PDA

View Full Version : When it comes to Buddhism..



Spirit Seeker
02 December 2012, 08:41 PM
What is wrong with Buddhism? I have read a few opinions on here that one cannot mix being Buddhist with being Hindu or any other religion. Why is this so if Buddhism is non-theistic, and is just a practical approach on non-attachment and ending suffering?

What do Hindu's here believe the benefits and non-benefits of practicing Buddhism to be?

wundermonk
03 December 2012, 10:40 AM
There really is no problem with Buddhism. It is Dharmic, just like Jainism and Sikhism. The common elements running across all Dharmic religions are Karma/reincarnation. Now, Buddhism is classified as a Nastika religion - i.e. Buddhists did not accept the validity of the Vedas (along with Jainas and Charvakas).

Metaphysically, Buddhism is at odds with all 6 orthodox schools of Astika (those schools that accept the validity of the Vedas) Darshanas. These differences are quite sharp and irreconcilable. But that said, in some respects, the differences between the Astika Darshanas themselves are sharp at times and also irreconcilable.

In my view, it is a good idea not to mix ANY two religions. It may work for someone who is not conversant with either religion fully.

Many of the posters here probably treat Buddhism with much more respect than other religions because Buddhists dont seem to be on a mission to convert the infidel idol-worshipping heathen polytheistic Hindu Kufr into Buddhism by destroying our temples and invading our lands. It also helps that there is no Buddhist God that is going to burn us in eternal hellfire. :dunno:

Twilightdance
03 December 2012, 10:57 AM
What is wrong with Buddhism? I have read a few opinions on here that one cannot mix being Buddhist with being Hindu or any other religion. Why is this so if Buddhism is non-theistic, and is just a practical approach on non-attachment and ending suffering?

What do Hindu's here believe the benefits and non-benefits of practicing Buddhism to be?

Buddhist approach is quite different from modern hindu approach which is strongly grounded in theism. So it is not easy or even possible to be buddhist and hindu at the same time without seriously compromising elements from both religions in order to achieve a meaningful syncretism. Some of the classical hindu thoughts may be quite close to buddhism barring the belief in vedas as proof e.g Samkhya.

As for the use, personally I find Buddhism to be most useful and beneficial views that exists on this planet.

Nondual
03 December 2012, 11:08 AM
Though I am an advaitin, I am inclined to agree with twilight. Buddhism seems more practical than other religions, including Hinduism sadly, since the latter has been hijacked by ritualistic traditions. Not many hindus are interested in upanishadic thought and are simply content to pray, do rituals etc. Buddhism, in sharp contrast, insists on practice.

Twilightdance
04 December 2012, 12:44 AM
Though I am an advaitin, I am inclined to agree with twilight. Buddhism seems more practical than other religions, including Hinduism sadly, since the latter has been hijacked by ritualistic traditions. Not many hindus are interested in upanishadic thought and are simply content to pray, do rituals etc. Buddhism, in sharp contrast, insists on practice.

Buddhism also comes in many flavors from strict meditative Theravada schools to highly ritualistic Vajrayana. I am actually quite fond for rituals, though it may not appeal to all people. The contrast with Buddhism is that Buddhism focus on means while Hinduism is hung on "ultimate" views. So even in Advaita all we find is lot of subjective characterization of the ultimate reality according to a particular view. If want to clutch on to views, then they should be atleast the ones which are actually useful in cutting through the delusions of ordinary consciousness - if there is such a thing. The Buddhist views on non-self, emptiness etc when properly understood serves as strong medicine to cure mental affliction of self grasping. Any Hindu view is likely to increase your grasping as they are only giving subjective opinions and mental fodder for imagination of what ultimate reality might be. Only way Hinduism can be effective is if the theism actually works and there is some form of grace lifting one up to the direct experience. So Yoga might be the useful part of Hinduism, not vedanta.

I do not imply however that Buddhists necessarily apply Buddhism skillfully, and there is plenty of fundamentalism in Buddhism and clinging on to views.

These are only my opinions so not up for debate.

wundermonk
04 December 2012, 01:52 AM
These are only my opinions so not up for debate.

Good! Otherwise...

;)

Nondual
04 December 2012, 02:28 AM
Contemplation in advaita is different ... It is for keeping the mind pure and on the ultimate reality at all times. That's the purpose.

Twilightdance
04 December 2012, 02:28 AM
Good! Otherwise...

;)

... there will be Justice! {nyaya}

shian
04 December 2012, 06:04 AM
About Veda, in Vajrayana Buddhism, one name of Bodhisattva Tara is Veda-mata ( Mother of Veda )

Buddhist also chant AUM / OM , and even the name of Mahesvara, Sarasvati, Narayana and other Hindu deities name, is considered as holy names in Buddhism, then please find in Hindu scripture that said what is benefit of chanting AUM / OM and these another deities names ? you will find the realtion with THE WHOLE VEDA !

Then which religion in now day is not get influence from another custom, culture, or religion ?

Off course for serious practice, one need ONE ROOT GURU and doing practice by the Guru.

Then Vajrayana Buddhism have one kind of classification of Buddha Dharma , the way from Buddha to guide sentient beings, there is including other religion who is considered :

Human vehicle
Gods / Svarga vehicle
Sravaka vehicle
Pratyeka vehicle
Bodhisattva vehicle
Buddha vehicle

Well, what is actually Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism ?
What is Mahayana, Theravada and Vajrayana
what is Shaiva, Vaishanva, Shakta ?
they are right or wrong according your own mind
they are debating anythings from ancient until now

Sahasranama
04 December 2012, 03:29 PM
What is wrong with Buddhism? I have read a few opinions on here that one cannot mix being Buddhist with being Hindu or any other religion. Why is this so if Buddhism is non-theistic, and is just a practical approach on non-attachment and ending suffering?

What do Hindu's here believe the benefits and non-benefits of practicing Buddhism to be?Most of what is there in Buddhism comes from Hinduism. The Buddha had two Hindu teachers Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta who taught him essentially the same teachings from the Upanishads, The Bhagavad Gita and the Moksha Dharma parva and yoga. Buddhism has retained a lot of these Hindu teachings, but it has also moved away from it. The further Buddhism has developed the more it moved away from Hinduism. The anatmavada of the early teachings of the Buddha was a lot less pronounced and less clearly opposed to the Hindu view than it became in the later sectarian Buddhist traditions and philosophical schools. Buddhism has undergone a lot of changes in the hands of the Theravada and Mahayana sects.

Buddhism has become popular mostly outside India. Alan Watts says that Buddhism is Hinduism stripped for export. There is some truth to this. Everything practised in Buddhism, is also practised in Hinduism, but not everything practised in Hinduism is practised in Buddhism. The main difference is philosophical, but it this may be an attempt of the Buddhists schools to differentiate themselves from Hinduism and maintain a separate identity. A lot of the later philosophical concepts of Buddhism are clearly contrived for this purpose.


Though I am an advaitin, I am inclined to agree with twilight. Buddhism seems more practical than other religions, including Hinduism sadly, since the latter has been hijacked by ritualistic traditions. Not many hindus are interested in upanishadic thought and are simply content to pray, do rituals etc. Buddhism, in sharp contrast, insists on practice.Rituals are also present in Buddhism, even in Theravada traditions. Rituals is the first thing most people notice, because it is very strange for western culture to ritualise everything.

The rituals from the Vedas are extremely powerful and they should not fall in the wrong hands, that's why Vishnu incarnated as the Buddha to prevent asuras from using Vedic rituals and delude them into practising basic moral principles like satya and ahimsa.

shian
04 December 2012, 06:32 PM
About ritual.

Acctually ritual and practice is not separated. Maybe outer you see a ritual, maybe ritual in Hindu or ritual in Buddhist, but if the people do it totaly with devotion, that is practice to develop the self. ( In simple explanation ). So people wo do the ritual in "RIGHT" way tottaly with inner heart, in his / her daily life they will always improve the quality of life and quality of mind. But if people do many ritual without any improve in mind and life, they not do it with heart. ( In simple explanation )

About Buddhism against Veda.
My question is, is Hindu person able to practice the whole Veda in his life ?
Is people who devotee of Ganesh, Shiva, Sarasvati, Narayana , Hari etc and chant the holy name ( include one name of Vishnu or shiva or etc Sahasranama ) everyday is called against Veda ? What they practice Namasmarana is not contain The whole Veda ? Buddhist also do this practice Veda in simple way for this kaliyuga. So, Who said Buddhist against Veda is slander against their own scripture.

