PDA

View Full Version : Gautam Buddha is indeed a Hindu



Pages : [1] 2

PrimeDirectives
20 February 2009, 02:12 PM
A Hindu is any person who practices Karma, Bhakti, or Jnana for achieving Moksha. In Hinduism, Moksha means a union with Brahm.

The Buddha's aim was Moksha. He made members in his monastic order (Arya Sangha) take the Pratimoksha (vows of liberation.)

He endorsed Brahmacharya. He called his own path the Brahmayana (Path to Brahm.) A Buddhist Temple is known as a Brahma-kshetra (land of Brahm.)

He declared that His path is the Sanatan Dharm ("Eso Sanatanno Dhammo"). He declared that his path is the Arya Dharma.


All my efforts to reveal the Buddha as a Hindu have been posted here:
http://hinduwiki.com/index.php?title=Buddhism
http://hinduwiki.com/index.php?title=Buddha_as_an_Avatar_of_Vishnu

devotee
20 February 2009, 10:30 PM
Namaste Prime Directive,

This is a very good effort ! :)

How is Hindu Wiki different from well known Wikipedia ?

OM

Pretnath
21 February 2009, 09:31 AM
Oh PD G

Budhdha was a hindu, but the word hinduism was not there at that time the only word was Dharm

Brahmans Alar Kalam and Rudrak Ramputra were his Gurus
It was Ashok who spreaded buddhism as a religion

Dharm (now Hinduism) is not religion, but way to OM

saidevo
21 February 2009, 10:32 PM
The term 'Hindu', contrary to what the western and commy historians would have us believe, was not of a later origin. The term 'Hindu' was used as early as 520 BCE, during Buddha's time. It was also used in King Ashoka's inscriptions.

For an interesting discussion of the origin of this term, download and read the booklet Antiquity and Origin of the Term 'Hindu' by Dr. Murlidhar H. Pahoja at: http://sarasvati95.googlepages.com/antiquityhindu.pdf

PrimeDirectives
23 February 2009, 02:41 PM
How is Hindu Wiki different from well known Wikipedia ?This is my research. Almost everything in HinduWiki article of "Gautama Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu" is referenced (from texts, not websites.)

I try to reference everything I can.

Buddha didn't call himself a Hindu as the term wasn;t popular then. Buddha Bhagavan did however call himself an Arya (and his religion the Arya Dharma) and a Sanatan (and his religion Sanatan Dharma.)


http://hinduwiki.com/index.php?title=San%C4%81tana_Dharm

shian
25 February 2009, 03:34 AM
Om Mahamahesvararaja Tathagataya

Many Buddhism said the sect who get chritic from Buddha Gautama is Hindu.

But acctually Hindu have so many sect and every sect sometimes have different philosophy etc...

So, i think is not true to said that sect is all of Hinduism

in Mahayana and Tantrayana Tripitaka, i find many Gautama Buddha teaching is related to Sanata Dharma. And no any doubt here...

srivijaya
27 February 2009, 03:56 AM
In Hinduism, Moksha means a union with Brahm.

Hi PD,
Whilst this is correct for Hinduism, it's not the case with Buddhism. Buddhist Nirvana is not union with any deity (however one chooses to define it).

It is very helpful for a spiritual seeker to compare and contrast the teachings of the two traditions, as they are both sublime in their own way.

If Buddhism is simply dismissed as Hinduism, or even vice versa, then the valuable contrast is overlooked.

Namaste

atanu
27 February 2009, 10:13 AM
Hi PD,
Whilst this is correct for Hinduism, it's not the case with Buddhism. Buddhist Nirvana is not union with any deity (however one chooses to define it).

It is very helpful for a spiritual seeker to compare and contrast the teachings of the two traditions, as they are both sublime in their own way.

If Buddhism is simply dismissed as Hinduism, or even vice versa, then the valuable contrast is overlooked.

Namaste

Hi Srivijaya,

We all overlooked this point, it seems. Thanks for the precise observation. Its not the case of Hinduism either to unite with Brahman, since it is an impossibilty. Brahman is ever purna -- the full. How can a second come from outside and unite with Brahman?

When we talk of uniting, it is really the bhakti, which derives its meaning from its opposite vibhakta -- the divided. Bhakti means uniting the mind with its source -- the God, Brahman or whatever you may like to call it.

Many Hindu gurus actually place bhakti higher than yoga, since yoga involves a striving to unite whereas bhakti is effortless unity of mind and its source.

I hope I am not saying something which you will easily catch as anomalous with your precise understandiing.

Regards,

Om

srivijaya
27 February 2009, 11:31 AM
I hope I am not saying something which you will easily catch as anomalous with your precise understandiing.

No Sir, a wonderful and informative reply.

Namaste

PrimeDirectives
27 February 2009, 05:29 PM
Many Buddhism said the sect who get chritic from Buddha Gautama is Hindu.

But acctually Hindu have so many sect and every sect sometimes have different philosophy etc...

So, i think is not true to said that sect is all of HinduismYes not all Indian sects are Hindu HOWEVER THE BUDDHA HIMSELF WAS A HINDU AS HE BELIEVED IN UNION WITH BRAMH. HE ENDORSED THE BRAHM - BRAHMACARYA, BRAHMA-KSHETRA, BRAHMA-VIHARA, BRAHMAYANA.

I'M NOT SAYING THE BUDDHISM PRACTICED BY THE EAST ASIANS IS HINDU BUT THE ORIGINAL BUDDHISM WAS HINDU.

atanu
27 February 2009, 11:46 PM
Yes not all Indian sects are Hindu HOWEVER THE BUDDHA HIMSELF WAS A HINDU AS HE BELIEVED IN UNION WITH BRAMH.

Namaste Directives,

I think as Srivijaya that Buddha did not believe or teach of union with Brahm.

I am sure that Buddha taught, silently and with words, to reveal the swarupa. One does not unite with swarupa but one strips all rupa, to let the swarupa be. I am sure that Swarupa and Brahman are not two.

Swarupa does not come and descend but Soma (Lord) only flows and assumes swarupa. I believe of Vaisnava teaching that Buddha is Vishnu -- the all pervading, not fragmented in objects. And ironically,this is the teaching of Gaudapada -- a vedantist.

Om Namah Shivaya

shian
28 February 2009, 12:08 AM
the all problem is caused by miss conceptthings

we cant know Buddha only from Theravada's philosophy, we also need to learn Mahayana and Vajrayana philosophy

about Anattman or Anatta and about Hindu Atman etc... all of problem is people only like to debating the words.

I know Hindu sect who have doctrine also like Buddhism Anatta, and one must know many sect in Hinduism or many Gurus have different ways in meditation teachings.

The all of method is from God / Universe compassion.

What the benefit of debating my philosopy are more high rather than your philosopy or etc...?
ok, even my philosopy is higer than yours, are in my daily live what i do is sure higer than yours do in live?

Who can claim every person can be good after join in XXX religion or XXX sect ??? who can claim this ??? if one cannot claim this , so why peoples very like to said my religion or XXX religion is higer ??? if true is higer, so what the real benefit for us ?

do we change livestyle ?
do we become good ?
or healther?
or wealth ?
or what ?

DHARMA is about mind

BUDDHA is about mind
HINDU is about mind

srivijaya
28 February 2009, 09:33 AM
What the benefit of debating my philosopy are more high rather than your philosopy or etc...?

Hi shian,
I agree with this sentiment. All too often there are people who use valuable religious instructions as a basis for orthodoxy and arrogance. I guess it's the human condition. We all think in terms of "better" or "worse" and, of course, like to see ourselves as the "better".

My concern is less about how one labels things and more about the direct teachings one finds within the meditative traditions of Hinduism and Buddhism. The 'ultimate' is beyond any words or concepts we can employ to describe it (although we try). A great Buddhist sage once said that as we struggle to define it, our very words are lies.

That is what makes the contrast of the two traditions extremely valuable. If we have one, it's like having a telescope - we can see far. Having both is like binoculars - we see far in 20/20 vision.

Blurring the two into some kind of hybrid does a disservice to the traditions and the seeker. Why not learn from both?

Namaste

TatTvamAsi
02 March 2009, 12:23 AM
Except it isn't the Hindus who claim their philosophy is "higher" than the Buddhists! It is the exact opposite! Most Buddhists are vehemently anti-Hindu and incessantly point out the apparent differences as if the latter is greater than the former. Buddhism is certainly NOT greater than Hinduism. It is repackaged Hinduism for East Asians. That is all.

srivijaya
02 March 2009, 03:01 AM
Except it isn't the Hindus who claim their philosophy is "higher" than the Buddhists!
Unfortunately there will always be people willing to dismiss that which they do not understand with glib remarks and uninformed prejudice.


It is the exact opposite! Most Buddhists are vehemently anti-Hindu and incessantly point out the apparent differences as if the latter is greater than the former.
See my comments above.


Buddhism is certainly NOT greater than Hinduism.
Indeed.


It is repackaged Hinduism for East Asians. That is all.
See my comments above.

Pretnath
05 March 2009, 10:44 AM
Namaste all, :grouphug:

And thanks for Saideo G for right information.

I may say that Budhdha was called Kashatriya by encient budhdhists scholars themselves

shian
06 March 2009, 12:53 AM
yes i know some Buddhist talk about Buddhism is higer than Hinduism

so many people talk about higer and lower

mine is higer , yours is lower
your is higer , mine is lower

what is the higer ?
what is lower ?

this is make religion war

even the religion is higer , are the religion have benefit for your live and mind ?

i saw, when someone said his/her religion is higer, it is not said about the teaching of religion, but this is in the deep concousioness of people who said "I am is higer !"

yes, not for the religion, but only for ego.

so my point of view of religion is "Benefit for mind"
developing mind

fell our mind, like space ? or like small box ?
self mastery or just slave ?

if the religion way is not developing my mind, i think it just wasting my live time. And make people only like animal who is slave of ego

even **** (sorry) can become so dirty for some beings
but **** can become so benefit for some beings

so what is Dharma ???

Pretnath
06 March 2009, 02:59 AM
What?:mad:
Budhdhist belive they are higher?
or lower? :p
For Reservation:cool1:

shian
06 March 2009, 03:54 AM
What?:mad:
Budhdhist belive they are higher?
or lower? :p
For Reservation:cool1:

no higer no lower

Buddhism is Dharma, so is not about higer and lower, BUddhism only about practice, pure body, speech, and mind

if not pure body, speech and mind, thats just only worldly things

Lord Buddha teach us to do something benefit to pure our mind, speech and body (Vissudhi Kaya, Vak, and citta) and dont wasting time.

