Buddhism IS Community Forum

- A message to all who operate Dhamma/Dharma based websites

Dear Dharma/Dhamma Friends,

I am James, the founder of a new Internet based non-profit organization called ‘Buddhism IS’ (http://buddhismis.com). What is it? an open Buddhist discussion community forum that does not restrict itself to one school, tradition or sect of Buddhism.

Our main goal, simply is - to provide a community and a place to discuss the many forms of Buddhism, in one place!
We are moderated and maintained by volunteer members of the lay community and sangha from around the world of which are currently in the progress of transcribing an archive of audio Dhamma teachings to provide further accesibility of the Dhamma.

We would gratefully receive any assistance you would give us and ask that you place a reciprocal link to our forum on your website to help improve our visibility - we will of course link back to you. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Go to Buddhism IS: Buddhist Forum

Yours in Dhamma
James C Ball
Founder of Buddhism IS

...Read more!

Tibetan Book of the Dead

Walter Evans-Wentz and Lama Kazi Dawa Samdup

The Making of the Tibetan Book of the Dead
Part 1 by Bryan Jare Cuevas



At the beginning of his lengthy introduction to the Tibetan Book of the Dead, Evans-Wentz informed us that its translator, Lama Kazi Dawa Samdup, was cautious to avoid "misinterpretations and consquent misuse" of his translated Tibetan text and thus he had requested that his explanatory notes be included with the translation.1  Tragically, Dawa samdup died in 1922 just a few years before Evans-Wentz had begun to collate the materials for publication. Evans-Wentz thus took it upon himself to "correlate and systematize and sometimes to expand the notes thus dictated". Over the course of several years, he reworked, edited and composed a mass of notes to the surviving translation.

His comments were drawn less from Tibetan Buddhist traditions--with which he was really only vaguely familiar--and more from his own Spiritualist learning and early twentieth-century intellectual prejudices. With his truly idiosyncratic interpretations of Dawa Samdup's tex (pervading every part of its published version), Evans-Wentz both inaugurated and authorized in one fell swoop a distinctive style and method of commentarial tradition that would mark the Tibetan Book of the Dead throughout its many lives in western popular culture. Strangely enough, even academic specialists in Tibetan studies have not escpaed the intoxicating power of Evans-Wentz's romance.12

How was he able to do this? Why was his book (and the later versions that it inspired) so appealing? Why does the Book of the Dead continue to attract the attention of both popular and scholarly audiences? I believe the answers lie in how the book has been presented to the west, and the remarkable ways in which its manning and significance have been shifted to accomodate the interests and concerns of each new generation. But, as Peter Burke declared in our opening quote, the translated Book of the Dead is no tthe same as the book on which it is based, the Tibetan Ba-do thos-grol. To be sure, each new and creative presentation of this text has been, in spite of Dawa Samdup's early warning, "peculiarly liable to misinterpretation and consequent misuse". This tendency for misinterpretation has been caused for the most part by a minsunderstanding, or perhaps even willful ignorance, of the acutal context of the text. As Per Kvaerne has noted.

"[the] ritual use of the text is well-known; yet in the West it has too often been presented as a literary text, even as a kind of psychological document. This it no doubt may be; yet it must be clearly understood that outside of the ritual context the text has no function at all in the Tibetan religion."13

Western misapppropriations of the Bar-do thos-grol are not the focus of the present study, although I do feel it is necessary to highlight at the beginning some of the key facets of the translated book's peculiar legacy over the past seventy-two years, particularly in America. My aim in this effort is simply to demonstrate that in most incarnations of the Tibetan Book of the Dead, no matter how unique, each of this compositors have all shared uncritically the assumption that the book communicates an ancient and universal truth.14 With few exceptions, this presupposition has led problematically to a homogenized understanding of the Tibetan text(s) that has been typically universalist and ahistroical. It is my hope that by the end of this brief discussion the reasons become more obvious, though no less regrettable, why a sufficient history of these Tibetan texts has yet to appear in the secondary literature.