Dont be pity and narrow minded, how wide God's wisdom and skilfull means to save and guide every different sentient beings

MahaHrada
04 December 2012, 06:33 PM
Most of what is there in Buddhism comes from Hinduism.

The Buddha lived appx. 500 bce at that time what is called "Hinduism" , which is a sectarian religion based on the Puranas and Agamas that appeared much later in the history of Indian religion, the earliest Puranas and Agamas are dated from around 600 ce most of them stem from a much later the medieval period, did not exist To assume that Buddha had Hindu teachers at a time when there was not a trace of Hinduism is ridicolous.

Besides the tribal cultures at that time only the vedic religion or brahmanism and the shramanic tradition existed. Buddha never had brahmanic teachers, he was from a kshatriya family and a shramana.

Buddha is not the founder of a new religion, he is part of the pre vedic shramanic tradition,similar to the Jain religion and of course he therefore had shramanic Gurus.
Medieval puranic and agamic Hinduism is based on and influenced by both traditions and owes as much to the shramanic ascetic and yogic tradition than to the brahmanic vedic tradition, since the alliance payed to the shruti that is Vedas and Upanishads, in popular Hinduism is often not much more than lip service while most of the content of Puranas, Tantras and Agamas (which form the foundation of popular Hinduism) include the practice of Tapas, Yoga and Meditation, worship with upacharas and the philosophy of samsara rebirth and moksha which are all elements that are borrowed from pre vedic shramanic sources and unknown in the vedic religion.

The brahmanas were the orthodoxy, who stayed with the old Brahmanic rituals. They followed the Upanishads as their philosophical basis, but within the context of first leading a life of duty within society and only becoming celibate renunciates after retiring. They were exclusively from the brahmin caste and pursued their path to liberation as solitary ascetics living in the forests.
The shramanas were wandering mendicant spiritual seekers. They came from castes other than the brahmins and sought liberation by leaving society from the start. They lived together in the forests, with no caste differences, as a spiritual community (Skt. sangha), rather than as solitary ascetics. They organized their autonomous communities on the model of the republics, with decisions made by assemblies. Moreover, all of them rejected a supreme god, such as Brahma, or any other form of a creator. Although the shramana communities had no caste differences within them, the laypeople who followed their teachings to a lesser extent and supported them still lived with the structure of the caste system.
The Five Main Shramana Schools
When Shakyamuni Buddha renounced his princely life, he joined the shramanas. Accordingly, after his enlightenment, he organized the spiritual seekers who followed him into autonomous communities along the same lines as other shramana groups. Thus, Buddhism became the fifth of the five shramana schools of the time.

Indian Society and Thought
before and at the Time of Buddha
Alexander Berzin

These 5 schools are:
The Ajivika School
The Lokayata or Charvaka School
The Jain or Nirgrantha School
The Ajnana School of Agnostics
Buddhism

Buddhism developed as a shramana school that accepted rebirth under the force of karma, while rejecting the existence of the type of soul that other schools asserted. In addition, Buddha accepted as parts of the path to liberation the use of logic and reasoning, as well as ethical behavior, but not to the degree of Jain asceticism. In this way, Buddhism avoided the extremes of the previous four shramana schools.

Indian Society and Thought
before and at the Time of Buddha
Alexander Berzin

Sahasranama
04 December 2012, 07:51 PM
The Buddha lived appx. 500 bce at that time what is called "Hinduism" , which is a sectarian religion based on the Puranas and Agamas that appeared much later in the history of Indian religion, the earliest Puranas and Agamas are dated from around 600 ce most of them stem from a much later the medieval period, did not exist To assume that Buddha had Hindu teachers at a time when there was not a trace of Hinduism is ridicolous.

Besides the tribal cultures at that time only the vedic religion or brahmanism and the shramanic tradition existed. Buddha never had brahmanic teachers, he was from a kshatriya family and a shramana.



You are merely repeating nonsense from western indologists, but the worst part is that by ridiculing everyone who disagrees with your viewpoint, you pretend that this speculation about the origins of Indian religions is an exact science . Not even all indologists are in agreement with each other. There are some who think the Buddha was taught by "Brahmanic" teachers:

Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta were religious teachers in northern India in the fifth century BC. They taught the meditative practices of early Brahminism, the goal of which was thought to be a nondual state of meditation identical to the unmanifest state of brahman. In early Brahminical yoga, liberation was thought to be anticipated in a meditative trance that has passed beyond the possibility of cognition, a state in which the subject/ object division has been dissolved. This means, of course, that true liberation is only realized after death, when there is no longer any possibility of cognizing an object. The adept, through his meditative trance, was thought to anticipate in life what he will realize at death—the nondual source of creation. and Uddaka Ramaputta termed this nondual goal ‘nothingness’ (Akiņcaņņa) and ‘neither perception nor nonperception’ (nevasaņņanasaņņa) respectively, terminology that ought to be understood according to the early speculative tradition rooted in the NAsadIyasUkta ( X 129). The early verse and show that the practice of yoga flourished in this speculative tradition in the last few centuries BC. and Uddaka RAmaputta were figures in their tradition at an earlier date, their teachings representing an earlier phase of yogic practice and thought. The Bodhisatta was taught by them, but rejected their goals, which he did not think were liberating. He set out to strive for liberation alone and claimed to have awakened to a different truth. ~ Alexander Wynn

Equinox
04 December 2012, 08:17 PM
LOL

Here he is again with his nonsense.


Buddha never had brahmanic teachers, he was from a kshatriya family and a shramana.

To state that Shramanas had no caste differences and lived in forests, and then realising that Siddhartha Gautama aka Buddha was a Kshatriya and lived in a palace is ABSOLUTELY contradicting and ironic.

philosoraptor
04 December 2012, 09:56 PM
I predict that Maha's next post on this thread will involve bashing of his critics for undue reliance on biased, sectarian Vedanta commentators and inadequate attention to more objective sources, like the Non-Hindu academics who propose new theories for academic grant money.

Of course, he may have a point. I mean, I don't think Sahasranama consulted Google pramana before disagreeing....

devotee
04 December 2012, 10:49 PM
The contrast with Buddhism is that Buddhism focus on means while Hinduism is hung on "ultimate" views. So even in Advaita all we find is lot of subjective characterization of the ultimate reality according to a particular view. If want to clutch on to views, then they should be atleast the ones which are actually useful in cutting through the delusions of ordinary consciousness - if there is such a thing. The Buddhist views on non-self, emptiness etc when properly understood serves as strong medicine to cure mental affliction of self grasping. Any Hindu view is likely to increase your grasping as they are only giving subjective opinions and mental fodder for imagination of what ultimate reality might be. Only way Hinduism can be effective is if the theism actually works and there is some form of grace lifting one up to the direct experience. So Yoga might be the useful part of Hinduism, not vedanta.

Sorry, SM, but you don't really know what VedAnta has to offer and I doubt you have a deep idea of Buddhism too. I am making this inference ONLY from your this post. VedAnta has everything to offer that Buddhism has but Buddhism lacks in something very badly what VedAnta offers. Buddhism is silent on many things as Buddha refused to answer many questions. Buddhism's understanding on non-self and emptiness is far from convincing that we have seen on this board itself.

OM

wundermonk
04 December 2012, 11:29 PM
Dear devotee:

Did you not notice sm78 lay out this caveat:?


These are only my opinions so not up for debate.

Opinions are a dime a dozen...so, no need to get overly perturbed, I guess. ;)

After all, us current day Indians know more about the Darshanas and the differences between than the very acharyas who laid them out!

wundermonk
04 December 2012, 11:39 PM
Where is the OP, Mr./Ms. Spirit Seeker?

Come in OP, OP come in. Troll status suspected. To clear suspicion, check in every once in a while. This is YOUR thread.

Over and Out!

Spirit Seeker
05 December 2012, 12:45 AM
Where is the OP, Mr./Ms. Spirit Seeker?

Come in OP, OP come in. Troll status suspected. To clear suspicion, check in every once in a while. This is YOUR thread.

Over and Out!

Oh I'm still checking up on my thread, I normally dont have much to add once I get a satisfying answer to my question lol.. I'm still learning a lot. How does this make me a troll?! ~__~

:cool1:

Twilightdance
05 December 2012, 01:06 AM
Sorry, SM, but you don't really know what VedAnta has to offer and I doubt you have a deep idea of Buddhism too. I am making this inference ONLY from your this post. VedAnta has everything to offer that Buddhism has but Buddhism lacks in something very badly what VedAnta offers. Buddhism is silent on many things as Buddha refused to answer many questions. Buddhism's understanding on non-self and emptiness is far from convincing that we have seen on this board itself.
OM

If one understood Buddhism, one would find the silence of Buddha on topics which Vedanta goes ga-ga over to be one of the subtle and profound parts of Buddhist teachings.