Buddhism just like Hinduism, so many teachings and sadhana , but that only for cure many mind, but if no any mind so can we talk about any Dharmas?

the statment of i am higgest than you our you higest than iam is only about what way you do in daily live ?
if in daily live i cant puriffied my kaya vak and citta, so iam is lower than you my brothers...^_^...

when i namaskar to Buddha i see my nature , that is i subjugating my ego and purified my Triguhya
when i namaskar to Shiva i see my nature , that is i subjugating my ego and purified my Triguhya

the other motivation i really dont know, oh you is my compassionate Baghavan lila to know who is you in that form.

srivijaya
06 March 2009, 07:45 AM
The question we must never fail to ask is this. When somebody tells you that their way is better than yours, or "our" way is better than theirs, why are they doing so?

What are they getting out of it?

I have found that there can be a variety of reasons, none of which are good.

They start with plain old bigotry and ignorance, usually as a result of some kind of personal insecurity. Progress through to animosity and hatred and in some nations even carry political and social consequences which can result in violence and murder, where a mob is incited to fulfill the evil agenda of a scoundrel.

No truly spiritual founder of any faith has ever condoned this kind of thing.

Namaste

shian
06 March 2009, 11:56 AM
The question we must never fail to ask is this. When somebody tells you that their way is better than yours, or "our" way is better than theirs, why are they doing so?

What are they getting out of it?



but...
sometimes person cannot developing self and purifying mind in XXX religion or philosopy or way. (see this is daily live, do observation )
this is not the problem of the concept of religion.
But its because everyone have different nidana .
(example : Father is have good reason to teach son, He ask son : "Please you must sleep before 09pm." Son said "Okay !" (but when father go out, son playing a playstation in room) ; And in 2nd day, Mother ask him to sleep : "Please you must sleep before 09 pm" ; Son said : "Yes mom, thank you." (and the son go sleep)

in some case , some people is cannot leave bad habbit (cannot control emotion) when stay hold XXX teaching. But when he/she leave XXX teaching and learn others, he/she can leave bad habbit.

so why some Saint do debating some bad habbit people from others religion \9or same religion but different sect) and convert he/she to Saint's religion? (this is happened in Hinduism and Buddhism) and after that the person become pure and good in kaya, vak and citta.

In this universe anything can happened.

who can guarantee our releigion or sect is must good for others ?
who can guarantee if everyone take diksa or abhiseka o sarana become our Guru's students must be good?
what about us in our sect or religion ?? which things are good?
if we claim we is become good, but what happened with our Dharma brothers and sisters ??

so i tell my self, why i take refuge in this religion or sect ? everyone need what from Religion teaching ???

when we find the answer, we will throw the rubbish.

If not, we will same with when we not know the religion. Or... our live will become wasting time and damaged after receive our religion.

srivijaya
07 March 2009, 06:06 AM
Indeed, there are those who wish to help others and provide instruction - motivated by compassion.
These people are usually kind and sensitive and are careful in how they present teachings.

You can always tell the difference between such people and those who act otherwise.

TatTvamAsi
08 March 2009, 01:44 AM
Unfortunately there will always be people willing to dismiss that which they do not understand with glib remarks and uninformed prejudice.

If this is in anyway sarcastic and a snide remark towards me, I resent that. The point I was making was indeed true as I've experienced it first hand.

srivijaya
09 March 2009, 12:04 PM
The point I was making was indeed true as I've experienced it first hand.

Perhaps you would take the opportunity to share this experience with us?

TatTvamAsi
12 March 2009, 12:16 AM
Perhaps you would take the opportunity to share this experience with us?

Since you care so much, here it is:

I took a class on Zen Buddhism when I was an undergraduate and the teacher was an ardent Buddhist, a westerner (untouchable), however.

Since I am a Hindu, especially one who is part of the Advaita Vedanta darshana, I wanted to discuss the similarities/differences between Hinduism & Buddhism.

This teacher was very accomodating at first and we had several long conversations about the influence of Buddhism on the West specifically. Then, when I started to steer the conversations toward the similarities between the two 'religions', the teacher took umbrage and became very rude. Although I mentioned that minor differences, mostly arising from interpretations of the same word or passage, do occur, the teacher was very particular in insisting that Buddhism is an original faith/religion and it cannot be compared with Hinduism on even terms. This teacher even had the audacity to state that the fact that Buddha was born in India through chance! HAH! And, the lineage of previous Buddhas had preserved their so-called knowledge and this Shakyamuni (Siddhartha Gauthama) was the next Buddha to revive this ancient knowledge! To add insult to injury, the teacher stated that much of Hindu philosophy, especially that of the Upanishads, came much later than Buddhism and in fact influenced it (Upanishads) greatly!

This conversation went south rather quickly as I didn't sit there taking this bilge as sacrosanct so I told this teacher that the assumptions are grossly erroneous and Hinduism, or Sanatana Dharma, has influenced every religion or philosophy. This is not an opinion as the links can be clearly seen due to the flow of events in modern history (3000 BCE and later).

Since you're such an expert on Buddhism, why don't you discuss the actual philosophical differences between Hinduism & Buddhism?

My main point is that there is NOTHING original in Buddhism that is not already found within one of the schools of thought in Hinduism; be it Samkhya, Yoga, Vedanta etc. This is why I stated that Buddhism is repackaged Hinduism for the Far East.

You also have to admit that Buddhism, as when Buddha 'taught' it, is FAR different from what it is today! The same thing can be said about Hinduism and that's okay, however, the kernel of the philosophy is intact in the Vedas.

Enumerate the differences between the two 'religions' that really differentiates Buddhism from Hinduism.

devotee
12 March 2009, 11:45 PM
Although I mentioned that minor differences, mostly arising from interpretations of the same word or passage, do occur, the teacher was very particular in insisting that Buddhism is an original faith/religion and it cannot be compared with Hinduism on even terms. This teacher even had the audacity to state that the fact that Buddha was born in India through chance! HAH! And, the lineage of previous Buddhas had preserved their so-called knowledge and this Shakyamuni (Siddhartha Gauthama) was the next Buddha to revive this ancient knowledge! To add insult to injury, the teacher stated that much of Hindu philosophy, especially that of the Upanishads, came much later than Buddhism and in fact influenced it (Upanishads) greatly!


Namaste TTA,

It is unfortunate that those who call themselves "teachers" carry so much bias !

I am not an expert but yet I can claim to have studied Buddha & Buddhism to a good extent. I wonder, "Did Buddha, who was a Hindu by birth, ever claim that he was not a Hindu ?". I don't remember any instance when Lord Buddha proclaimed himself to be a Non-Hindu. Please correct me if I am wrong. There are many rituals in Sanatan Dharma which are different from many rituals in Buddhism. But Sanatan Dharma is not like other religions. If other religions are rivers, I would say that Sanatan Dharma is a Sea. Different sects of Sanatan Dharma follow different rituals but still they are part of the great Sanatan Dharma. A current coming out of the Ganges may be known by another name & may have a separate identity as a river but is it completely different from what the Ganges is ?

If a Buddhist or a Hindu says that Buddhism is entirely different from Sanatan Dharma, it only show his ignorance. That shows their lack of understanding of what spirituality is. One who understands the spirituality doesn't go after literal meaning of words & is never after finding differences ... he sees one-ness everywhere.

Whether Vedanta philosophy affected Buddhism or Buddhism affected Vedanta philosophy ? But wait, I think we are missing one very important another philosophy here - Jainism. Why don't we say that Jainism affected both Vedanta & Buddhism or Buddhism affected both Vedanta & Jainism or Vedanta affeceted both Buddhism & Jainism ? Was Lord Mahaveer any less than Lord Buddha ? Those who have a fair knowledge of Jainism & Buddhism must agree that there is a lot of similarity between Jainism & Buddhism. They also have found similar lineage to Mahaveer & have declared that Mahaveer was only the thirteenth Tirthankar & Jainism is as ancient as Sanatan Dharma ! ( Now even Muslims have started asserting that Islam is the "oldest" religion !!)

The truth is not known what affected whom & it can never be known for certainty. In fact, a great Buddhism scholar admitted at one place that Buddhism, especially the Mahayan Buddhism" owe a great deal to Vedanta & not the other way round. I don't say whether he is right or wrong. I can only say here that as per history, all the "three" (if we choose them to be called "three") have same time period when these philosophies emerged. And mind it, they were not only Mahaveer & Buddha but many saints who found same Truth at that time. Others didn't form separate sects & contributed to Vedanta but followers of Mahaveer & Buddha decided to call themselves different.

The compulsion of maintaining a separate religious identity at all costs has its origin in Ahamkaar. If "I" is not "separate" from others ... "I" cannot survive ... the survival instict is so strong that "I" is ready to destroy anything which threatens its separate identity. That is Maya !... or shall we call it Samsaara ?

OM

satay
17 March 2009, 02:33 AM
Admin Note

Namaskar,
The rest of the posts of this thread have been moved to the following thread http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=26988#post26988

Thanks,

Anicca
03 July 2009, 10:44 AM
I am not an expert but yet I can claim to have studied Buddha & Buddhism to a good extent. I wonder, "Did Buddha, who was a Hindu by birth, ever claim that he was not a Hindu ?". I don't remember any instance when Lord Buddha proclaimed himself to be a Non-Hindu. Please correct me if I am wrong.


The Buddha wasnt part of the Brahmin religion or the caste system. The Brahmin religion didnt reach as far as the Buddhas homeland so he wasnt brought up with the vedas. We dont really know the religion of his family and people but we do know that he approached brahminism as an outsider and onlooker

As for the question if he ever claimed not to be a hindu, Buddha never claimed to be anything since Buddha is beyond identification of any kind

for example he was onced asked if he was a deva, a yakkha or a human to which he replied no to all of them

He did however criticise some of the Brahmin beliefs

Anicca
03 July 2009, 10:47 AM
My main point is that there is NOTHING original in Buddhism that is not already found within one of the schools of thought in Hinduism; be it Samkhya, Yoga, Vedanta etc. This is why I stated that Buddhism is repackaged Hinduism for the Far East.


Dependent Origination

Anatta

Sati

atanu
03 July 2009, 09:37 PM
Dependent Origination

Anatta

Sati

Namaste Anicca,

Shri Ramana teaches a form of enquiry/meditation called "Who Am I?". Some of his western followers and also some of his Indian followers claim that Ramana discovered "Who Am I?". I am sure Ramana would have felt very uncomfortable with such assertions.

