs. But they are not actually birds, they take the form of birds but they are really just transformation bodies of the Buddha. This is a way to beautify the Buddha land rather than having Buddhas in their place I guess.

But by all means if you can find where it states that you can achieve enlightenment while in the animal realm. Please present it to me.

Well, in that case, we are not talking about Buddhist karma, but some other system that shares that name, "karma".

But even still, without knowing the specifics of this other version of karma, there is still the objection that if X is not possible, then it is impossible for X to be destined.

You will have to give me more time for scriptural references - with work, I have less time to read through material as was once available. But I will give it some time as I can. I want to know the exact sources myself - being so brilliant :rolleyes: , I neglected to make a note when reading.

But for the moment, I can show you this:
" Furthermore, animals possess Buddha nature (according to the Mahayana school) and therefore an equal potential to become enlightened."

From the Wiki on animals in Buddhism. And from the article on Buddha-nature:
"The Buddha Nature or Buddha Principle (Buddha-dhātu) is taught to be a truly real, but internally hidden immortal potency or element within the purest depths of the mind, present in all sentient beings, for awakening and becoming a Buddha."

Given that animals are sentient beings, it follows that they have Buddha-nature, and therefore the potential for enlightenment.

Well I always thought karma meant volitional action.

The odd thing was you don't seem to object at all to the idea of rebirth.

There are lots of Buddhists who say the Buddha never meant literal rebirth or multiple lives but instead each realm of existence is just a state of mind. I object to that claim because why use a term such as rebirth instead of something more suiting and less problematic for misinterpretation? I think he really meant rebirth.

Well I'm patient, doesn't really matter to me so when ever you can spare the time.

Well this means that animals retain the potential for enlightenment. But that holds true if you live multiple lives however; it also says that in the lower realms you are so involved or distracted by your own existence that you can't put any effort into enlightenment.

Yeah all sentient beings which would also mean that a dog, a mouse, a cockroach and worms are all equal in terms of Buddha nature. But their potential for enlightenment is not and that is why the need for a human birth.

Yes they have the potential but not while they remain in the animal realm. They would have to obtain rebirth as humans to meet with enlightenment. If the realm didn't matter or have an effect on awakening than the Buddha wouldn't have even discussed it. It would be like saying, no matter what grade of school you are in, you will always graduate.

only through practice will you learn the answer for yourself, you know?

But for the sake of the discussion, because it is an interesting one, I have to ask: what is the difference between really meaning rebirth and saying that rebirth into certain realms, like hungry ghosts, is figurative language referring to a state of mind? Are these really mutually exclusive? Couldn't one be reborn into an existence of a particular psychological status that corresponds to the figurative descriptions of a particular realm?

And we also have to remember the issue of translation. I would love to learn the etymology of this word:

If they have the potential for enlightenment, wouldn't that mean that they can become enlightened? I get what you are saying about that potential may only be realized in some other form, and that's a fine point. But what necessarily bars the animals from attaining enlightenment as animals?

I do recall something about what you say regarding animals and effort, though, which may very well be the answer to my question. Do you have a source that I could look at?

Well, maybe we'll just have to wait for the source to be collected and referenced, but what you say here contradicts the article. Not that those articles are authoritative...

I don't think it's quite like that - I think it's closer to 'no matter what grade you are in, you might be able to graduate, though it is a heck of a lot easier for a senior to graduate than a freshman'.

Anyway, I'll try to track down my references, and if you track down yours, we can put them together and see what we come up with.

Let me add to the above my suspicion that the very best possible description of the Dharma is the worst possible obstacle to its realization.