I am only a student of Buddhism, but not just from books, btw. But I hope these things are besides the point.

wundermonk
05 December 2012, 01:38 AM
If one understood Buddhism, one would find the silence of Buddha on topics which Vedanta goes ga-ga over to be one of the subtle and profound parts of Buddhist teachings.

How is Buddha asking his followers not to speculate on issues subtle and profound? Astika Darshanas, right or wrong, took the bull by its horns and came up with transcendental and metaphysical arguments to support their POV. Too bad Buddha issued diktats to his followers not to speculate on certain issues. Seems cowardly and unworthy of a Kshatriya prince!

If you are unwilling to speculate on metaphysical issues, then there is no basis to form a relationship between such non-belief and any spiritual experience you can have. A non-belief is not even a valid cognitive experience. A stone has non-beliefs, not humans. Whatever experience one can have spiritually may as well be grounded in Darshanas that do have a firm metaphysical position.

MahaHrada
05 December 2012, 03:21 AM
@Sahas
There is no need to refer to academic/indological sources, it is according to buddhist tradition that Buddhas teachers (and his family) were shramanas not brahmanas. Indological speculations on the influence of early brahmanism on budhhism and vice versa are not ridicolous, but certainly worth of consideration. What is ridicolous is to assume a historical continuancy or even equivalence of modern popular puranic and agamic Hinduism with the early vedic religion or the early brahmanism of buddhas time.
Wynne is making his case of the brahmanical origin of Buddhas teachers, (contrary to the statements in the suttas and buddhist tradition, that they were shramanas) based on cross reference to upanishadic statements and the Mokshadharma chapter of the Mahabharata. which is not only contradicting the buddhist tradition but it smacks of revisionism since the Upanishads in their final form (and the Mokshadharma chapter of the Mahabharata) long postdate the buddha and it is far more likely that upanishadic thought in this case (of meditative methods) was influenced by shramanic and buddhist concepts rather then the other way around.
My quotes are from A. Berzin Website he is an academic but first of all a buddhist practicioner and his website is a recommendable and reliable resource on Buddhism especially regarding topics concerning Mahayana, tantric and tibetan buddhism and Vajrayana.
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/index.html)

MahaHrada
05 December 2012, 03:40 AM
LOL


To state that Shramanas had no caste differences and lived in forests, and then realising that Siddhartha Gautama aka Buddha was a Kshatriya and lived in a palace is ABSOLUTELY contradicting and ironic.

Not really, since we are talking about ascetic communities observation of caste distinctions, not about householders. It was the shramana wandering ascetics that lived in communities without observing caste distinctions. These communities were open to all castes at all stages of live, contrary to the brahmanic male solitary ascetics that spent the remaining years of their life, after their household duties, in solitude. Since Buddhas parents were not brahmins but kshatriyas and he left his family when he was young, it further reduces the likelyhood that he could have been a disciple of brahmin ascetics.

Twilightdance
05 December 2012, 04:44 AM
Perhaps I am not making full sense of what you are asking, but will still attempt a semblance of a reply.


Astika Darshanas, right or wrong, took the bull by its horns and came up with transcendental and metaphysical arguments to support their POV.

This all depends on whether really the questions of existence and eternity of souls & universe represent the proverbial bull - and speculating on them amounts to catching it by its horn. The subtlety and profundity also lies in the same fact.


If you are unwilling to speculate on metaphysical issues, then there is no basis to form a relationship between such non-belief and any spiritual experience you can have.
Objective of buddha dharma is cessation of suffering not spiritual experiences.


A non-belief is not even a valid cognitive experience. A stone has non-beliefs, not humans. Whatever experience one can have spiritually may as well be grounded in Darshanas that do have a firm metaphysical position.What do you mean? Beliefs are only cognitive experiences? What if someone slaps you hard - is the pain you would feel cognizable only if you believe so? Also why this question of non-belief coming up? I did not say about any non belief, nor did Buddha.

I don't know what stones are capable of or what they believe in. I will leave science to figure out more about stones and won't trust what either Buddha dharma or Shruti has to say about beliefs of stones.



the universe is eternal,
the universe is not eternal,
the universe is finite,
the universe is infinite,
after death, a Buddha continues to exist,
after death, a Buddha does not continue to exist,
after death, a Buddha both continues to exist and not to exist,
after death, a Buddha neither continues to exist or not to exist,
the body and the “self” are the same entity,
the body and the “self” are totally separate and different entities.

devotee
05 December 2012, 04:55 AM
Namaste SM,



Objective of buddha dharma is cessation of suffering not spiritual experiences.

If you can understand this it should have been clear to you that Buddhism lacks in doctrines on spiritual experiences and still you claim that Vedanta is of no use as compared to Buddhism ! Buddha's aim is limited to cessation of sufferings. Vedanta seeks end of sufferings but also seeks answers to mysteries of the Ultimate Reality. Buddha has no explanation for what the Reality is. If Emptiness is all that exists and there is no-self why seek liberation at all ? Who is bound who is seeking for liberation ??

OM

devotee
05 December 2012, 05:06 AM
Namaste,

There have been suggestions in this thread that Buddhism was a Sramanic tradition. However, we must note that it was not outside Hindu Dharma. Actually all Hindu-Monks traditions were called Sramanik traditions. That is why even today the caste system and other rules of scriptures don't apply to the Hindu renunciates. Many Sramaniks were absorbed in the Hindu society and they also influenced our Dharma in the form of Yoga, Yogic sects and VedAnta. Sramaniks denied the Karma-kaanda part of the Brahmanical philosophy and even rejected the ritualistic parts of the Vedas. They tried to find the Truth on their own by TapasyA i.e. meditating within, living a very simple life dependent on alms.

OM

MahaHrada
05 December 2012, 05:50 AM
Hindu-Monks traditions were called Sramanik traditions

yes... and christian monks are called Kimonos.

Sahasranama
05 December 2012, 06:26 AM
Namaste,
Actually all Hindu-Monks traditions were called Sramanik traditions.
Even though, you don't want me to respond to your posts, I have to say that this is true. Shramana is not a word used exclusively by "non-Hindu" ascetics. Valmiki also calls Hindu ascetics shramanas.

devotee
05 December 2012, 06:49 AM
Even though, you don't want me to respond to your posts, I have to say that this is true. Shramana is not a word used exclusively by "non-Hindu" ascetics. Valmiki also calls Hindu ascetics shramanas.

I have no issues with you if we can talk friendly. :)

OM

MahaHrada
05 December 2012, 07:17 AM
Shramana is not a word used exclusively by "non-Hindu" ascetics. Valmiki also calls Hindu ascetics shramanas.

Which is nothing but a symptom of the early assimillation of non vedic (shramanic) Ideas into Brahmanism /the vedic religion, resulting eventually in the emergence of the medieaveal indian religion we now call "Hinduism" which consist of several puranic and agamic and tantric sectarian religions (shaiva, Vaishnava, shakta, smarta etc) Hinduism is a religion that is an eclectic mix of vedic and non vedic concepts, indigenous indian traditions and the vedic tradition. Non vedic influences are shramanic, as well as tribal concepts with some medieveal and modern sects that are closer to the vedic theistic concepts and others more aligned to non theistic, pre vedic shramanic and tribal concepts. Nowadays Islamic and christian monotheistic ideas have also become an integral part of Hinduism. It does not mean that Hindu Monks are part of the shramana tradition, or buddhism and shramanism is part of an imagined overarching ancient Hindu Dharma that never existed, or Buddha was disciple of vedic teachers and other twisted supremacist, propaganda similar to that. Certainly Buddhism or Jainism and other shramanic tradition, the vedic religion, tribal religions etc. medieveal Hinduism as well, are all part of indian religion or bharata dharma if you so wish. But considering all religions in the history of India being part of a late eclectic development of Indian thought and religion is a supremacist fantasy.

Twilightdance
05 December 2012, 07:29 AM
Namaste SM,



If you can understand this it should have been clear to you that Buddhism lacks in doctrines on spiritual experiences and still you claim that Vedanta is of no use as compared to Buddhism ! Buddha's aim is limited to cessation of sufferings. Vedanta seeks end of sufferings but also seeks answers to mysteries of the Ultimate Reality. Buddha has no explanation for what the Reality is. If Emptiness is all that exists and there is no-self why seek liberation at all ? Who is bound who is seeking for liberation ??