When one knows, one knows that "Who Am I?" enquiry is enshrined in Rig Veda (as Prajapati's question to Indra), in Aitereya Upanishad, and in Yoga Vashista.

Similar is the stance of too emotional followers of Christ and Krishna -- who forget and/or rubbish the nameless eternal TRUTH, and yet place Christ/Krishna on an eternal pedestal, as persons. It is foolishness.

Dependent origination, Mindfullness, and anatta are known in Hinduism. They are mere names.

But there is no doubt that Buddha re-emphasized the impossibilty of a permanent ego (i), which transmigrates eternally from body to body, much to the chagrin of haughty dualist Brahmins of his time. All gurus do so to more or less extent from time to time, to destroy and remove the ignorance of I-Me-Mine, the cause of Dukkha.

-----------------------------

The irony of carving out anatta/sati/dependent origination as a new knowledge and bounding it to a time or a person itself makes the so-called new knowledge 'impermanent', anatta, and dependent. What irony.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
03 July 2009, 10:23 PM
I agree with anicca, to the extent that an assertion "I am Brahman" or "I am Shiva", without knowing Shiva/Brahman can be permanent identification with Ego and a barrier to Mukti-Nirvana.

The knowledge that Shiva is full without division and thus nameless and devoid of "I" must precede Shivoham. And that the "I" -- the sattwa mind as fullness arises in the "I less", must be integrated by Anicca in his understanding.

I suggest, Aniccha to also study Nasadiya Sukta, to see the connection between the "I less" and the full "I"; the connection between a 'neither a being nor a non being' to a 'being and a non-being'. In our own deep sleep we are the former and in our waking we are the latter.

What wonder.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
03 July 2009, 10:55 PM
It may not be a coincidence.

Yesterday, in work place, a colleague informed me of passing away of his mother. In the course of talks, it came up from me that no one dies.

He however did not agree fully. He said "Only a rare one truly dies. Most of us do not die and attain lesser death again and again. Probably, the last one to attain Maha Mrityu (the great death) was Gautama".


Namah. Gautama attained Maha Mrityu (anhillation of ego I) to become Buddha -- Buddhi residing in All.

Prostrations to Buddha. Om Namah Shivaya

devotee
03 July 2009, 11:07 PM
Namaste Anicca,


The Buddha wasnt part of the Brahmin religion or the caste system. The Brahmin religion didnt reach as far as the Buddhas homeland so he wasnt brought up with the vedas. We dont really know the religion of his family and people but we do know that he approached brahminism as an outsider and onlooker

As for the question if he ever claimed not to be a hindu, Buddha never claimed to be anything

for example he was onced asked if he was a deva, a yakkha or a human to which he replied no to all of them

He did however criticise some of the Brahmin beliefs

I have read some of your posts & I think you have come with a fixed idea that Buddhism is something different from Sanatan Dharma. I am not going to argue with you on this issue as it hardly matters what idea you tend to hold. If you feel better to find the differences, it is OK for me. However, don't you think, without knowing the Advait Vedanta fully & correctly, you are jumping to conclusions a little too early ? As regarding Buddha negating some of the Brahmin's beliefs ... there are many Hindu saints who have criticised some of the brahiminical beliefs ... did they become non-hindu by doing this ? Hinduism allows you to have your own opinion ... that is why there are many paths & many sects within Sanatan Dharma.

.... And, please correct your knowledge about life-history about Lord Buddha. Lord Buddha was a Kshatriya i.e. a Hindu by birth born in Lumbini and raised in Kapilvastu. He was known as Siddhartha Gotam in his childhood. His father's name was Suddhodhan & Wife's name Yashodhara. Do you know that these all are Hindu Names ? He was born nearly in 500 BC. Can you find out any other religion prevailing that time where (now Nepal) he was born ? Do you know that Siddhartha (Buddha) was not alone when he went to attain "knowledge" ? They were five of them looking for enlightenment. Who were they & what was their religion ?

"Buddha never claimed to be anything since Buddha is beyond identification of any kind" ? ---> Do you think that Buddha was born as Buddha ? He lived like an ordinary prince for many (29) years (got married & also had a son named "Rahul") before setting out to find the Truth.

I think you should read about Buddha a little more.

OM

Anicca
04 July 2009, 12:42 PM
Namaste



I have read some of your posts & I think you have come with a fixed idea that Buddhism is something different from Sanatan Dharma. I am not going to argue with you on this issue as it hardly matters what idea you tend to hold. If you feel better to find the differences, it is OK for me

I have no problem with showing what is shared between the two, however from the knowledge of my own religion and my (limited) knowledge of Sanatana Dharma, the core of the two are different and indeed from the outset they are different

"There is Atman/Brahman"

"There is Dukkha"

to me it seems only some of the practice is the same but the start and end goal are different


.... And, please correct your knowledge about life-history about Lord Buddha. Lord Buddha was a Kshatriya i.e. a Hindu by birth born in Lumbini and raised in Kapilvastu. He was known as Siddhartha Gotam in his childhood. His father's name was Suddhodhan & Wife's name Yashodhara. Do you know that these all are Hindu Names?

Indeed they are but that doesnt prove much


He was born nearly in 500 BC. Can you find out any other religion prevailing that time where (now Nepal) he was born?

The Buddhas birth place is quite far from anywhere mentioned in the brahmins texts which lends support to the view that the brahmins and the vedas didnt have a strong presence in the buddhas homeland. From what we know of his homeland it didnt seem to have a brahmin caste system in place either

Also, as Scholar Richard Gombrich points out, the Brahmin society was exogamous but the buddhas people married their cross cousins

Generally though i suppose it comes down to how you define hindu. To me a hindu is a person who accepts the teachings and insights of the vedas and vedanta, this is why i dont think the Buddha was a hindu since he didnt adhere to these texts and traditions and denied their authority. Also his atheist streak seems to go against the teachings a little bit


Do you know that Siddhartha (Buddha) was not alone when he went to attain "knowledge" ? They were five of them looking for enlightenment. Who were they & what was their religion?

Of course i know that he set off with 5 companions at one point. We do know that at least one of them was a Brahmin. Its interesting to note though that the Buddha left the practice he had engaged in with them and set off on his own to find nibbana



you think that Buddha was born as Buddha?

of course not since that would contradict most, if not all, of buddhism


He lived like an ordinary prince for many (29) years (got married & also had a son named "Rahul") before setting out to find the Truth

yes


I think you should read about Buddha a little more

I have been a practicing Buddhist for some time now

Metta

atanu
04 July 2009, 01:21 PM
Namaste

----- however from the knowledge of my own religion and my (limited) knowledge of Sanatana Dharma, the core of the two are different and indeed from the outset they are different
"There is Atman/Brahman"
"There is Dukkha"
to me it seems only some of the practice is the same but the start and end goal are different


I wonder how limited knowledge allows Annicca to assert difference so emphatically. From limited knowledge, I would not say " "indeed" the two goals are different". I would rather say "I understand that the goals of Sanatana Dharma and Buddhism cannot be different, since both aim towards removal of misery".

Brihadaraynaka Upanishad states simply that Desire is Death and Death is Dukkha.

I-ii-1: There was nothing whatsoever here in the beginning. It was covered only by Death, or Hunger, for hunger is death.

There was nothing whatsoever, except IT covered by Desire=Death.

Frankly speaking Buddha did not teach anything new. But he countered successfully those who clung to eternality of individuality. He countered those who despite being Hindus opposed teachings of Vedanta.

Om Namah Shivaya

Anicca
04 July 2009, 02:30 PM
Namaste



Frankly speaking Buddha did not teach anything new.

Is paticcasamuppāda in the Vedas or Vedanta?



"And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

"Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging.

Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death.

"And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth.

"And what is becoming? These three are becomings: sensual becoming, form becoming, & formless becoming. This is called becoming.

"And what is clinging/sustenance? These four are clingings: sensuality clinging, view clinging, precept & practice clinging, and doctrine of self clinging. This is called clinging.

"And what is craving? These six are classes of craving: craving for forms, craving for sounds, craving for smells, craving for tastes, craving for tactile sensations, craving for ideas. This is called craving.

"And what is feeling? These six are classes of feeling: feeling born from eye-contact, feeling born from ear-contact, feeling born from nose-contact, feeling born from tongue-contact, feeling born from body-contact, feeling born from intellect-contact. This is called feeling.

"And what is contact? These six are classes of contact: eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, intellect-contact. This is called contact.

"And what are the six sense media? These six are sense media: the eye-medium, the ear-medium, the nose-medium, the tongue-medium, the body-medium, the intellect-medium. These are called the six sense media.

"And what is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called name-&-form.

"And what is consciousness? These six are classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness. This is called consciousness.

"And what are fabrications? These three are fabrications: bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, mental fabrications. These are called fabrications.

"And what is ignorance? Not knowing stress, not knowing the origination of stress, not knowing the cessation of stress, not knowing the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called ignorance.


"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."


It is said this teaching is unique to the Buddhas, something new that the Buddha discovered by himself (despite being a general principle that exists regardless of if people know it or not)

As i have said my knowledge of Vedanta is basic at the moment but is there a vedantic text that has this?

Metta

atanu
04 July 2009, 03:05 PM
Namaste
[/b]Is paticcasamuppāda in the Vedas or Vedanta?

It is said this teaching is unique to the Buddhas, As i have said my knowledge of Vedanta is basic at the moment but is there a vedantic text that has this?

Metta

No. Vedanta has all this. First tell me what is the exact word used for consciousness in original text to state "From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness ----". The revealed consciousness as awareness is not same as Pra Jnana (the prerequisite or precurcusor to awareness), which also is loosely spoken of as consciousness.

Why I am asking this is because of the following:

"And what is consciousness? These six are classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness. This is called consciousness.


These are not Pra-Jnana (spoken of as consciousness in Vedanta advaita parlance). These are senses organs (Indriyas) that are rooted on Mind (another sense organ called inner organ). All these five sense organs (plus mind) are rooted on Pra Jnana, which is PRE (pra) to Awareneness (Jnana). pra-Jnana is the pre-requisite for all awareness and we are pure That in our deep sleep, wherein due to absence of a second sound, second smell, second taste etc. nothing is known, except the after taste of bliss.


Om Namah Shivaya

Note: The desire for all these posts is to show that Buddha discovered something new, which was unknown to vedantins. I had guessed so. And it is puerile to imagine that these are not taught in Vedas and Vedanta.

atanu
04 July 2009, 03:21 PM
Anicca,

Please take time to study some Upanishads and then assert that what you know is not already taught in Upanishads.