We can begin to understand the appeal of the Tibetan Book of the Dead if we first recongnize that the book has been presented consistently as "a powerful symbol of highly organized spiritual attainments, an affirmation of a pure spiritual science".15 This "spiritual science"--a term adopted with some fervor by Robert Thurman--is believed to have ancient roots in Tibet. Through proper initiation into its mysteries, it is though to provide access to a persistent and universal wisdom. Each new "author" of the Tibetan Book of the Dead has claimed for him or herself the authority to introduce us to this hidden truth concealed behing the words of the text. In most cases, each of them have resorted to what Lopez has termed "the trope of the esoteric meaning", in which at leat two layers of meaning are assumed: one which is literal, the "exoteric", and another which is symbolic, the "esoteric".16 It is the latter, of cuorse, which is considered correct by those who know the truth. We should make clear that Lopez's distinction echoes a traditional and long-standing Buddhist trope, in which scriptures are divided between those texts which are to be interpreted (neyartha, drang-don) and thos which are to be taken literally (nithartha, nges-don).17 Truth in both tropes is contingent, however upon the goals and impressions of its beholder. In my mind, there have been three basic "truths", or "orientations to truth", that have compelled specialists and non-specialists alike to comment on the "real" meaning of the Tibetan Book of the Dead, and that in turn have attracted legions of devoted readers. In the most basic terms, these are the scientific, the psychological, and the humanisitc. Generally speaking, the first approach seeks a rational and empirically verifiable foundation; the second insists on a symbolic and achetypal reality; and the thrid pursues the promise of the individual's capacity for self-transformation. Principal examples of each of these three will be considered below.

The first perspective was fully formulated in the pages of Evans-Wentz's introduction of 1927, and subsquently gained widespread assent among scholars and enthusiasts of the Tibetan Book of the Dead. Perhaps it can be best summed up in the following statement:

"In other words, the Bardo Thodol seems to be based upon verifiabl data of human physiological and psycholigical experiences; and it views the problem of the after- dead state as being purely a psycho-physical problem; and is, therefore, in the main, scientific."18

Once uttered, this idea that the Book of the Dead offered a verifiable "science of death" was forged permanently into something on the order of a fundamental proposition, in one form or another. Evans-Wentz, however, was the most vigorously extreme in his attempts to substantiate this point. Nowhere in this more clear than in his discussion of reincarnation.

Inspired by the Spiritualist ideas of Madame Blavatsky (1831-1891), founder of the Theosophical Society, Evans-Wentz interpreted the doctrine of rebirth--which he declared to be the fundamental principle of the Book of the Dead--in light of a semi Darwanist theory of genetic and biological evolution.19 Under the spell of this peculiar breed of scientific rationalism, he argued vehemently against Buddhism that humans could only be reincarnated as humans, animals as animals, and so forth. This, he procalimed, was the true, or "esoteric", interpretation of the traditional "exoteric" Buddhist doctrine.20 He asserted further that since it is only the esoteric teaching that communicates a universal truth,21 the exoteric viewpoints shold be dismissed as irrational, nothing more than popular misunderstandings.22 Central to this standpoint was the notion of the corrupt text:

"Similarly, as the popular interpretations appears to have fundamentally shaped the Jataka, so it may have also affected the compilation of the Bardo Thodol; for like all treatises which have had at leat a germ-origin in very ancient times and then grown up by the ordinary process of amalgamating congenial material, the Bardo Thodol, as a doctrine of Death and Rebirth, seems to have existed at first unrecorded, like almost all sacred books now recorded in Pali, Sanskrit or Tibetan, and was a growth of unknown centuries. Then by the time it had fully developed and been set down in writing no doubt it had lost something of its primitive purity. By its very nature and religious usage, the Bardo Thodol would have been very susceptibl to the influence of the popular or exoteric view; and in our own opinion it did fall under it, in such a manner as to attempt the impossible, namely, the harmonizing of the two interpretations. Nevertheless, its original esotericism is still discernible and predominant."23