OM

This is because speculation on these 'ultimate' question is result of self grasping and thus can only result in further suffering.

One can propose many visions of ultimate reality or experience, from Vedanta supreme existence-consciousness-bliss to ---> sex with 84 well blossomed virgins for all eternity. One being intellectually more satisfying than the other [depending on the person one may seem better than the other], doesn't change the fact that the need for both models arise from same self grasping nature of mind.

One must understand Buddhist views are also views, and like a boat used to cross a river they can/should be dispensed with when job is done. Buddha doesn't give theological explanation of reality precisely because trying to explain reality will only misrepresent it. He thought it much better to cure our mind of self grasping and experience things as they are.


If Emptiness is all that exists and there is no-self why seek liberation at all ?
Because we don't want to suffer? Whether there is self or not there is definitely the law of cause-effect which is the Buddhist version of reincarnation. So if we are not curing our cause of suffering, we are creating more causes of future suffering.


Who is bound who is seeking for liberation ??
We are bound. All sentient beings are bound. And until we get liberated we preserve and create the causes of suffering of what ever next birth our death causes [no soul is getting reborn but end of one must cause of the beginning of something else, rebirths are like stacks of bricks - one cannot have the next brick without the one below it].

wundermonk
05 December 2012, 08:16 AM
Objective of buddha dharma is cessation of suffering not spiritual experiences.

Does a stone experience suffering? Yes/no? If no, how is Buddhist nibbana different from the state of a dead lifeless stone? If everything is momentary, who/what exactly is the beneficiary of nibbana?

Sahasranama
05 December 2012, 08:22 AM
Which is nothing but a symptom of the early assimillation of non vedic (shramanic) Ideas into Brahmanism /the vedic religion, resulting eventually in the emergence of the medieaveal indian religion we now call "Hinduism" which consist of several puranic and agamic and tantric sectarian religions (shaiva, Vaishnava, shakta, smarta etc) Hinduism is a religion that is an eclectic mix of vedic and non vedic concepts, indigenous indian traditions and the vedic tradition. Non vedic influences are shramanic, as well as tribal concepts with some medieveal and modern sects that are closer to the vedic theistic concepts and others more aligned to non theistic, pre vedic shramanic and tribal concepts. Nowadays Islamic and christian monotheistic ideas have also become an integral part of Hinduism. It does not mean that Hindu Monks are part of the shramana tradition, or buddhism and shramanism is part of an imagined overarching ancient Hindu Dharma that never existed, or Buddha was disciple of vedic teachers and other twisted supremacist, propaganda similar to that. Certainly Buddhism or Jainism and other shramanic tradition, the vedic religion, tribal religions etc. medieveal Hinduism as well, are all part of indian religion or bharata dharma if you so wish. But considering all religions in the history of India being part of a late eclectic development of Indian thought and religion is a supremacist fantasy.


Medieval puranic and agamic Hinduism is based on and influenced by both traditions and owes as much to the shramanic ascetic and yogic tradition than to the brahmanic vedic tradition, since the alliance payed to the shruti that is Vedas and Upanishads, in popular Hinduism is often not much more than lip service while most of the content of Puranas, Tantras and Agamas (which form the foundation of popular Hinduism) include the practice of Tapas, Yoga and Meditation, worship with upacharas and the philosophy of samsara rebirth and moksha which are all elements that are borrowed from pre vedic shramanic sources and unknown in the vedic religion.

This is all nonsensical indologist propaganda. Indologist need to undermine Hinduism, because they cannot admit to a living religion being older than Judaism. There is a very strong continuity between the Vedas and the Itihasas, Puranas and Agamas. Only a blind person cannot see this. Even the so called Shramanic concepts have their origin the Veda. Tapas is not a not a non Vedic concept, most of the Vedic rishis were tapasvins. Tapas is an important Vedic concept and the Jainas and Buddhist have only come later and have adopted these ideas from Hinduism. ऋ॒तं च॑ स॒त्यं चा॒भी॑द्धा॒त्तप॒सोऽध्य॑जायत। (eternal law and truth were born out of Tapas, Rigveda) You are making a fool out of yourself. Outside of medieval Tantra, you are not knowledgeable of Hinduism and Indian religions, you are only repeating nonsense from western indologists.



My quotes are from A. Berzin Website he is an academic but first of all a buddhist practicioner and his website is a recommendable and reliable resource on Buddhism especially regarding topics concerning Mahayana, tantric and tibetan buddhism and Vajrayana.Who is this Berzin, another Jew? Alexander Wynne is also an academic and he holds a different position than Berzin.

Nonetheless, western academics can never be the final word on Hindu history.

MahaHrada
05 December 2012, 08:51 AM
This is all nonsensical indologist propaganda. Indologist need to undermine Hinduism, because they cannot admit to a living religion being older than Judaism. There is a very strong continuity between the Vedas and the Itihasas, Puranas and Agamas. Only a blind person cannot see this. Even the so called Shramanic concepts have their origin the Veda. Tapas is not a not a non Vedic concept, most of the Vedic rishis were tapasvins. Tapas is an important Vedic concept and the Jainas and Buddhist have only come later and have adopted these ideas from Hinduism. ऋ॒तं च॑ स॒त्यं चा॒भी॑द्धा॒त्तप॒सोऽध्य॑जायत। (eternal law and truth were born out of Tapas, Rigveda) You are making a fool out of yourself. Outside of medieval Tantra, you are not knowledgeable of Hinduism and Indian religions, you are only repeating nonsense from western indologists.

Who is this Berzin, another Jew? Alexander Wynne is also an academic and he holds a different position than Berzin.

Nonetheless, western academics can never be the final word on Hindu history.

You are suffering from mental diarrhoea.

devotee
05 December 2012, 09:50 AM
Namaste SM,

Let us an analyse what you offer :

1.
This is because speculation on these 'ultimate' question is result of self grasping and thus can only result in further suffering.

How can you say this ? What support do you have to claim so ?

Seeking Truth can't be the cause of suffering ... it takes you to the road free of sufferings. Your assertions are not even supported by Buddha. In fact, after the death of Buddha, the need for such explanation of the ultimate reality was felt in Buddhism too and that gave rise to philosophy similar to Advaita in Prajnaparamita in Mahayan Buddhism.

2.
One can propose many visions of ultimate reality or experience, from Vedanta supreme existence-consciousness-bliss to ---> sex with 84 well blossomed virgins for all eternity. One being intellectually more satisfying than the other [depending on the person one may seem better than the other], doesn't change the fact that the need for both models arise from same self grasping nature of mind.

The reality is that there is something beyond mind i.e. the Self ... so there is no need to depend upon mind to know the reality. Mind can never know the reality. Reality (Self) reveals itself to itself.

3.
Buddha doesn't give theological explanation of reality precisely because trying to explain reality will only misrepresent it. He thought it much better to cure our mind of self grasping and experience things as they are.

I have no issues with what Buddha did or didn't. I object to your assertion that VedAnta is useless.

4.
Whether there is self or not there is definitely the law of cause-effect which is the Buddhist version of reincarnation. So if we are not curing our cause of suffering, we are creating more causes of future suffering.

How can there be reincarnation of the same being if there is no-self ? If there is no reincarnation of the same being then what is the use of the being trying for nibbaana ? Who gets benefited by this Nibbaana ? If there is nothing after death as there is no-self, who do these people worship in the name of Shakya Muni Buddha, Avalokiteswara etc. ?

5.
We are bound. All sentient beings are bound. And until we get liberated we preserve and create the causes of suffering of what ever next birth our death causes [no soul is getting reborn but end of one must cause of the beginning of something else, rebirths are like stacks of bricks - one cannot have the next brick without the one below it]

But if there is no-self, the use of "we" itself is invalid. How can "next birth" be possible at all ? If there is no-self, there can't be reincarnation of any being .... but a new being would be born every time. If by bricks-example, you want to say that a new brick can be laid only after the old one has been laid .... perhaps you want to say that the Karma of the previous beings gives rise to beings in the next beings and there is no individuality which is carried over from one birth to the next ? Is it so ? If that is the case, there is no use of Nibbaana at all. As even after enlightenment of so many beings in Buddhism, the people being born in this world has increased many times. Therefore, unless there is individuality is there in the beings as "self" which carries samskaars from one birth to another, there is no use of Nibbaana.

Finally, let me tell you that before studying VedAnta, I studied Buddhism and I found that VedAnta philosophy is much richer than philosophy of Buddhism. However, being a Hindu I may be biased and likewise you may also be biased being against Hindu-dharma. Therefore, imho, your claim that "VedAnta is useless" is basically due to your bias and nothing else. If you make this claim on a Buddhist forum, you would get great applause ... can't you be a little more considerate on a Hindu forum when your own idea on Buddhism appears to be limited ?