And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.

This is the subject of all Upanishads and this is preliminary. Frankly speaking Buddha did not discover the truth. He reiterated it. But just as christians are zealots and think that only Christ as a person is the way, you appear to think that Buddha's re-statements are only correct pointers. And just as Christians take the Bible only literally, you are not able to coonect "Ignorance" in your above citation to "Avidya" of Vedanta. You are not able to see the identity of "Fabrications" to "Dream Samsara".

Om Namah Shivaya

Spiritualseeker
04 July 2009, 07:19 PM
Namaste,

atanu do you know of any book in english that perhaps goes over the points you made that the buddha did not bring something new? It would be a read that would be most interested in.

atanu
04 July 2009, 09:33 PM
Namaste,

atanu do you know of any book in english that perhaps goes over the points you made that the buddha did not bring something new? It would be a read that would be most interested in.

Namaste Spiritual,

No book is required. The past, present, the future and whatever is beyond these categories is contained in AUM (in three quaters of Sleep, Dream, and Waking) or OM (as single indestructible principle).

Buddha taught that life is suffering because of Craving and Ignorance. Buddha taught ways to overcome suffering. That means that Suffering is not the truth but a condition arising out of Craving and Ignorance. Death is not the Truth but Ananda is.

It does not require to read a book of purports by so-called experts but it requires a simple reading through Upanishads to find that the theme of Upanishads is "Freedom from Craving". In the beginning Brihadaraynaka Upanishad, equates Death with Desire, which is the individual soul. The limited desire gone, the limited gives way to the unlimited and the unconditioned.

---------------------------
The problem with Buddhists (and not with Buddha), exemplified by Anicca here, is that they confuse the teaching (the path, which is conditioned) with the Destination (unconditioned). There cannot be two unconditioned destinations, else doubts will never cease.

Mistaken Buddhists cannot say "I do not exist" and they cannot say "I exist".

It is sheer foolishness and an attack against Pratayaksha intelligence to say "I do not exist and thus I will never cease to Exist", which Buddhists are most fond of saying. They like to play with words because they are not able to say "I exist", because of their false interpretation of Buddha's teachings. Yet, Buddhists have to come down from their hallowed portals and acknowledge Chinese aggression and try to garner support of moneyed people to free Tibet from China. Why so?

In Hinduism is woven the first principle that the Pratayksha is a Pramana -- a proof. When you see a bird, first you have to accept that "I see a bird". What proof is required to say "I exist"? Is any proof required? But Hinduism says that "I" is not a property of the Panchakosha (the five inert-material constituents of the body). But "I" rises from existence itself, which has no parts. This wrong association of "I" is ignorance.

Hindus say "I exist. Existence is the Sat-Chit-Ananda, the form of transcendent Turya, the ungraspable Atman, which exists in time as Mahat (universal consciousness) as the fullness, as the awareness "I am" in every being, the full, not in khanda, indivisible, uncuttable, and as Ananda".

It is here and now and as it is.
--------------------------------

I do not deny that all paths are conditioned and thus have different procedures, taste, flavour and touch.

But to say that the goal -- the unconditioned, is reached by Buddhists alone is a typical HUMAN FOLLY -- very unlike Buddha.

Om Namah Shivaya

devotee
04 July 2009, 09:40 PM
Namaste Atanu,

I find very strong ingredients here for arguing without any intention to reach anywhere :

i) Without correct knowledge of the two seemingly different paths claiming with a tone of finality : "they are different at core. from the outset they are different". Does it leave any scope for any meaningful discussion ?

ii) Denying even historical fact that Siddhartha & his family members were Hindu !

iii) Claiming that Heart Sutras & Diamond Sutras (Prajnaparmita Sutra) are not original to Buddhism (just prove that Vedanta & Buddhism are different !) ... thus denying the whole of Mahayan Buddhism which produced the maximum number of enlightened beings !!

iv) Claiming that Jataka Tales are only figurative ! I don't know what is figurative in them & why Buddha felt the need to tell such figurative stories ? Let someone enlighten me on this.

v) Without knowing that "Dukkha" or pains arising out of ignorance is the reason why Brahman/Atman or Buddhahood must be known/attained ... just getting caught in words & terms used !

The only difference I find is that Buddha straight way talks about the fourth state i.e. Turiya which he named as Buddhahood. He didn't deny the other three states but kept mum on such questions asserting that these were irrelevant questions in finding the way to get liberated (from Dukkha).

The western Buddhists have a very strong sense of clinging to a separate identity at all costs. Let's allow them to enjoy that ! Why should we worry ?

OM

atanu
04 July 2009, 10:01 PM
Namaste Atanu,

The western Buddhists have a very strong sense of clinging to a separate identity at all costs. Let's allow them to enjoy that ! Why should we worry ?
OM

Ya. Its natural. In Hinduism also, the divisive sect of Hare Krishna's is supported and nurtured by new Krishna lovers -- from abroad.

The paths are all conditioned and thus have different taste, flavour, touch, etc. Those who mistakenly cling to the conditioned path, forget the unconditioned -- the goal.

Without worrying, i strive to remind "Man, the goal is same -- to uproot Dukkha, which is ignorance and craving". We fully accept what Buddha taught, since it is nature to us. What more is required?

:) :)

Spiritualseeker
04 July 2009, 10:08 PM
Namaste Spiritual,

No book is required. The past, present, the future and whatever is beyond these categories is contained in AUM (in three quaters of Sleep, Dream, and Waking) or OM (as single indestructible principle).

Buddha taught that life is suffering because of Craving and Ignorance. Buddha taught ways to overcome suffering. That means that Suffering is not the truth but a condition arising out of Craving and Ignorance. Death is not the Truth but Ananda is.

It does not require to read a book of purports by so-called experts but it requires a simple reading through Upanishads to find that the theme of Upanishads is "Freedom from Craving". In the beginning Brihadaraynaka Upanishad, equates Death with Desire, which is the individual soul. The limited desire gone, the limited gives way to the unlimited and the unconditioned.

---------------------------
The problem with Buddhists (and not with Buddha), exemplified by Anicca here, is that they confuse the teaching (the path, which is conditioned) with the Destination (unconditioned). There cannot be two unconditioned destinations, else doubts will never cease.

Mistaken Buddhists cannot say "I do not exist" and they cannot say "I exist".

It is sheer foolishness and an attack against Pratayaksha intelligence to say "I do not exist and thus I will never cease to Exist", which Buddhists are most fond of saying. They like to play with words because they are not able to say "I exist", because of their false interpretation of Buddha's teachings. Yet, Buddhists have to come down from their hallowed portals and acknowledge Chinese aggression and try to garner support of moneyed people to free Tibet from China. Why so?

In Hinduism is woven the first principle that the Pratayksha is a Pramana -- a proof. When you see a bird, first you have to accept that "I see a bird". What proof is required to say "I exist"? Is any proof required? But Hinduism says that "I" is not a property of the Panchakosha (the five inert-material constituents of the body). But "I" rises from existence itself, which has no parts. This wrong association of "I" is ignorance.

Hindus say "I exist. Existence is the Sat-Chit-Ananda, the form of transcendent Turya, the ungraspable Atman, which exists in time as Mahat (universal consciousness) as the fullness, as the awareness "I am" in every being, the full, not akhanda, indivisible, uncuttable, and as Ananda".

It is here and now and as it is.
--------------------------------

I do not deny that all paths are conditioned and thus have different procedures, taste, flavour and touch.

But to say that the goal -- the unconditioned, is reached by Buddhists alone is a typical HUMAN FOLLY -- very unlike Buddha.

Om Namah Shivaya

Namaste,

Absolutely amazing! Beautiful post. Thank you very much. I read your response just after watching the film (What the Bleep do you know) concerning quantum physics. Anyways after watching that and then reading your post its felt like a shift in consciousness.

OM Namah Sivaya

namaste

atanu
04 July 2009, 10:13 PM
Dear Devotee, Anicca, and SS,

I think the very big wastage of time happens because the basic definitions are different.

As I understand now, for Anicca, consciousness is what is known by five sense organs and the mind as the sixth. That is the revealed sensual consciousness.

We, on the other hand use consciousness to denote "Pra-Jnana", which is the pre-requisite for all sensual awareness and which is deep sleep, where ironically there is no awareness -- since the Pragnya alone is. We are talking of the revealer of consciousness.

-------------------------

If the above difference is not understood by Anicca (probably wilfully) and by Spiritual, then there is no scope of resolution. I request both of them to read Mandukya Upanishad and digest for 1 year.

No Hindu scriptures say that sense impressions have any permanence.

Om Namah Shivaya

Spiritualseeker
04 July 2009, 10:31 PM
I am ready to practice! I want to practice!

devotee
05 July 2009, 01:12 AM
Namaste Atanu,



I think the very big wastage of time happens because the basic definitions are different.

Exactly ! ... and when you fail to see beyond words/terms/differently worded definitions, the Truth is the casualty.


As I understand now, for Anicca, consciousness is what is known by five sense organs and the mind as the sixth. That is the revealed sensual consciousness.

The "five skandhas" mentioned by Buddha are actually the revealed sensual consciousness through our sense organs.


We, on the other hand use consciousness to denote "Pra-Jnana", which is the pre-requisite for all sensual awareness and which is deep sleep, where ironically there is no awareness -- since the Pragnya alone is. We are talking of the revealer of consciousness.

IMO, this is missing in Buddhism & therefore I find Buddhism not answering all questions. The question is that even though the five skandhas are empty but then how do they apparently reflect consciousness ? The theory of "dependent origination" (What acts behind the "dependent origination" ? What is the primary force ? ) doesn't actually answer it conclusively.

Actually, Buddha didn't think it was important to answer the "why" part of the great mystery. He discouraged all questions on God, SELF etc., though he never emphatically denied them.

Problem arises when we talk of "self" (known as "the sentient being" in Buddhism"), some people would confuse it with "SELF" without trying to understand the difference between the two.

Somehow, I feel that from a western mindset ( with due apology to all great saints from West to whom this certainly doesn't apply) , it is difficult to grasp the vastness of Sanatan Dharma. Where we easily see the "unity" ... they see the diversity. They fail to understand that the Truth cannot be different. If the difference is seen, then the problem is in "seeing" & the ego which wants to see differently. After all, "You see, what you want to see. You hear what you want to hear." No Hindu say that Hinduism the only way but every other religion tries to say it again & again.