11 Evans-Wentz 1960 p.1n.1: "This, he thought would not only help to justify his translation, but moreover, would accord with the wishes of his later guru with respect to all translations into a European tongue of works expository of the esoteric lore of the Great Perfectionist School into which that guru has inititiated him". That guru was a certain Bhuatanese lama named Slob-dpon Mtshams-pa-nor-bu and the Great Perfectionist School wo which he ascribed is, of course, the Rdzogs-chen tradition. I have not yet identified this Mtshams-pa-nor-bue, but we will have much to say about his School and its relationship to the Tibetan Book of the Dead in Chapter 1.  12 It has never been acknowledged that most scholars who have written on the topic of the Tibetan Book of the Dead--although occasionally working from the original source material--have tended to base their interpretations upon long-outdated and uncritical secondary opinion. Oddly enough, Evans-Wentz's book, and the successive generations of commentaries and new translations that it inspired, has remained the standard point of reference for most experts. It is certainly remarkable that even today there  Tibetan scholars who continue to cite as principal sources the pipular secondary work on the Tibetan Book of the Dead--this in spite of the fact that on other topics the very same scholars are usually quite rigorous in supporting their arguments with extensive reference to primary literature. As examples, I should cite snellgrove 1987, p 453; Dudjom Rinpoche 1991 (Gyurme Dorje and Matthew Kapstein), vol 2, p. 76m 1072; Samuel 1993, pp. 210, 515-516; Gyatso 1998, p 293n.16 Lopez 1998, p.233n.6. Why is this popular literature accepted so uncritically as a valid and authoritative source of evidence? Surely, the fact that there have been far too few critical studies of the Bar-do thos-grol and related topics must be at least part of the answer. It is my hope that scholars in the future will begin to take this literature more seriously and examine it with more scholarly precision. 13See Brauen and Kvaerne 1978c p.10. - 14 Consider, for example, the following declaration so emblematic of this presupposition at to appear generic. The statement is by Micheal Lord in his "Introduction to the Causeway Edition" (1973), a reprint of Evans-Wentz 1927: "There is a mechanism in the purified individual which expands the consciousness to share an ever-present ocean of truth and wisdom infintely beyond the limitations of single brain and senses. In ancient times this was the prime means of knowledge, and provided manking with an unexcelled wisdom. The divine inspirations of the great sages and religious geniuses of the past have been recorded in sacred scriptures like the present work." 15 Bishop 1993, p. 73 - 16 Lopez 1998, p. 72. - 17 For further discussion see, for example, the essays collected in Lopez 1988. This twofold Buddhist hermeneutical "trope' can be traced as far back as the Samdhinirmocana-sutra. See snellgrove 1987, pp. 94-95: Williams 1989, pp. 78-80 - 18 Evans-Wentz 1960, p. 34 - 19 In this period, any explanatory model founded upon Darwin's evolutionary premise was for the most part openly supported as self-evidently correct. Blavatsky was perhaps an exception to this general rule, for apparently she was opposed to Darwin--whome she labelled her "baboon". Washington 1995, p. 45. But even she, it appears, could not escape the appeal of the evolutionary focus rested upon the authority of the anthropologist Edward Burnett Tylor (1832-1917). See Evans-Wentz 1960, pp. 59-60. It was Tylor's intention to demonstrate the continuity of human culture by priving the theory that civilization was the result of a gradual process of growth, adaption, and evolution, from an original primitive state to one of increased complexity, such as that witnessed in the scoeities of modern Europe. This theory of the progress of human development had a profound effect on the work of the infamous James Frazer (1854-1941) - 20 Evans-Wentz 1960, pp. 42-43. - 21 See Evans-Wentz 1960, p. 43 :As to the processes affecting the life-flux which the human eye cannot see, the esoteric teaching coincides with that of the ancient Greek and Egyptian mystics: 'As below, so above: which implies that there is one harmonious karmic law governing with unwavering and impartial justice the visible as well as the invisible operations of nature." - 22 Evants Wentz 1960, p. 59 - 23 Evans-Wentz 1960, pp. 54-55

The Hidden Treasures of Sgam-po-gdar Mountain:
A History of the Zhi-kbro revelations of Karma-gling-pa and the Making of the Tibetan Book of the Dead - by Bryan Jare Cuevas

...Read more!

Spread of Buddhism Pt.3

Spread Of Buddhism

Spread Of Buddhism - THE FIRST TURNING OF THE WHEEL OF THE DOCTRINE: SARVASTIVADA AND MAHASAMGHIKA CONTROVERSY- Bart Dessein

After an initial period in which the Buddhist faith did not spread beyond the boundaries of the region where the Buddha spent his life, the territorial expansion of the Mauryan Empire under the famous king Asoka (r. ca. 270–ca. 230 BC) enabled Buddhism to quickly spread throughout India. This geographical expansion of the community gradually invoked different interpretations of the word of the Buddha, and led to the formation of different sects and schools.1

The dispute between the Sarvastivadins and the Mahasamghikas on the nature of the wheel of the doctrine and on the event that should be considered as the (first) turning of this wheel of the doctrine is an interesting example of scholarly debate between different Hinayana groups on the Indian subcontinent. This discussion, recorded in the Abhidharma literature, illustrates how the spread of Buddhism led to different interpretations of even such fundamental issues as: “What is the nature of what the Buddha said?” and “Where and to whom did He deliver his first sermon?”