OM

philosoraptor
05 December 2012, 09:52 AM
[/FONT][/COLOR]
There is a very strong continuity between the Vedas and the Itihasas, Puranas and Agamas. Only a blind person cannot see this.

As someone who studies both (Vedas and Itihasas/Puranas), I can sound off in support of this. There is quite a bit of conceptual and metaphysical continuity that I have observed in my studies so far that I have been quite surprised. So much so that I'm beginning to wonder how academics can be so dismissive of the commonly-accepted smritis and still maintain a semblance of intellectual honesty.


Tapas is not a not a non Vedic concept, most of the Vedic rishis were tapasvins. Tapas is an important Vedic concept and the Jainas and Buddhist have only come later and have adopted these ideas from Hinduism. ऋ॒तं च॑ स॒त्यं चा॒भी॑द्धा॒त्तप॒सोऽध्य॑जायत। (eternal law and truth were born out of Tapas, Rigveda)

The taittirIya AraNyaka also has a section discussing this subject as well.

philosoraptor
05 December 2012, 09:53 AM
If one understood Buddhism, one would find the silence of Buddha on topics which Vedanta goes ga-ga over to be one of the subtle and profound parts of Buddhist teachings.


This sounds rather not unlike the argument that in order to understand Advaita, you have to first accept Advaita.

devotee
05 December 2012, 09:54 AM
You are suffering from mental diarrhoea.


yes... and christian monks are called Kimonos.

Please Maha, these statements show you in poor light. You can do better. :)

OM

MahaHrada
05 December 2012, 10:03 AM
Please Maha, these statements show you in poor light. You can do better. :)

OM

I have to do something ugly to keep up my bad reputation and stay in samsara :)

philosoraptor
05 December 2012, 11:43 AM
Tapas is not a not a non Vedic concept,

R^itam tapaH satyaM tapaH shrutaM tapaH shAntaM tapo damastapaH shamastapo dAnaM tapo yaj~naM tapo bhUrbhuvaH suvarbrahmaitadupAsvaitattapaH || MNU 10.1 ||

mahAnArAyaNa upaniShad X-1 (from taitirrIya AraNyaka): "Right is austerity. Truth is austerity. Understanding of the scriptures is austerity. Subduing of one's senses is austerity. Restraint of the body through such means like fast is austerity. Cultivation of a peaceable disposition is austerity. Giving gifts without selfish motives is austerity. Worship is austerity. The Supreme Brahman has manifested Himself as Bhuh, Bhuvah and Suvah. Meditate upon Him. This is austerity par excellence."

MahaHrada
05 December 2012, 12:48 PM
Since the shramanic tradition, according to our current knowledge appears to have predated the spread of the vedic community and their religion throughout india, and the Upanishads in their current recension postdated the period of the life of buddha and anyways contain lots of borrowings from Buddhism, the mere mentioning of the concept of "tapas" as austerity does not mean that this concept must have originated from the vedic community or was assimilated from Buddhism or other shramanic traditions. Since it is much more relevant and important concept in the shramanic tradition it is far more likely to have been borrowed frrm shramanic sources and assimilated into vedic thought. Tapas also means heat, and heat is associated with creation, biological conception and so on, therefore we have also to decide whether in a given context the word refers refers to austerity or heat, or brooding etc. to avoid revisionist interpretations.

philosoraptor
05 December 2012, 03:04 PM
Since the shramanic tradition, according to our current knowledge appears to have predated the spread of the vedic community and their religion throughout india, and the Upanishads in their current recension postdated the period of the life of buddha and anyways contain lots of borrowings from Buddhism, the mere mentioning of the concept of "tapas" as austerity does not mean that this concept must have originated from the vedic community or was assimilated from Buddhism or other shramanic traditions. Since it is much more relevant and important concept in the shramanic tradition it is far more likely to have been borrowed frrm shramanic sources and assimilated into vedic thought. Tapas also means heat, and heat is associated with creation, biological conception and so on, therefore we have also to decide whether in a given context the word refers refers to austerity or heat, or brooding etc. to avoid revisionist interpretations.

Good point. Maybe the mantra is best translated "Truth is heat. Undestanding of the scriptures is heat. Subduing of one's senses is heat..." I guess that makes so much more sense over those "revisionist" interpretations.

As an aside, if you have any scientific evidence substantiating your view that the taitirrIya AraNyaka of the yajur veda (of which the mahAnArAyaNa upaniShad is the 10th chapter) has a post-buddhist origin and borrowed heavily from Buddhism, I would appreciate your sharing it here. Any sort of observational data should suffice, I would think.

MahaHrada
05 December 2012, 04:24 PM
Good point. Maybe the mantra is best translated "Truth is heat. Undestanding of the scriptures is heat. Subduing of one's senses is heat..." I guess that makes so much more sense over those "revisionist" interpretations.

As an aside, if you have any scientific evidence substantiating your view that the taitirrIya AraNyaka of the yajur veda (of which the mahAnArAyaNa upaniShad is the 10th chapter) has a post-buddhist origin and borrowed heavily from Buddhism, I would appreciate your sharing it here. Any sort of observational data should suffice, I would think.

There is very little in the earlier history of Indian religions that can be "scientifically proven" also concerning the origin of upanishadic thought we will certainly find differing opinions, and we all know that, there are of course also differences concerning the exact dating of the now current versions of the different upanishads, so that no one can come to a definite conclusion, where exactly and when Buddhism influenced upanishadic thought or vice versa, there certainly was a mutual influence and to trace it in detail is of course a task not possible in a forum discussion and i will not follow you down that road. My remark about the multiple meanings of tapas was a general remark not especially aimend at your quote, but concerning the occurence of this word in earlier layers of vedic history.

philosoraptor
05 December 2012, 06:10 PM
There is very little in the earlier history of Indian religions that can be "scientifically proven"

Please remember that the text time you articulate contrary points of view (e.g. Buddhism predating the Upanishads) as if they are obvious facts.

regards,

MahaHrada
05 December 2012, 08:00 PM
Please remember that the text time you articulate contrary points of view (e.g. Buddhism predating the Upanishads) as if they are obvious facts.
regards,

That was not my intention, and i admit i was probably sounding a bit overgeneralising to be more precise i think there even is a consensus among scholars that the earliest Upanishads, Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya can be said to predate Buddha, but i donīt think think in their current recensions, and i was mentioning that. But also there is no definite " scientific proof" of these earlier dates available.

shian
05 December 2012, 09:18 PM
Maybe Buddha get influence or carrying mission to spread Hindu Dharma in different ways or different performance , its also happened in Hindu's inner ( sect ) on every era, always developing.

or maybe time and condition make Buddhism become separate ORGANIZATION or separate religion under name and classification,

but that is also happened in any religion in this world
poeples can make anythings, peoples can change anythings, peoples can make whatever version of history ( even peoples is still debating history of every nations )


in my heart, Buddha is not separate with the essence of Hindu
is not separate with the heart of Hindu

devotee
05 December 2012, 10:37 PM
I have to do something ugly to keep up my bad reputation and stay in samsara :)

You have pretty bad record already as I remember your discussions. You don't need to prove yourself again.

OM

Believer
05 December 2012, 10:52 PM
Namaste MahaHrada,

It seems you have not rotated your kundalini for a long time. ;)

I am disappointed to see words like, "scientifically proven", names of different Western Indologists disguised as scholars and presumed authorities on Hinduism. I thought we argued about these issues and put them to rest many times over.

Pranam.

devotee
05 December 2012, 10:56 PM
Namaste,

Who is a Shraman and how was this word coined at all ? Shraman word has come from the word "Shram" which means "labour"/"Not easy"/"difficult". As the path of wandering monks was not easy, all those who took the path of wandering monks were called Shramans. Now, there was no common ideology which they believed in. MahAveer, Buddha, wandering Yogis were called Shramans. So, it was actually a synonym for Tapasvis who had left homes and were wandering from one place to the other in search of Truth.
Some experts say that even CharvAks were called Shramans, though they had only one thing common with the other Shramans ... they too didn't believe in God, as a separate creator of this world and didn't believe in supremacy of Vedas, i.e. they belonged to same NAstika school of Hindu Dharma.

Let's remember that though Buddha and his five friends went in search of the Truth together ... they didn't follow the same path. Only after Buddha attained enlightenment, Buddha gave them sermons and they became followers of Buddha.