OM

Anicca
05 July 2009, 08:11 AM
Namaste

To Devotee



i) Without correct knowledge of the two seemingly different paths claiming with a tone of finality : "they are different at core. from the outset they are different". Does it leave any scope for any meaningful discussion?

You seem to assuming that i know nothing of Buddhism in this post. Also even though my knowledge of Adviata Vedanta isnt complete, from the upanishads i have read and the books on Adviata Vedanta generally there is a difference


ii) Denying even historical fact that Siddhartha & his family members were Hindu!

As i said it depends on how you define Hindu


iii) Claiming that Heart Sutras & Diamond Sutras (Prajnaparmita Sutra) are not original to Buddhism (just prove that Vedanta & Buddhism are different !) ... thus denying the whole of Mahayan Buddhism which produced the maximum number of enlightened beings!!

How do you know they produce the maximum number of enlightened beings? seems like a guess to me. Also the Mahayana Sutras didnt come from the Buddha, they appear hundreds of years later after the Buddha died, contain obvious influences from Vedantic thought and contradict the original pali suttas on occasion as well. Have you actually read the Original suttas of the Buddha?


iv) Claiming that Jataka Tales are only figurative ! I don't know what is figurative in them & why Buddha felt the need to tell such figurative stories ? Let someone enlighten me on this.

some of the stories come from a later date, the earlier ones are about morality. This is why they are mostly taught to children




The only difference I find is that Buddha straight way talks about the fourth state i.e. Turiya which he named as Buddhahood. He didn't deny the other three states but kept mum on such questions asserting that these were irrelevant questions in finding the way to get liberated (from Dukkha).

He also taught that metaphysical questions and views hold people back from living the holy life and that such views of a higher self or ultimate divine spark etc are wrong views


The western Buddhists have a very strong sense of clinging to a separate identity at all costs. Let's allow them to enjoy that ! Why should we worry?

Bit judgemental isnt it. You also seem to chuck every western person into the same basket and make sweeping generalizations

Metta

Anicca
05 July 2009, 08:24 AM
Buddha taught that life is suffering because of Craving and Ignorance. Buddha taught ways to overcome suffering. That means that Suffering is not the truth but a condition arising out of Craving and Ignorance.

Slightly wrong, he didnt teach "life is suffering" he said "there is suffering". The rest is correct

"Dukkha and the quenching of dukkha, that is all that i teach"




It does not require to read a book of purports by so-called experts but it requires a simple reading through Upanishads to find that the theme of Upanishads is "Freedom from Craving". In the beginning Brihadaraynaka Upanishad, equates Death with Desire, which is the individual soul. The limited desire gone, the limited gives way to the unlimited and the unconditioned

But the difference is the concept of Atman/Brahman and Higher self etc. To Buddhism these concepts still mean one is a slave to craving


‘Sir, is there a case where one is tormented when something permanent within oneself is not found?’

‘Yes, bhikkhu, there is, ‘ answered the Buddha.

‘A man has the following view: “The universe is that Atman, I shall be that after death, permanent, abiding, ever-lasting, unchanging, and I shall exist as such for eternity”.

He hears the Tathagata or a disciple of his, preaching the doctrine aiming at the complete destruction of all speculative views … aiming at the extinction of “thirst”, aiming at detachment, cessation, Nirvana. Then that man thinks: “I will be annihilated, I will be destroyed, I will be no more.” So he mourns, worries himself, laments, weeps, beating his breast, and becomes bewildered. Thus, O bhikkhu, there is a case where one is tormented when something permanent within oneself is not found.” (M 1)

Some good points about this were raised on another forum

Those who want to find a ‘Self’ in Buddhism argue as follows: It is true that the Buddha analyses being into matter, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness, and says that none of these things is self. But he does not say that there is no self at all in man or anywhere else, apart from these aggregates.
This position is untenable for two reasons:
One is that, according to the Buddha’s teaching, a being is composed only of these Five Aggregates, and nothing more. Nowhere has he said that there was anything more than these Five Aggregates in a being.
The second reason is that the Buddha denied categorically, in unequivocal terms, in more than one place, the existence of Atman, Soul, Self, or Ego within man or without, or anywhere else in the universe. Let us take some examples.
In the Dhammapada there are three verses extremely important and essential in the Buddha’s teaching. There are nos. 5,6 and 7 of chapter XX (or verses 277, 278, 279).
The first two verses say:
‘All conditioned things are impermanent’ (Sabbe SA.MKHAARAA aniccaa), and ‘All conditioned things are dukkha’ (Sabbe SA.MKHAARAA dukkhaa).
The third verse says:
All dhammas are without self’ (Sabbe DHAMMAA anattaa).
Here it should be carefully observed that in the first two verses the word sa.mkhaaraa ‘conditioned things’ is used. But in its place in the third verse the word dhammaa is used.

Why didn’t the third verse use the work sa.mkhaaraa ‘conditioned things’ as the previous two verses, and why did it use the term dhammaa instead?
Here lies the crux of the whole matter.
The term sa.mkhaara denotes the Five Aggregates, all conditioned, interdependent, relative things and states, both physical and mental. If the third verse said: ‘All sa.mkhaaraa (conditioned things) are without self’, then one might think that, although conditioned things are without self, yet there may be a Self outside conditioned things, outside the Five Aggregates. It is in order to avoid misunderstanding that the term dhammaa is used in the third verse.

The term dhamma is much wider than sa.mkhaara. There is no term in Buddhist terminology wider than dhamma. It includes not only the conditioned things and states, but also the non-conditioned, the Absolute, Nirvaa.na. There is nothing in the universe or outside, good or bad, conditioned or non-conditioned, relative or absolute, which is not included in this term. Therefore it is quite clear that, according to this statement: ‘All dhammas are without Self’, there is no Self, no Atman, not only in the Five aggregates, but nowhere else too outside them or apart from them.

This means, according to the Theravada teaching, that there is no self either in the individual (puggala) or in the dhammas. The Mahayana Buddhist philosophy maintains exactly the same position, without the slightest difference, on this point, putting emphasis on dharma-nairaatmya as well as on pudgala-nairaatmya.

In the Alagadduupama-sutta of the Majjhima-nikaaya, addressing his disciples, the Buddha said: ‘O bhikkhus, accept a soul-theory (Attavaada) in the acceptance of which there would not arise grief, lamentation, suffering, distress and tribulation. But do you see, O bhikkhus, such a soul-theory in the acceptance of which there would not arise grief, lamentation, suffering, distress and tribulation?’
‘Certainly not, Sir.’
‘Good, O bhikkhus. I, too, O bhikkhus, do not see a soul-theory, in the acceptance of which there would not arise grief, lamentation, suffering, distress and tribulation.’

If there had been any soul-theory which the Buddha had accepted, he would certainly have explained it here, because he asked the bhikkhus to accept that soul-theory which did not produce suffering. But in the Buddha’s view, there is no such soul theory, and any soul-theory, whatever it may be, however subtle or sublime, is false and imaginary, creating all kinds of problems, producing in its train grief, lamentation, suffering, distress, tribulation and trouble.

Continuing the discourse the Buddha said in the same sutta:
‘O bhikkhus, when neither self nor anything pertaining to self can truly and really be found, this speculative view: “The universe is that Atman (Soul); I shall be that after death, permanent, abiding, ever-lasting, unchanging, and I shall exist as such for eternity” - is it not wholly and completely foolish?”
Here the Buddha explicitly states that an Atman, or Soul, or Self, is nowhere to be found in reality, and it is foolish to believe that there is such a thing.”

---------------------------

The problem with Buddhists (and not with Buddha), exemplified by Anicca here, is that they confuse the teaching (the path, which is conditioned) with the Destination (unconditioned). There cannot be two unconditioned destinations, else doubts will never cease.

The buddha taught us not to have any metaphysical views or ideas of some kind of Atman or Brahman or ultimate reality behind everything.



It is sheer foolishness and an attack against Pratayaksha intelligence to say "I do not exist and thus I will never cease to Exist", which Buddhists are most fond of saying. They like to play with words because they are not able to say "I exist", because of their false interpretation of Buddha's teachings.


The view "I have no self" or "i do not exist" is just as wrong as "I have a self" since both involve self view. Instead the proper was is "Not-self" or "void of self"



When you see a bird, first you have to accept that "I see a bird". What proof is required to say "I exist"? Is any proof required? But Hinduism says that "I" is not a property of the Panchakosha (the five inert-material constituents of the body). But "I" rises from existence itself, which has no parts. This wrong association of "I" is ignorance.

"I" see a bird is clinging to the eye


Hindus say "I exist. Existence is the Sat-Chit-Ananda, the form of transcendent Turya, the ungraspable Atman, which exists in time as Mahat (universal consciousness) as the fullness, as the awareness "I am" in every being, the full, not akhanda, indivisible, uncuttable, and as

Which to buddha is just the result of clinging. Any kind of "I" or self or sense of me or anything like that is just the result of clinging to one of more of the five khandas





I do not deny that all paths are conditioned and thus have different procedures, taste, flavour and touch.

But to say that the goal -- the unconditioned, is reached by Buddhists alone is a typical HUMAN FOLLY -- very unlike Buddha.

Other people can reach it without declaring oneself buddhist but the only way to reach nibbana, as taught by buddha, was through the noble eight fold path which doesnt contain any concept of Atman/Brahman "I" or self or me in anyway (and in fact if one engages with this then, in buddhas teaching, one cant practice the NEFP)

metta

Ekanta
05 July 2009, 09:22 AM
Nibbana Sutta: Parinibbana (1-3)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.01.irel.html

"There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of nothingness, no base consisting of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed, not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering."

"The uninclined is hard to see,
The truth is not easy to see;
Craving is penetrated by one who knows,
For one who sees there is nothing."

"There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned."

……………..

Buddhism is basically “neti-neti”, “not this-not this”. This is the PATH to arrive at THAT. THAT can never be neti-neti away because it’s THAT which says neti-neti.

There is no necessity to affirm THAT and Buddha didn’t. He concentrated on the PATH. The goal is useless to concentrate on for a seeker. It’s better to concentrate on the path.

Now, as someone said, it’s quite possible to confuse path and Goal. However then again it doesn’t really matter since… path is the important thing for a seeker.
.............

We have to remember that teachings are adapted to the seeker. Its the same with buddhism. Buddha was a practical guy :)

Anicca
05 July 2009, 11:51 AM
Namaste



Buddhism is basically “neti-neti”, “not this-not this”. This is the PATH to arrive at THAT. THAT can never be neti-neti away because it’s THAT which says neti-neti.