The Mahasamghikas were involved in the first division of the Buddhist community early in the second century after the demise of the Buddha,2 that is, the schism between the Mahasamghikas and the Sthaviravadins. This schism was most likely invoked by the expansion of the root Vinaya text by the future Sthaviravadins, an expansion that was not accepted by the later Mahasamghikas.3 In the second century after the Buddha’s parinirvana, the Mahasamghikas split into the Ekavyavaharikas, the Lokottaravadins, the Bahusrut iyas, the Kukkutikas, and the Prajñaptivadins. Epigraphical evidence reveals that the Ekavyavaharikas and the Lokottaravadins moved into present-day Afghanistan, and that at least some of the Bahusrutiyas resided in present-day Pakistan.4 The Prajñaptivadins moved to the Himalaya mountains. The place of residence of the Kukkutikas is unclear. After Mathura had been the Mahasasamghika stronghold in the second half of the first century BC,5 the school also spread to the south of the Indian subcontinent, more precisely to the Krsna valley region. Epigraphic evidence of the presence of the Mahasamghikas and their different subschools in the Krsna valley region, dates back to the second and third centuries AD.6 This means that, at the time of the compilation of the Vaibh ika *Abhidharmamahavibhasasastra, our major Abhidharma source of information on the Sarvastivada and Mahasamghika controversy under scrutiny here, the Mahasamghikas had become an important Buddhist group also in the south.

1 We here follow the distinction between “schools” and “sects” as defined by Heinz Bechert 1961.
2 Nattier & Prebish 1976–1977, p. 239, suggest the date 116 Anno Buddhae.
3 On the primacy of monastic matters over doctrinal matters in the formation of the earliest Buddhist schools, see Frauwallner 1956 and Bechert 1961. On the relation of the so-called “five points of Mahadeva” to the first schism in the community, see..?
Dessein, “Of Tempted Arhats and Supermundane Buddhas: Abhidharma in the Krsn Region”, in: Anthony Barber & Sri Padma Holt (eds.). Buddhism in the Krsna River Valley of Andhra. State University of New York Press (forthcoming).
4 See Kieffer-Pülz 2000, pp. 293–294.
5 Lamotte 1958, p. 580. See also Shizutani 1965.
6 See Epigraphia Indica XX, pp. 15–17, 17, 19–20, 21–22, 24; Epigraphia Indica XXI,
pp. 61–62; Epigraphia Indica XXIV, pp. 256–260; Epigraphia Indica XXVII, pp. 1–4;
Lüders 1973, nos. 1223, 1230, 1244, 1248, 1250, 1263, 1272, 1270; Sivaramamurti
1942, p. 278. See further also Lamotte 1958, p. 580.



From the book 'The Spread of Buddhism' volume 16. Edited by Ann Heirman and Stephan Peter Bumbacher

Similar Articles 

Spread Of Buddhism Pt.1
Spread Of Buddhism Pt.2

Spread Of Buddhism Pt.3

...Read more!

Spread Of Buddhism - Pt.2

Spread Of Buddhism -Edited by Ann Heirman and Stephan Peter Bumbacher

The rise of Buddhism occurred just after the end of the later Vedic period of Indian history (ca. 1000 BC–550 BC). According to tradition, its founder, the Buddha Siddha rtha Gautama, was born in the Lumbin park near Kapilavastu, in the sixth/ fifth century BC. Whereas it seems to be widely accepted that he lived for eighty years, the date of his parinirv ana, i.e., passing away, is still under debate. After his enlightenment and his subsequent teaching of the way formalised in the “Four noble Truths”, he was busy wandering for forty- five years through the region of the Middle Ganges from Kapilavastu in the north to Bodhgaya , Bihar, in the south, and from Mathur (Muttr , Uttar Pradesh) in the west to Camp a (Bhagalpur, Bihar) in the east preaching his dharma or “Law”.