OM

Twilightdance
06 December 2012, 02:28 AM
Does a stone experience suffering? Yes/no? If no, how is Buddhist nibbana different from the state of a dead lifeless stone? If everything is momentary, who/what exactly is the beneficiary of nibbana?

Are you experiencing suffering? Yes/no? If yes, you may consider if you want to end it or continue to suffer.

If stone has a mind it must be experiencing suffering, if it does not then the question is meaningless. I don't/can't know which way it is. I believe most of us take stone to be insentient. You me have mind, so we cannot be like a stone.

Twilightdance
06 December 2012, 03:08 AM
Namaste SM,

Let us an analyse what you offer :

1.

How can you say this ? What support do you have to claim so ?

Because this questions and speculation arise only when one strongly believes the "I" feeling is real and permanent. There is no suffering when there is no "I" and vice a versa.


Seeking Truth can't be the cause of suffering ... it takes you to the road free of sufferings. Your assertions are not even supported by Buddha. In fact, after the death of Buddha, the need for such explanation of the ultimate reality was felt in Buddhism too and that gave rise to philosophy similar to Advaita in Prajnaparamita in Mahayan Buddhism. Seeking truth is our human condition, just like suffering. Buddha gave a way to end the human condition and experience freedom. Later Buddhists spend time to articulate views because it became a religion and needed to compete with others. However even views of later Buddhism is quite different from any other religion.

If I can say it in this way, if Sankara's vedanta says there is an ultimate unchanging reality and the current condition is due to Maya [w/o explaining what it is], then Buddhism[later Buddhism, prajnaparamita is a good example] is mostly devoted to what is this Maya and how to be free of its grasp. Is it too much to express the view that later would be more beneficial?



2.

The reality is that there is something beyond mind i.e. the Self ... so there is no need to depend upon mind to know the reality. Mind can never know the reality. Reality (Self) reveals itself to itself. It actually needs only a little analytical mediation, contemplation and thinking to understand the "I" or "Self" is created in the mind not the opposite. Before I realized this, Buddhism and Vedanta seemed same to me with a different language. When one realizes that the postulated ultimate reality is just a projection of an impermanent notion [stays only upto dream state of mind or edges of deep sleep] generated in mind, everything about vedanta and theism falls flat on its face.

Buddha did not deny any ultimate reality, but just pointed out that being in the clutches of the self grasping mind will not lead to it. Later Buddhist try to articulate this ultimate reality, but that it is not self is a crucial thing to understand.



3.

I have no issues with what Buddha did or didn't. I object to your assertion that VedAnta is useless. I explained why I find not be useful. It uses a vikalpa, projects a mental notion to be an ultimate reality. It can be intellectually satisfying and lead to samadhis in mind, but cannot be free of self grasping. Even if it is useless to me doesn't mean I am saying it is useless for everybody. That is an unfortunate conclusion other's have drawn.





4.

How can there be reincarnation of the same being if there is no-self ? If there is no reincarnation of the same being then what is the use of the being trying for nibbaana ? Who gets benefited by this Nibbaana ? If there is nothing after death as there is no-self, who do these people worship in the name of Shakya Muni Buddha, Avalokiteswara etc. ? There is mind and there are phenomenons or lets say in modern language waves or vibrations on this mind which is creation in mind, self "I" being one such creation. As wave propagates - the vibration of "I" propagates- there is samsara, there are beings, there is suffering.

But I agree, a proper justification to end this suffering is only found in mahayana.



If you make this claim on a Buddhist forum, you would get great applause ... can't you be a little more considerate on a Hindu forum when your own idea on Buddhism appears to be limited ?

OMI was not posting for applause of which there is not much hope :) ... I was just sharing my opinion and now have also added some meat to the matter. I don't think Buddhism is non-hindu as for me anything which was born out of this land is Hindu in the modern sense of the term. It is just non vedic like most of the remainder of proper hinduism, only the rest of hinduism don't claim to reject vedas just does it in practice.

Twilightdance
06 December 2012, 03:12 AM
To sum it up, If there is an ultimate reality [since we have mind, matter it is plausible that there is an ultimate nature to these] then emptiness of all phenomena is a much more useful and real "handle" to grasp that reality than subtle mental projections of self or even grosser mental creation of a creator God. That's why Buddhism is more useful.

wundermonk
06 December 2012, 03:48 AM
Are you experiencing suffering? Yes/no? If yes, you may consider if you want to end it or continue to suffer.

Not all of life is suffering. There are moments of positive pleasure for sure. If all of life is suffering, Buddhists should not procreate.


If stone has a mind it must be experiencing suffering, if it does not then the question is meaningless. I don't/can't know which way it is. I believe most of us take stone to be insentient. You me have mind, so we cannot be like a stone.

Why is the question meaningless? Let us grant that a stone does NOT have a mind. Hence, it can not experience pleasure/pain/suffering. How is the non-experience of suffering of a stone any different from the Buddhist state of nibbana?:dunno:

Twilightdance
06 December 2012, 03:57 AM
Not all of life is suffering. There are moments of positive pleasure for sure.

Sure, but they don't last and such as don't make anything special in the general circumstance of human life.


If all of life is suffering, Buddhists should not procreate.
Maybe. ;)




Why is the question meaningless? Let us grant that a stone does NOT have a mind. Hence, it can not experience pleasure/pain/suffering. How is the non-experience of suffering of a stone any different from the Buddhist state of nibbana?:dunno:

Because we will still be mind but free from self-grasping.

wundermonk
06 December 2012, 04:27 AM
If all of life is suffering, Buddhists should not procreate.Maybe. ;)

Lolz. So, the next time you see a Buddhist father/mother, you should laugh at his/her belief-behaviour conflict and mock his hypocrisy. :D



How is the non-experience of suffering of a stone any different from the Buddhist state of nibbana?
Because we will still be mind but free from self-grasping.

Reread my question and please clarify how your response addresses my question.

devotee
06 December 2012, 04:31 AM
Namaste SM,


Because this questions and speculation arise only when one strongly believes the "I" feeling is real and permanent. There is no suffering when there is no "I" and vice a versa.

I agree. So, Buddha actually wanted people not to seek those answers which Buddha thought were unnecessary for ending sufferings. Right ? But Buddha didn't say that there was no ultimate Reality. If you have studied Advaita VedAnta carefully, this is what happens on Self-realisation i..e the loss of individual 'i" and that breaks the heart knot and that is end of samsaaraa. So, Advaita does take you to the point where there is no suffering.


It actually needs only a little analytical mediation, contemplation and thinking to understand the "I" or "Self" is created in the mind not the opposite. Before I realized this, Buddhism and Vedanta seemed same to me with a different language. When one realizes that the postulated ultimate reality is just a projection of an impermanent notion [stays only upto dream state of mind or edges of deep sleep] generated in mind, everything about vedanta and theism falls flat on its face.

You didn't get it right, dear ! That is all I can say. You won't believe now whatever I offer to you, but believe me that you got it all wrong. "Self" is not the creation of mind ... mind is creation of Self. But anyway, you are within your rights to have your own opinion.


Buddha did not deny any ultimate reality, but just pointed out that being in the clutches of the self grasping mind will not lead to it. Later Buddhist try to articulate this ultimate reality, but that it is not self is a crucial thing to understand.

I have tried to reconcile core of Buddhism and Adviata VedAnta. The self i.e. the individual self is to be denied in Advaita VedAnta too and that is why you need to practise, "Aham BrahmAsmi" etc. which denies the self (individual self) as a projection of MAyA and accepts Brahman (the Self) as the only reality. Buddha doesn't say what the reality is but he insists on denying the self so that mind doesn't hold on to anything like that. However, Buddhahood as described is not much different from Turiya.

OM

Twilightdance
06 December 2012, 04:48 AM
The self i.e. the individual self is to be denied in Advaita VedAnta too and that is why you need to practise, "Aham BrahmAsmi" etc. which denies the self (individual self) as a projection of MAyA and accepts Brahman (the Self) as the only reality.

Analyzing all notions of this transcendental self, Buddhists came to the conclusion that they are all tainted concepts of mind. It does not seem plausible that imputing the limited self to a supreme self which is still a projection of the mind can be useful. The battle for Self is already lost if one already agrees to deny the individual self or soul. Imputing the concept of Aham Brahmasmi after denying soul would be like fixing a wooden leg after cutting of one's own legs.

The critique is more directly applicable to doctrines like Pratyabhijna and Kashmir Shaivism who idolize the I-feeling into a supreme reality and present a subjective supreme or pure "I" to be ultimate reality. In Buddhist view of ultimate reality there cannot be a supreme subject or an object, subject & object are both phenomena of mind, one one cannot exist without the other.