There is no necessity to affirm THAT and Buddha didn’t. He concentrated on the PATH. The goal is useless to concentrate on for a seeker. It’s better to concentrate on the path.


Any one who attempts to see Atman of Brahman or any kind of self or ground of being in nibbana has a wrong view in Buddhism, by saying its to arrive at THAT you assert an Atman or Brahman or higher self. Also, as my earlier post showed, nibbana is also Suññatā


It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty, lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty?" The Buddha replied, "Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty." He goes on to explain that what is meant by "the world" is the six sense media and their objects, and elsewhere says that to theorize about something beyond this realm of experience would put one to grief.

thats from wikipedia but its accurate

Yes there are similar types of language used but you cant just jump on that and say that they are the same while ignoring everything else

metta

Ekanta
05 July 2009, 12:25 PM
Namaste

Any one who attempts to see Atman of Brahman or any kind of self or ground of being in nibbana has a wrong view in Buddhism, by saying its to arrive at THAT you assert an Atman or Brahman or higher self. Also, as my earlier post showed, nibbana is also Suññatā

metta

Mind creates the world... its kind of useless to discuss anymore. Continue with your practice and good luck!

atanu
05 July 2009, 12:45 PM
Nibbana Sutta: Parinibbana (1-3)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.01.irel.html

--------------- If bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. ------
……………..

Buddhism is basically “neti-neti”, “not this-not this”. This is the PATH to arrive at THAT. THAT can never be neti-neti away because it’s THAT which says neti-neti.



Namaste,

Ya. It is simple to discern that freedom from the dukkha of conditioned existence is overcome by going unto the Unconditioned, which in one sense has no ground since it is supportless, infinite space of pure consciousness. But it is the ground for the conditioned. If this ground was unavailable for the conditioned, the mukti or gati would be meaningless.

The unconditioned, which is infite consciousness is also the Atman, since Atman is full of it and since 'Prajnanam Brahman'.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
05 July 2009, 01:57 PM
This friend is motivated to prove something but it becomes clearer with every post that he is ignorant of his own scripture or he cites partially.





Ud 1.3 PTS: Ud 2

Bodhi Sutta: Awakening (3)

translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
------------------
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:
As phenomena grow clear to the brahman — ardent, absorbed — he stands, routing the troops of Mara, like the sun that illumines the sky.

Ego self (this) perceives That. When ego self ceases on realization, Brahman (he) alone remains without distinction of This and That. He (Brahman) does not become non-existent. Turya, has no inner concsiousness or outer consciousness, neither non-consciousness.

Om Namah Shivaya

Anicca
05 July 2009, 02:09 PM
Namaste


This friend is motivated to prove something but it becomes clearer with every post that he is ignorant of his own scripture or he cites partially.

I know scripture very well and selecting a few short sutta passages that contain similar language as Vedanta and then claiming that the whole of Buddhadhamma is Vedanta because of that isnt the way to go to see if they are the same. By doing this you just ignore pretty much everything else the Buddha had to say and focus in on a few select bits of texts that seem to match your own view




Ego self (this) perceives That. When ego self ceases on realization, Brahman (he) alone remains without distinction of This and That. He (Brahman) does not become non-existent. Turya, has no inner concsiousness or outer consciousness, neither non-consciousness.

This is good Vedanta but bad buddhism

as i said earlier


Those who want to find a ‘Self’ in Buddhism argue as follows: It is true that the Buddha analyses being into matter, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness, and says that none of these things is self. But he does not say that there is no self at all in man or anywhere else, apart from these aggregates.
This position is untenable for two reasons:
One is that, according to the Buddha’s teaching, a being is composed only of these Five Aggregates, and nothing more. Nowhere has he said that there was anything more than these Five Aggregates in a being.
The second reason is that the Buddha denied categorically, in unequivocal terms, in more than one place, the existence of Atman, Soul, Self, or Ego within man or without, or anywhere else in the universe. Let us take some examples.
In the Dhammapada there are three verses extremely important and essential in the Buddha’s teaching. There are nos. 5,6 and 7 of chapter XX (or verses 277, 278, 279).
The first two verses say:
‘All conditioned things are impermanent’ (Sabbe SA.MKHAARAA aniccaa), and ‘All conditioned things are dukkha’ (Sabbe SA.MKHAARAA dukkhaa).
The third verse says:
All dhammas are without self’ (Sabbe DHAMMAA anattaa).
Here it should be carefully observed that in the first two verses the word sa.mkhaaraa ‘conditioned things’ is used. But in its place in the third verse the word dhammaa is used.

Why didn’t the third verse use the work sa.mkhaaraa ‘conditioned things’ as the previous two verses, and why did it use the term dhammaa instead?
Here lies the crux of the whole matter.
The term sa.mkhaara denotes the Five Aggregates, all conditioned, interdependent, relative things and states, both physical and mental. If the third verse said: ‘All sa.mkhaaraa (conditioned things) are without self’, then one might think that, although conditioned things are without self, yet there may be a Self outside conditioned things, outside the Five Aggregates. It is in order to avoid misunderstanding that the term dhammaa is used in the third verse.

The term dhamma is much wider than sa.mkhaara. There is no term in Buddhist terminology wider than dhamma. It includes not only the conditioned things and states, but also the non-conditioned, the Absolute, Nirvaa.na. There is nothing in the universe or outside, good or bad, conditioned or non-conditioned, relative or absolute, which is not included in this term. Therefore it is quite clear that, according to this statement: ‘All dhammas are without Self’, there is no Self, no Atman, not only in the Five aggregates, but nowhere else too outside them or apart from them.

This means, according to the Theravada teaching, that there is no self either in the individual (puggala) or in the dhammas. The Mahayana Buddhist philosophy maintains exactly the same position, without the slightest difference, on this point, putting emphasis on dharma-nairaatmya as well as on pudgala-nairaatmya.

In the Alagadduupama-sutta of the Majjhima-nikaaya, addressing his disciples, the Buddha said: ‘O bhikkhus, accept a soul-theory (Attavaada) in the acceptance of which there would not arise grief, lamentation, suffering, distress and tribulation. But do you see, O bhikkhus, such a soul-theory in the acceptance of which there would not arise grief, lamentation, suffering, distress and tribulation?’
‘Certainly not, Sir.’
‘Good, O bhikkhus. I, too, O bhikkhus, do not see a soul-theory, in the acceptance of which there would not arise grief, lamentation, suffering, distress and tribulation.’

If there had been any soul-theory which the Buddha had accepted, he would certainly have explained it here, because he asked the bhikkhus to accept that soul-theory which did not produce suffering. But in the Buddha’s view, there is no such soul theory, and any soul-theory, whatever it may be, however subtle or sublime, is false and imaginary, creating all kinds of problems, producing in its train grief, lamentation, suffering, distress, tribulation and trouble.

Continuing the discourse the Buddha said in the same sutta:
‘O bhikkhus, when neither self nor anything pertaining to self can truly and really be found, this speculative view: “The universe is that Atman (Soul); I shall be that after death, permanent, abiding, ever-lasting, unchanging, and I shall exist as such for eternity” - is it not wholly and completely foolish?”
Here the Buddha explicitly states that an Atman, or Soul, or Self, is nowhere to be found in reality, and it is foolish to believe that there is such a thing.”

There is much more than that as well, you cant just ignore all of that and just hold up a few short passages that have similar lines and lay claim that Buddhadhamma is Vedanta based on that while willfully ignoring the bulk of the teachings, to do so is, in my opinion, only deception

atanu
05 July 2009, 08:06 PM
Namaste
I know scripture very well

Anicca,

You think so.

I think that you understand neither Buddhism nor Sanatana Dharma. The Self is not the being. Self is infinite consciousness which is neither a being nor a non being but there is a mysterious link with with the being (indicated to be through desire).

Budhha taught nothing new. If he did so, he would be teaching falsehood. Buddha opposed pancha kosha as the self and He did not oppose infinite conciousness (shunyata), which is another name of Self. The consciousness which you said has dependent origination was shown to be the sensual awareness of mind and five indriyas and not the Pragnya.

You do not know the Pragnya. Neither you acknowledge anything on being told several times. To you words are important and not the meaning of the passages. Clearly there remains the awakened -- the word "Brahman" in the passage is secondary.

Ud 1.3 PTS: Ud 2

Bodhi Sutta: Awakening (3)

translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
------------------
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:
As phenomena grow clear to the brahman — ardent, absorbed — he stands, routing the troops of Mara, like the sun that illumines the sky.
---------------

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
05 July 2009, 08:19 PM
Continuing the discourse the Buddha said in the same sutta:
‘O bhikkhus, when neither self nor anything pertaining to self can truly and really be found, this speculative view: “The universe is that Atman (Soul); I shall be that after death, permanent, abiding, ever-lasting, unchanging, and I shall exist as such for eternity” - is it not wholly and completely foolish?”

Yes. It is complete foolishness.

To leave the moment of "I am", if an ego ascertains "I will be this and that eternally", it is an error, an imagination, since the moment is true, whereas the TIME (kAla) is created.

Had you understood, you would have awakened. You can find out whether you exist at the moment or are you only the heaps?

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
05 July 2009, 11:40 PM
Mysterious is the working of the infinite consciousness. This happened today:

THE SPEAKING TREE

The Purpose, Utility And Futility Of Identity

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar


The universe is a multilayered existence; there are many levels: there are the molecular, the atomic and the subatomic levels. So also the human consciousness: though one, yet, it is many.

An eight-year-old child in India was always given the Brahma Gyan first, before any other knowledge. The first upadesha or formal advice given during the Upanayanam or holy thread ceremony is called Brahmopadesha, where the highest identity of oneself is revealed as a secret. In this ceremony, the guru, father and mother whisper in the ear of the child: “You are THAT!” And then all the varnashrama dharmas, or lesser identities are taught and the duties are promulgated.

The lesser identity is essential to perform limited duties that include those as student, son or daughter, husband or wife, father or mother, professional or citizen. Lesser identities strengthen the ‘karta’ or doer and enable him to complete the karma. Another utility of lesser identity is to move one from tamoguna to rajoguna. Krishna reminds Arjuna of his being a warrior and his warrior dharma, again and again after educating him in the Sankhya yoga, the highest knowledge of atma-gyan. He tells him about his kshatriya dharma and what people will say if he doesn’t do his duty, something that is irrelevant to a Brahmagyani.