Among his disciples were the Group of Five (pañcavargika) with whom he had lived previously during the time of his austere penances and other people ordained by him. This sangha was immediately sent out on mission to teach the Buddhist Law. In the beginning, monks and nuns lived peripatetically, but very soon came to live in fixed residences which were donated and supported by female (upasika) and male (upasaka) lay followers. Matters concerning the preservation and transmission of the word of the Buddha were discussed in a series of councils. During these councils (Skt. samgiti or samgayana “singing” or “reciting in unison”) the Buddha’s dharma was recited, rehearsed, memorised and finally fixed in the Buddhist Canon. Shortly after the Buddha’s parinirvana the sangha split into different schools (nikaya) holding separate pr atimok sa ceremonies (public confessions of individual transgressions). Many different Hinayana schools are thus recorded.

For the spread of Buddhism it is important to note that India’s material culture in the Buddhist scriptures is described as expanding and trade relations are far wider reaching during the time of the Buddha than in the previous Vedic period. In the great cities, as for instance in Varanasi (Benares), we find very infuential mercantile communities organised in guilds. The texts also re flect a widespread sa ngha supported by kings and merchants. Evidently, the institution and maintenance of the sa ngha to a high degree depended on the existence of donations offered by the laity and the security and protection provided by the rulers. According to extant votive inscriptions, merchants and craftsmen were among the main supporters of cave monasteries and donors of funds for the construction of the great st upas in the centuries after the Buddha’s parinirvana.

Buddhist archaeological remains of the initial period of the Maurya dynasty (ca. 320–ca. 185 BC) are found in the Buddhist “Middle country” (madhyadesa) at all places which the Buddha is said to have visited or where he had lived, in Avanti in Madhya Pradesh and in Maharastra.

Whereas the first two kings of the Maurya dynasty (Candragupta and Bindus ara) seem to have supported the traditional Brahmans and the Jainas, the third king, Asoka (r. 268–233 BC), is known as the most important person responsible for the spread of Buddhism. He is also on record as the first ruler over almost the whole Indian subcontinent. He left a series of edicts which he had engraved on rocks and pillars and in which he recorded his conquests and achievements as well as his opinions and wishes. He seems to have been specially inclined to Buddhism as can be seen in his edict no. VIII. This Bhabhra edict is addressed to the Buddhist community, and A oka recommends to monks and lay people the study of seven “sermons on the Law” (dhammapaliya ya). Also the inscription of Rummindei was written on the occasion of Asoka’s pilgrimage to the birthplace of the Buddha in the twentieth year of his reign. Also during Asoka’s reign, a Buddhist council was held at P ataliputra (now Patna, Bihar). On that occasion decisions were made concerning Buddhist missionary activities which became crucial for the spread of Buddhism and its development into a world religion. Buddhism did not only spread throughout the whole of Asoka’s empire, but according to the Sinhalese chronicles, the Thera Moggaliputta sent missionaries to nine adjacent countries in order to propagate the Buddhist doctrine. Tradition further emphasises that also a son of Asoka, Mahinda, propagated Buddhism. He is said to have brought it to Sri Lanka.

Buddhism did not remain in India though. Xuanzang who travelled through India between 630 and 644 still reported the existence of about 2,000 Hinayana and 2,500 Mahayana monasteries, but in some regions the formerly rich monasteries already laid in ruins, abandoned for economical reasons, or destroyed by rapacious invaders or even by local rulers. The Sthavirava da schools retreated to the south, especially to Sri Lanka. The early schools of Buddhism of mainland India, the main centres of which had remained in Magadha and Northwest India, were finally destroyed when the Muslims took power around 1200 AD, thus putting an end to the great monastic universities in Bihar (Na landa and Vikramasi la) and Bengal. Among the laity, the Mantraya na or “Vehicle of Spells” which continued in Magadha, Bengal and Orissa appears to have been assimilated into similar Hindu traditions. Only in a restricted and secluded region of Nepal the Indian Mah aya na survived as a synthesis of the Madhyamaka Mantray ana of the twelfth century and of Tibetan Buddhism.

From the book 'The Spread of Buddhism' volume 16. Edited by Ann Heirman and Stephan Peter Bumbacher

Similar Articles 

Spread Of Buddhism Pt.1
Spread Of Buddhism Pt.2

Spread Of Buddhism Pt.3

...Read more!