Twilightdance
06 December 2012, 04:54 AM
Reread my question and please clarify how your response addresses my question.

Please reread my answer and work on how it answers your question.

MahaHrada
06 December 2012, 07:51 AM
Namaste MahaHrada,

It seems you have not rotated your kundalini for a long time. ;)

I am disappointed to see words like, "scientifically proven", names of different Western Indologists disguised as scholars and presumed authorities on Hinduism. I thought we argued about these issues and put them to rest many times over.

Pranam.

Namaste Beliver,

I am innocent i did not say "aryan invasion" :)
On a serious note hindu extremists only use me as a target practice if they accuse my of being part of a jewish conspiracy to destroy Hindu dharma as a matter of fact so called indologists would disagree with my opinion.
I am presenting the viewpoint of the shramanic traditions, the Jains and Buddhists who insist that their religion is eternal and beginningless and independent of the religion of the vedic community and Hinduism.
I quoted A. Berzin because he is a buddhist, what is confusing for the practicing extremist Hindu is that a buddhist teacher can be at the same time an academic. But not only among Buddhists, also in the Jain tradition the independence of their religion from the vedic as well as the later puranic religion is emphasized.
http://www.jaindharmonline.com/dharma/jainhist.htm

Seeker
06 December 2012, 10:20 AM
Namaste all.

A naive question , and would appreciate the answer.

Is Hinduism stripped of caste-ism (varnashrama) roughly equate to what Jaininsm, Sikhism & Buddhism teach? To me at a personal level , institutionalization of apartheid has always been a minor irritant with Hindu texts. It has been minor because it doesnt impact me - but for someone impacted by it , the 'other' dharmic paths could be an attractive option.

philosoraptor
06 December 2012, 11:54 AM
I am presenting the viewpoint of the shramanic traditions, the Jains and Buddhists who insist that their religion is eternal and beginningless and independent of the religion of the vedic community and Hinduism.
I quoted A. Berzin because he is a buddhist, what is confusing for the practicing extremist Hindu is that a buddhist teacher can be at the same time an academic. But not only among Buddhists, also in the Jain tradition the independence of their religion from the vedic as well as the later puranic religion is emphasized.
http://www.jaindharmonline.com/dharma/jainhist.htm

But you haven't given anyone an intelligent reason why they should accept your viewpoint, which is itself based on the sectarian religious views of non-Hindus who have entered academia. That they are academics does not absolve them of sectarian bias. Seriously, a Buddhist professor claiming, against all known facts, tradition, and history to date, that Buddhism predates the Upanishads, and you don't see the bias? One almost gets the impression that you derive enjoyment from calling anyone who disagrees with you an "extremist."

MahaHrada
06 December 2012, 12:00 PM
Seriously, a Buddhist professor claiming,.....bleh... that Buddhism predates the Upanishads

He does not share this opinion.

Equinox
06 December 2012, 12:52 PM
On a serious note hindu extremists only use me as a target practice if they accuse my of being part of a jewish conspiracy to destroy Hindu dharma as a matter of fact so called indologists would disagree with my opinion.
I am presenting the viewpoint of the shramanic traditions, the Jains and Buddhists who insist that their religion is eternal and beginningless and independent of the religion of the vedic community and Hinduism.
I quoted A. Berzin because he is a buddhist, what is confusing for the practicing extremist Hindu is that a buddhist teacher can be at the same time an academic. But not only among Buddhists, also in the Jain tradition the independence of their religion from the vedic as well as the later puranic religion is emphasized.

So Hindus who defend their beliefs and disagree with you are termed "extremists" right?

First of all, why do you even bother portraying a bigoted view of Hinduism from other Hindu-originated religions in a Hindu forum? Some scholars from these religions are only interested in proving its independence from Hinduism, and, from what it looks like here, that is also your main aim. You always insist that your views are right. Who actually cares about what you're trying to prove when we all know that Hinduism predates all these other religions? Who would even want to know how they are independent from Hinduism when our main aim here is to discuss stuff on Hinduism? Even the Abrahamic section of HDF has been closed.

The only positive effect of this is the practice we get in answering you and defending Hinduism. Not to mention thoroughly researching our resources to counter your claims. And then we are termed extremists, when that title rightfully belongs to you! Your posts are most uncalled-for, but it's beneficial due to the points I stated earlier.

I'm not saying that you can't, why, if you're interested you can even promote viewpoints from the perspective of Islam and Christianity too.

PS: Just stating what I can deduce from your propagandist posts.

Jainarayan
06 December 2012, 01:09 PM
Namaste.


What is wrong with Buddhism? I have read a few opinions on here that one cannot mix being Buddhist with being Hindu or any other religion. Why is this so if Buddhism is non-theistic, and is just a practical approach on non-attachment and ending suffering?

What do Hindu's here believe the benefits and non-benefits of practicing Buddhism to be?

Cutting past the regularly scheduled invective and mud-slinging, I'd like to address you directly to say nothing is wrong with Buddhism, nor are Buddhism and Hinduism incompatible on the whole. One must remember that there are more schools and sects of Buddhism than there are in Hinduism, so of course some will mesh, some will not. I wanted to respond to you as one who is syncretizing Vaishnavism and Buddhism (Vajrayāna, a Tibetan tantric subset of Mahāyāna), with a smattering of Taoism and a pinch of Zen. Zen's main claim to fame is meditative practice, which is a heavy part of Vajrayāna deity yoga.

It's not entirely correct to say Buddhism rejects the Vedas. Actually it's a popular misconception, either intentional or unintentional. Buddhism rejects what was done with the Vedas wrt rituals as ends in themselves. Even Sri Krishna tells Arjuna that men have used the Vedas for material ends, or to simply get a good life on Earth or in Heaven. Vedic thought and philosophy pervades most schools of Buddhism if one studies it and allows oneself to see it. Buddhism is also not atheistic; however, for most part it's non-theistic. There are devas who are worshipped. Again, that Buddhism is atheistic is a popular misconception, either intentional or unintentional. Lord Buddha did not put any emphasis on God nor did he, afaik, outright deny the existence of God. One only has to study the various Buddhist schools, sutras and sayings of Shakyamuni Buddha himself.

In Vajrayāna, a tantric school, one practice is called deity yoga, which I mentioned. One meditates on an ishta-devatā ('yidam' in Tibetan) and strives to become enlightened, and realize one's internal Buddhahood/Atman as quickly as possible... a "fast track". Regarding my deity yoga, my ishta-devatā is Vishnu/Krishna (Nārāyana), whom I meditate on with a yantra. It's a small brass plaque depicted in my avi, inscribed with Om namo Nārāyanāya as the mantra that is the focus of my meditation. I might add that Vajrayāna and Taoism virtually scream Advaita. The desire to fast track to becoming enlightened is bodhicitta; having that desire as a prime motivator makes one bodhisattva, choosing to be re-born as a spiritual guide for other sentient beings caught in samsara. This is done out of extreme and overwhelming compassion for other sentient beings. I believe that at some point God steps in and says "You have done enough, your work is finished" and grants moksha. Just my belief and reconciliation of wanting to return and wanting moksha. I think this is a case of having your cake and eating it too. In my belief, of course.

Buddhism and Hinduism can mesh very nicely; they are not incompatible. One just has to see the similarities; each can draw from the other without a conflict. The problem arises from the differences with the schools of Buddhism and how a particular school can mesh (or not) with Hinduism, not between Hinduism and Buddhism.

MahaHrada
06 December 2012, 01:21 PM
Who would even want to know how they are independent from Hinduism when our main aim here is to discuss stuff on Hinduism? Even the Abrahamic section of HDF has been closed.

We are in the Buddhism section of HDF so discussion on the History of Indian Religion, Buddhism Jainism, Shramanism and the differences and the ramifications of vedic shrauta dharma, uttara Mimamsa, neo Hinduism and sectarian puranic Hinduism is not off topic.

philosoraptor
06 December 2012, 01:33 PM
Buddhism and Hinduism can mesh very nicely; they are not incompatible.


How true. All you have to do is ignore the differences.

Equinox
06 December 2012, 01:42 PM
We are in the Buddhism section of HDF so discussion on the History of Indian Religion, Buddhism Jainism, Shramanism and the differences and the ramifications of vedic shrauta dharma, uttara Mimamsa, neo Hinduism and sectarian puranic Hinduism is not off topic.