So, to come out of tamoguna, rajoguna is essential. And while moving from rajoguna to satoguna, all identities get dropped. That’s why Buddha said the world is all sorrow and misery; so take sanyas. His teachings were simple, plain, convincing, logical and so could be understood far and wide, whereas Krishna’s are complicated, confusing and contradictory and so they remained confined to India. Krishna also says “Anityam Asukham Loka”. The universe is anitya, asukha (transient, devoid of happiness) – he doesn’t say it is dukham – and further he says “Imam Prapya” --Achieving this, “Bhajaswamam” – merge into Me. (Gita, Ch. 9)

In the Vedantic tradition, there are two paths: One is that of negation “neti neti”, which the Buddhists have adopted. The other is simply moving beyond negation. That is the path of Taitriya Upanishads, also called the varunya. The varun was given introduction … food is Brahmn, then told Prana Brahmn, without negating the previous. Then as the higher planes of manobrahma, vigyan-brahma and anandam-brahma are introduced, the previous identities are naturally superseded; no negation is used in this. You don’t need to negate being a householder to be a good citizen of your country and you don’t need to negate being a good citizen in order to be a world citizen; they all fall in place. The lower identities simply get absorbed and enriched as well. This is incomprehensible for a linear-thinking Occident.

The dharmashastras and Brahmagyanis have all along been guiding when there is a conflict between the dharmas of different identities like between a grihastha-dharma or that of a householder and raja-dharma or that of a citizen. While identities are useful for performing the karmas, their futility is obvious in the field of knowledge or gyana. Like the membrane around the seed, which stays till the seed sprouts, identity will remain till the Brahmagyan is attained – they help one to complete their karmas.

In the Gita, Krishna cleverly adopts both these methods, to bring both vairagya (to get out of sorrow) and to perform the duty, which Arjuna had to. “Na budhibhedam … karma sanghinam.”

Anicca
07 July 2009, 06:22 AM
Greetings

Sorry for late reply


I think that you understand neither Buddhism nor Sanatana Dharma. The Self is not the being. Self is infinite consciousness which is neither a being nor a non being but there is a mysterious link with with the being (indicated to be through desire).

The points i have put forward are in line with Buddhadhamma as taught by Theravada, no Theravadin will accept that Buddha taught a union with Brahman/Atman or taught about an ultimate ground of being etc

As i have said, in buddhadhamma if you equate nibbana with self then you are prevented from reaching nibbana

As for the self as infinite consciousness, this again goes against Buddhadhamma

This sutta is quite good, it shows how the Buddha taught that one shouldnt have metaphysical views about Atman or no Atman, eternal, non-eternal etc etc

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/102-pancattaya-e.htm

and also this sutta, i couldnt find an online copy but this article from wikipedia is accurate and true to the sutta




Beginning

The sutta starts with the Buddha travelling with his disciples between the cities of Rajagaha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajagaha) and Nalanda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalanda). At the same time, a brahmin called Suppiya, with his young apprentice, Brahmadatta, were also travelling in the same direction, tailing the convoy of the sangha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sangha). Suppiya uttered some insulting words about the Buddha, his teachings, and his disciples. However, Brahmadatta praised and revered the Buddha, Dhamma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhamma), and Sangha. The two continued debating until they arrived at the King's resting place in Ambalatthika.

Hearing this conversation, some monks discussed the nature of conflicting students and teachers the next morning. They wondered how marvellous it was that the Buddha knew the various kinds of views to be found in people. The Buddha arrived and asked what they were discussing. As a monk finished telling him, the Buddha responded, "Monks, if anyone spoke words which insult me, the Dhamma, and the Sangha, don't let this thing prompt you to hate, take revenge, and turn against them. If, because of this, you become angry or annoyed, then it will become an obstacle in your quest to liberate yourself, and cause you upset. However, if someone speaks insulting or false accusations about me, the Dhamma, and the Sangha, then you should state which is wrong and point out the mistake by explaining that because of this proof and that, then that is not true, or it is not like that, that kind of thing is not us, or occurring in us.".

"But if someone praises me, the Dhamma, or the Sangha; don't let this thing make you feel proud, joyful, and happy. If you act like that, then it will become an obstacle in your efforts to achieve your own final liberation. If someone speaks like that, you should state which is right and show the fact by saying, 'Based upon this and that fact, it is indeed so; that thing does indeed exist in us, or is true about us.' Even only due to small matters, worthless, or even due to the Precepts (Sila (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sila))."

Precepts

In the first part, the Buddha elaborates precepts that made people praise him or the Sangha as worthy of reverence. The list of the Buddha's higher precepts are categorized as follows:

Cula Sila


1. Abstain from taking another creature's life, weapons, violence.
2. Abstain from taking things which were not given.
3. Live soberly, piously, and honestly.
4. Abstain from sexual relationships.
5. Abstain from lying.
6. Speak only the truth, believeable and reliable, and never contradict his own words.
7. Abstain from slander.
8. Promote, speak, and love union (harmony) and not division (conflict).
9. Abstain from rough, insulting words.
10. Speaking polite, likeable, exact, well chosen words that will make people's hearts joyful, not wasting time in idle gossip.
11. Discuss the Dhamma and the Vinaya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinaya) at the right time.
12. Discuss in clear, detailed, and understandable words.
Majjhima Sila


13. Abstain from hurting seeds, plants, roots, branches, cheating, trading, slavery, forgery, bribery, and criminal conduct.
14. Abstain from hoarding food, drink, clothes (robes), bedding, perfume, spices, and other tools.
15. Taking food once a day.
16. Abstain from watching shows (dances, exhibitions, matches, music performances, parades, etc).
17. Abstain from playing games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha_games_list) (card games, board games, dice games, games of chance, racing games, acrobatics, word games, etc).
18. Abstain from using luxurious furniture and bedding.
19. Abstain from using cosmetics, make-up, and fancy or luxurious clothes (robes).
20. Abstain from discussing people, politicians, criminals, terrors, food and beverages, clothing, places, families, cities, wars and battles, heroes, ghosts, street rumors, speculation on how the world is created, or about existence and non-existence.
21. Abstain from accusing, denying, goading or challenging (e.g., 'I practised the Dhamma devoutly, but you don't!' or 'What you say is old rubbish!' or 'You are wrong!' or 'Free yourself if you can!').
22. Abstain from being the courier or messenger of politicians or higher administrations.
23. Abstain from deceiving lay people by uttering spells to exorcise demons or make someone's fortune, acting like a holy person by reciting mantras.
Maha Sila


24. Abstain from earning money from fortune-telling, divination, clairvoyance, exorcism, conjuring, magic tricks, spells, making false medicine and herbs, healing people through magic, leading/conducting ceremonies in order to gain something (wealth, fertility, etc).

(the following section deals with all metaphysical views)
Eighteen beliefs about the past

In the second part, the Buddha explains the major beliefs of ascetics in India. He begins by saying, "Monks, there are other things which are very deep (profound), very hard to understand, very difficult to perceive, so holy and sacred, unreached by means of mind, so subtle, that the are only to be understood and experienced by the wise. These things were perceived clearly, seen clearly and were disgarded by the Tathagata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tathagata), and by this act based on the truth that people praise and revered Tathagatha. What are those things?"

Eternalistic belief

Eternalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism) is described in the sutta as the belief which is based upon the past, and holds that the universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe) (loka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loka)) and the soul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul) or self (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atman_(Buddhism)) (attha) are eternal as a 'rock mountain or strong-fastened pole'. The world doesn't create new souls and therefore, the souls are living in an eternal cycle of death and rebirth, differing only in name, location, and time. These kind of beliefs have four origins:

1. Ascetics and brahmins who have reached a high level of meditation; due to this achievement, they were able to remember from one to tens of thousands of their past lives.
2. Ascetics and brahmins who have reached the spiritual achievements which provided them access to memories of one to ten iterations of the Earth's formation, evolution, and destruction.
3. Ascetics and brahmins who have managed to recall the Earth's evolutionary process from ten to forty times.The abovementioned ascetics and brahmins recalled how they had name, family, heirs, food, joy and sadness, then death and rebirth in their past lives. Based on their experience, they concluded that the universe and the soul must be eternal.

4. Ascetics and brahmins who use logic and inference and come to the conclusion that the soul and universe are eternal.The Buddha said that there are 18 types of eternalistic belief, all based on one of these four origins. All of the followers of these beliefs defended and clung to their faith and did not give credence to other faiths.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahmajala_Sutta_(Theravada)&action=edit&section=8)] Semi-eternalistic belief

The semi-eternalistic belief is described as belief that is based on the past, where the dualistic notion is asserted that there are things which are eternal and things which are not eternal. There are four ways these belief come to be faith, where one believer never acknowledged the other beliefs:

The Buddha told a story about a time when the Earth was not yet formed. The sentient beings in this time normally lived in the realm of Abhassara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology#.C4.80bh.C4.81svara_worlds), in radiant light and nourished by celestial joy. Then came a time when the Earth was in the process of forming yet still unhabitable. One of these beings in the Abhassara realm died (due to the exhaustion of his karma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma)) and was reborn in the higher realm called the Brahma realm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology#Brahm.C4.81_worlds) and lived alone in the palace there. From living alone for so long a time, this being grew distressed and longed for a companion.

He then uttered, "O, let it be that another being may come here and accompany me." At the same time as the utterance, a being in the Abhassara realm died (due to the exhaustion of his good karma) and was reborn in the Brahma realm as his follower, but in many ways, similar to his feature.

Seeing this happen, the Brahma being thought, "I am Brahma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_(Buddhism)), Mahābrahmā (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_(Buddhism)#Mah.C4.81brahm.C4.81), the Almighty, Omniscient, the Lord of All, Creator, Master af all creatures. I am the soure of all life, Father to everything which exists and will come to exist. These creatures are my creations. How can I conclude this? Because, just as I was thinking, "Let it be that another being may come here and accompany me", then my wish made that being come into existence."

Beings that came after thought the same thing. They worshipped and revered the Brahma because, "He was here even before I existed! Surely he is the Lord and Creator of All." In the Brahma realm, the first being had longer and more powerful features than the latter coming beings. So, a probability existed that the latter being died in the Brahma realm, and then was reborn as a human. This human abandoned wordly affairs and became an ascetic, then by his devotion and practice, achieved the power to remember his one past life. As he recalled it, he came to the conclusion that creatures, including himself, are not eternal, had limited age, were vulnerable to change, but that Brahma is eternal, ageless, and changeless.