Spread Of Buddhism - Pt.1

Spread Of Buddhism -Edited by Ann Heirman and Stephan Peter Bumbacher

The aim of the present work is to examine the spread of Buddhism in order to gain a deeper understanding of the way in which Buddhism found its way into countries and regions different from its area of origin. Before we invite the kind reader to follow us on our journey, however, we first of all have to ask: What is Buddhism? An immediate answer offers itself: Buddhism is an abstraction, as is any religion. Why? No single religion represents a coherent and definite system of concepts and notions, for several reasons. First of all, religions evolve and develop. The transcendent Buddha of the later Mahayana was significantly different from Gotama Siddhattha of the early Hinayana as preserved in the Pali canon. Just as the Jesus of the early wandering charismatic preachers of the first decades after his execution was different to the Jesus discussed at the council of Nicea in the early fourth century. Second, no single member of a religion can be aware of all possible interpretations. This holds true for the specialists like priests, monks, or university professors as well as, and even more so, for the lay believers. What the ordinary Chinese of, say, the Chang’an area of the late second century AD could know about Buddhism—based on the few texts that were translated by then into Chinese—differed substantially from what an elite monk at the Tang court would have known thanks to the comprehensive libraries available to him. Furthermore, lay believers may have had a different understanding of the various elements of their religion than the religious specialists as their view may still be informed by the earlier “folk-religious” tradition of their primary socialisation. We are, therefore, well advised to consider Buddhism in particular and religions in general as complexes consisting of a more or less “essential core” of concepts shared by most adherents (although they may understand them differently!) and layers of “secondary shells” of individually formed notions which may differ considerably from one believer to the next.

We may then ask: after various Buddhist traditions had left their areas of origin and spread into new territories, how did they enter these new environments? Did they adapt themselves or were they adapted? Which difficulties did they encounter? Was the spread a single event or did it consist of several waves? The period to be examined in each region under discussion is primarily the period from the first appearance of Buddhism until the time when it disappeared, or, instead, when it had acquired a solid basis. As we did not want to produce a work in several volumes we had to limit ourselves geographically. Thus we follow the traces of Buddhism from its area of origin to the Far East, thereby crossing Central Asia, China, Tibet, Mongolia, Korea and Japan. As we will see, this is not a single route, or a straightforward voyage, but a long journey with many side routes, with back and forward movements, and numerous encounters.

This journey is conditioned by many factors. Geographical, social, political, economic, philosophical, religious, and even linguistic environments all played their role. The desert separating the Central Asian mountains from the heart of China hampered the transmission of Buddhist monasticism for several centuries, while the belief in the sacred mountains of Tibet and in the divinity of the king as a mountain-hero facilitated the king’s transformation into a bodhisattva and a buddha. A lack of state sponsorship in the most western regions of Buddhist expansion made it impossible for the Buddhist communities to grow. Severe economic crises, the collapse of international trade, and the success of Islam made them disappear. State sponsorship in China, Tibet, Mongolia and Korea, however, brought the Buddhist community and state affairs into a close relationship and influenced the faith of the sangha . Esoteric Buddhism promoted itself as a prime protector of the state, and as an excellent curator of physical health. Still, in India, it could not stop the gradual shift of the traditional supporters of Buddhism to Hinduism, a shift that dried out the financial resources of the monasteries, and undermined their existence. In other regions, financial support continued to flow in, and monasteries developed into powerful economic centres. As Buddhism went its way, linguistic borders were frequently crossed and translation activities became of prime importance. Translation lead to a natural as well as an artificial selection of texts, or created an overwhelming and sometimes confusing richness of similar, but yet different or even contradictory words of the Buddha instead. Choices were made, and these choices further influenced the direction the Buddhist community would take.

From the book 'The Spread of Buddhism' volume 16. Edited by Ann Heirman and Stephan Peter Bumbacher

Similar Articles 

Spread Of Buddhism Pt.1
Spread Of Buddhism Pt.2

Spread Of Buddhism Pt.3

...Read more!

Buddhism Books

...Read more!

Buddha's Birthday 2011

Buddhas Birthday 2011

at Tzu Chi Temple (Jing Si) Kaohsiung, Taiwan

Namo Amituofo!

People line up and pay their respects to the Buddha. They then receive the Buddha's blessing first by prostrating then by bathing in his water and prostrating again (placing their hands in the bowl of water in front of the Buddha statue).

The Buddha Birthday ceremony is also a public holiday and is practised mainly by the Chinese Mahayana Tradition of Buddhism.

...Read more!