Suit yourself! :)

Jainarayan
06 December 2012, 01:45 PM
How true. All you have to do is ignore the differences.

Or learn:


One must remember that there are more schools and sects of Buddhism than there are in Hinduism, so of course some will mesh, some will not. ... The problem arises from the differences with the schools of Buddhism and how a particular school can mesh (or not) with Hinduism...

Compatibilities within Buddhist schools have given rise to new schools, with the incompatibilities and differences tossed out. Buddhism, like Hinduism is an umbrella term for extremely diverse, sometimes compatible, sometimes incompatible schools and sampradayas.

ETA information from someone extremely more versed than I could ever hope to be: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=86618&postcount=3

philosoraptor
06 December 2012, 01:56 PM
And similarly, labels like "Christianity" and "Islam" also refer to a broad range of diverse sects, such as the gnostics/universalists in the former and the Ahmadiyas in the latter. I suppose I could then make a case that Hinduism and Chrisitanity/Islam are more compatible than most people think, considering the broad range of thought encompassed by each term. But then again, I assumed we were trying to have a meaningful discussion, and were using "Hinduism" in the sense of Vedantic Hinduism and "Buddhism" in the sense of the doctrine propounded by Buddha (and "Christianity" in the sense of what is in the Bible and "Islam" in the sense of what is taught in the Koran).

Jainarayan
06 December 2012, 02:06 PM
And similarly, labels like "Christianity" and "Islam" also refer to a broad range of diverse sects, such as the gnostics/universalists in the former and the Ahmadiyas in the latter. I suppose I could then make a case that Hinduism and Chrisitanity/Islam are more compatible than most people think, considering the broad range of thought encompassed by each term.

This is not about Abrahamic v. Dharmic. It's about sister Dharmic religions, their compatibilities and incompatiblities.


But then again, I assumed we were trying to have a meaningful discussion

We were. But as usual, someone has to pee in the punchbowl to spite everyone when they don't like the flavor of the punch.

philosoraptor
06 December 2012, 03:40 PM
This is not about Abrahamic v. Dharmic. It's about sister Dharmic religions, their compatibilities and incompatiblities.

I think the point is that asserting similarity between any two concepts is easy when you use broad, non-specific definitions of said concepts. This then makes the assertion meaningless.



We were. But as usual, someone has to pee in the punchbowl to spite everyone when they don't like the flavor of the punch.

Err, ok. Well, if I'm not supposed to object to a misleading characterization of Hinduism being compatible with "X" where X represents some system of ideas or values which are in fact not compatible with Vedantic Hinduism, then I guess the conclusion here is that disagreeing with you is "spiteful" and agreement is the only outcome you will find acceptable.

I liked it better when I was an "extremist."

Jainarayan
06 December 2012, 04:08 PM
Err, ok. Well, if I'm not supposed to object to a misleading characterization of Hinduism being compatible with "X" where X represents some system of ideas or values which are in fact not compatible with Vedantic Hinduism, then I guess the conclusion here is that disagreeing with you is "spiteful" and agreement is the only outcome you will find acceptable.

I liked it better when I was an "extremist."

It's not a matter of disagreement or agreement, it's a matter of bringing in a logical fallacy (fallacy of composition, specifically): you posit Christianity and Islam share characteristics; Hinduism and Buddhism share characteristics; therefore Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism share characteristics that are compatible. For my part, Christianity and Islam should not be part of this discussion in any way, shape or form.

I'm not sure why you keep missing the point that there are schools of Buddhism that contradict each other. There are Hindu sampradayas that contradict each other. So of course not all will be compatible with each other. Though many will, across the board. Once you can see that, we're golden. If you can't get that point, the problem is in not in my presentation. I invite you to re-read this post http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...18&postcount=3 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=86618&postcount=3) that Shuddhasattva put a lot of effort into, as an example of compatibility and similarity.

philosoraptor
06 December 2012, 04:54 PM
It's not a matter of disagreement or agreement, it's a matter of bringing in a logical fallacy (fallacy of composition, specifically): you posit Christianity and Islam share characteristics; Hinduism and Buddhism share characteristics; therefore Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism share characteristics that are compatible. For my part, Christianity and Islam should not be part of this discussion in any way, shape or form.


Actually, it was you who brought up an artificial dichotomy in order to avoid dealing with the fallacy I pointed out in your assertion. Your words were, and I quote, "This is not about Abrahamic v. Dharmic. It's about sister Dharmic religions, their compatibilities and incompatiblities." Now, from an intellectual point of view, there is no such historical concept as "dharmic religions." The term "dharmic religions" is mostly in use by the contemporary "Buddhism and Jainism are different forms of Hinduism" crowd. It's certainly not a concept used by traditional scholars nor by secular academics. In the writings of traditional scholars, there is no such distinction in which Buddhism and Jainism are classified as "dharmic" along with Vedantic traditions. The only dichotomy we see is the concept of astika vs nastika darshanas, of which Buddhism was historically regarded as being in the latter category. Now, you can argue that you know Buddhism better than its historical critics, and that's fine. But that was history, and not accepting that is pretty revisionist.



I'm not sure why you keep missing the point that there are schools of Buddhism that contradict each other. There are Hindu sampradayas that contradict each other. So of course not all will be compatible with each other.

Hence, the fallacy that "Buddhism and Hinduism can mesh very nicely; they are not incompatible" stands exposed. If you acknowledge contradictory traditions within each category, then you implicitly acknowledge the non-specific nature of your definitions of each. Then saying that Buddhism and Hinduism can be compatible is erroneous. At best, some traditions within Buddhism and some within Hinduism might be compatible, but that was not what you said.

devotee
06 December 2012, 11:22 PM
Namaste SM,


Analyzing all notions of this transcendental self, Buddhists came to the conclusion that they are all tainted concepts of mind. It does not seem plausible that imputing the limited self to a supreme self which is still a projection of the mind can be useful. The battle for Self is already lost if one already agrees to deny the individual self or soul. Imputing the concept of Aham Brahmasmi after denying soul would be like fixing a wooden leg after cutting of one's own legs.


You have no idea what Advaita Vedanta means and how the followers of Advaita VedAnta attain the ultimate. You are yourself creating your axioms and yourself drawing self-serving-conclusions from them. I told you that mind cannot reach there ... and yet you are repeating the same thing.

What you are saying is completely meaningless and perhaps it is just a repetition of you have heard from Buddhists. (May I remind you that Buddhists were defeated in India by VedAntins and others and that is why it is completely uprooted from the place where it was born). This inappropriate from all aspects. You should not belittle the theories of Quantum Mechanics when your area of expertise is Newtonian Mechanics. Unfortunately, this is exactly what you are doing.

OM

Twilightdance
07 December 2012, 02:23 AM
Namaste SM,



You have no idea what Advaita Vedanta means and how the followers of Advaita VedAnta attain the ultimate. You are yourself creating your axioms and yourself drawing self-serving-conclusions from them. I told you that mind cannot reach there ... and yet you are repeating the same thing.
OM


All most everybody in this forum have gone through this reaction from you. When you don't have any arguments left, you just declare the other person to be ignorant and pretend you know everything and anything to do with spiritual truth.

Self is a creation of the mind is fundamental to Buddhism, which is what we are discussing here. You just admitted that the individual self is an illusion. When you accept this fact [that individual self is false] there is no reasoning left for an transcendental self except being adamant about it. Philosophically it becomes a lame doctrine.

Those who reject Buddhism cannot be accepting individual self to be false at the same time. If they do, they need to seriously question their belief and understanding, IMO.

Maybe we should rest this debate here, as it would go no-where.

devotee
07 December 2012, 04:59 AM
All most everybody in this forum have gone through this reaction from you. When you don't have any arguments left ...

That is masterstroke for silencing me. Thanks. I quit. :)

OM

Jainarayan
07 December 2012, 08:26 AM
there is no such historical concept as "dharmic religions." The term "dharmic religions" is mostly in use by the contemporary "Buddhism and Jainism are different forms of Hinduism" crowd. It's certainly not a concept used by traditional scholars nor by secular academics. ...

Save the psychobabble and semantics trying to show off your "knowledge" for someone who buys it.


Then saying that Buddhism and Hinduism can be compatible is erroneous. At best, some traditions within Buddhism and some within Hinduism might be compatible, but that was not what you said.

That's exactly what I said, several times. So stop playing games.

It's pointless having a conversation with you. Moreover, my comments were directed at the o.p. and you piped up with your word games, as usual. Let us agree to ignore each other, which I shall do from this point on.

Have a nice life.

satay
07 December 2012, 11:23 AM
Admin Note

Thread under review.