The second semi-eternalistic belief came from ascetics who were once Khiddapadosika gods, celestial beings that were too busy to experience desire-based joy and fun, forgot to take their nutriments and therefore, died. As they were reborn as ascetics and achieved the ability to remember their past life, they came to a conclusion analogous to the 'Fall from Grace': "If only we were not so greedy and overzealous in our previous life, if only we had been able to control ourselves, we would not have suffered death. Now that we had made this error, we have to suffer this mortal life". Here, they concluded that the gods were eternal, and others were not.

The third semi-eternalistic belief came from the Manopadosika gods. These were the gods who always envied the other gods. This illness of mind caused their death. In the same cycle, they were reborn as ascetic Manopadosika gods, achieved the ability to remember their past life, and came to the conclusion, "Had we not been envious, we would have stayed strong and intelligent. We would never have died or fallen forever from the realm of gods.".

The fourth semi-eternalistic belief is based on logic and reflection. The people who embraced this belief concluded their faith based on their thoughts and logics as follow: "Here is what is called (atta) of eyes, nose, tongue, and our physical body, which are always changed. But, there is also atta of mind: the state of mind, awareness of 'atta', which is eternal.".

All of the followers of these beliefs defended and clung to their faith and didn't believe in other faiths.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahmajala_Sutta_(Theravada)&action=edit&section=9)] The Universe

The beliefs on the universe is based on the speculation about the infinite or the limited nature of the universe. There are four ways these beliefs were expressed:

1. The universe is infinite.
2. The universe is limited.
3. The universe is horizontally limited but vertically infinite.
4. The universe is neither infinite or limited, nor not infinite or limited.The source of these beliefs came from two reasons:

1. The frame of mind which formed these beliefs came from the object of focus of meditation taken by the ascetics who managed to reach a deep level of meditation and came to the conclusion that the world is infinite (if they used infinity as the object of meditation), or limited (if they imagined the object of their focus to be limited).
2. The people who used logic and thought and concluded that the world must be neither infinite nor limited but also neither not infinite nor not limited.All of the followers of these beliefs defended and clung to their faith and didn't believe in other faiths.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahmajala_Sutta_(Theravada)&action=edit&section=10)] Ambiguous Evasion

The concept of ambiguous evasion or eel-wriggling (Pali: Amaravikkhepa) is introduced in the Brahmajala sutta. When hearing Buddhist teachings, the Buddha claims that people would react with four forms of ambiguous evasion:

Evasion out of fear or hatred of making false claims.
Evasion out of fear or hatred of attachment.
Evasion out of fear or hatred of debate.
Evasion out of fear or hatred of admitting ignorance.In other words, when a person would hear the dharma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_(Buddhism)), they would respond, "I don't know. Maybe it is true. Maybe it is not true. I can't say it's true because I don't know and I can't deny it's true because I don't know."
The idea is that the person isn't considering the arguments presented (see Kalama Sutta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutta)), but stubbornly adhering to irrational agnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism) out of feelings of fear or hatred.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahmajala_Sutta_(Theravada)&action=edit&section=11)] Non-causality beliefs

The Non-causality beliefs stated that the Universe and the Souls happened coincidentally. The proponents of these beliefs claimed that there was/were no reason/s behind the creation of Universe and the Identity/Self.
These beliefs were expressed because of two possibilities:

1 There were gods called assannasatta, which had only body and no mental will. The absence of mental will in this state was due to the nature of repressed thoughts, not the ultimate absence of thoughts. As they died in the god realm, there was a possibility that they were reborn as ascetics who achieved the ability to recall just one past life.Here, they concluded upon their past life that, "Before this, there were no Atta and Loka. So, the Atta and Loka were created without a cause. They simply arise spontaneously. Why do I deem so? Because I didn't exist and now I do exist."

2. The ascetics who based their thoughts on logic and thinkings, and concluded that the Soul and the Universe happened without a cause.All of the followers of these beliefs defended and clung on their faith and didn't believe in another faiths.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahmajala_Sutta_(Theravada)&action=edit&section=12)] Forty-four beliefs about the future

There are ascetics who based their beliefs on the future. The proponents of one of these beliefs, adhered that:

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahmajala_Sutta_(Theravada)&action=edit&section=13)] Perception's existence after death


A.the perception still exists after death. The difference of beliefs were described that after death, the Atta:
1. possessed physical shape(rupa)
2. possessed no shape/immaterial (arupa)
3. both had physical shape some had not (rupa and arupa)
4. Infinite
5. Limited
6. Both Infinite and limited
7. neither Infinite nor Limited
8. had a certain form of consciousness
9. had several form of consciousness
10.had infinite consciousness
11.had limited consciousness
12.always in joy/blissful state
13.always in suffering state
14.Both in joy and suffering
15.neither joyful nor suffering

B. the Perception vanished after death. The difference of beliefs were described that after death, the Atta was devoid of perception after dead but:

1. possessed physical shape (rupa)
2. possessed no physical shape (arupa)
3. Both had shape and no shape
4. Neither had shape nor had no shape
5. Limited
6. Unlimited
7. Both limited and unlimited
8. Neither limited nor infinite
C. Neither there was Perception of No Perception after death. The difference of these beliefs were describe that after death, the Atta was neither devoid of perception nor non-perception, but:
1. possessed physical shape (rupa)
2. possessed no physical shape (arupa)
3. Both had shape and no shape
4. Neither had shape nor had no shape
5. Limited
6. Unlimited
7. Both limited and unlimited
8. Neither limited nor infiniteAll of the followers of these beliefs defended and clung on their faith and didn't believe in another faiths.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahmajala_Sutta_(Theravada)&action=edit&section=14)] Annihilation (nihilism) beliefs

The proponent of these beliefs declared that after death, existence simply vanished (Atta vanished). These beliefs were described in seven type of authorities and basis:

1. that the Atta was created from the union of father and mother's essence, comprised of four elements (dhatu) and on the death, these elements ceased to exist. By this manner, Atta become non-existent.
2. that not only the (1) but the physical-related desire of the celestial gods, who had physical shape and take nourishment, which also cease to exist after death.
3. that not only the (2), but the attha of Brahma gods, which were shaped of Jhanna mind, and faculties of senses which cease to exist after death.
4. that not only the (3), but also the attha which had transcended the concept of Infinity, where the perception of shape had been surpassed, the perception of contact between mind and object had vanished, not paying attention to major kinds of Perception, which cease to exist after death.
5. that not only the (4), but also the attha which had reached the Realm of Infinity of Consciousness.
6. that not only the (5), but also the attha which had reached Realm of Nothingness.
7. that not only the (6) but also the attha which had reached the realm of neither Perception nor Non-Perception.All of the followers of these beliefs defended and clung on their faith and didn't believe in another faiths.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahmajala_Sutta_(Theravada)&action=edit&section=15)] Five beliefs on attainable Nibbana

The proponents of these faiths proposed that Nibbana's state of bliss could be attained in the current life. They based their faith because:

1. The joy coming from the five senses can be enjoyed and attained thoroughly. So, the Nibbana could also be attained.
2. The joy from the five senses were vulnerable to change and mortal. But the joy from the attainment of the first Jhana (Dhyana) can be enjoyed and attained thoroughly. So, with the first Jhana, the Nibbana could also be attained.
3. ..... (same with No.2) but with Second Jhana....
4. ..... (same with No.3) but with Third Jhana...
5. ..... (same with No.4) but with Fourth Jhana. So, the Nibbana could also be attained.All of the followers of these beliefs defended and clung on their faith and didn't believe in another faiths.

Buddha's conclusion

"The Tathagata knows these sixty-two views. He also knows the dhamma which surpasses them. Knowing that dhamma, he does not view it in the wrong way. Since he does not view it in the wrong way, he realizes by himself the extinction of defilements (i.e., greed, anger, and ignorance of the Four Ariya Truths).

Buddha finally concludes the exposition of these 'wrong' beliefs by stating that these (62) beliefs, if they are believed, will certainly cause agitations and cravings. It implies that the beliefs come to conclusion due to the inability to see the truth, as they are seized by craving (clinging), agitated by longing (feeling).
The Buddha further explains that the beliefs are originated from Contact (Phassa) as the cause. The contact is a phenomenon when the perception recognised an object beyond our Self. Then, from this brief (like lightning in the sky, Nagasena (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagasena) analogued in Milinda Panha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milinda_Panha)) event, rise up feelings.

Buddha states that there are no possibilities of feeling without contact. Thus, according to the law of Twelve Related Chain of Cause and Effects (Pratitya-samutpada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratitya-samutpada)), the people who believe in one of many of these sixty-two beliefs, will end up in round cycle of sufferings; as they have not found the truth on the cease of sufferings. Due to their faith, they will experience feelings as a result of repeated contact through the six sense bases. In them feeling gives rise to craving; craving gives rise to clinging; clinging gives rise to current existence (upapatti bhava) and the kammic causal process (kamma bhava); the kammic causal process gives rise to rebirth; and rebirth gives rise to ageing, death, grief, lamentation, pain, distress and despair.

The Buddha states that Monks who have realized and understood the origin of contact of the six senses, and escaped the round of sufferings, would see Dhamma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhamma) (Truth) of Precepts (Sila (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sila)), Concentration (Samadhi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam%C4%81dhi_(Buddhism))) and Wisdom (Pańńa (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pa%C5%84%C5%84a&action=edit&redlink=1)) which surpassed all the wrong beliefs.
The Buddha then takes an analogy of a fisherman using a fine-meshed net to catch the fish in the pond. The Buddha assumes the fish as the ascetics who clung on their beliefs, as they will rise and sink in the pond, but still in the end caught unavoidable by the net. Where as the Buddha, who stand outside the net has found the truth and ends the round cycle of sufferings.
Thus ends the Brahmajala Sutta with this quotation:
"When the Bhagava had delivered this discourse, the Venerable Ananda addressed him thus: "Marvellous indeed, Venerable Sir! Extraordinary indeed, Venerable Sir! What is the name of this exposition of the dhamma?"
"Ananda!" said the Bhagava, "Bear in mind that this exposition of the dhamma is called Atthajala, the Net of Essence, as well as Dhammajala, the Net of the Dhamma, as well as Brahmajala, the Net of Perfect Wisdom, as well as Ditthijala, the Net of Views, as well as Anuttarasangama Vijaya, the Incomparable Victory in Battle." Thus said the Bhagava.


metta

atanu
07 July 2009, 07:59 AM
Greetings

Eternalistic belief

Eternalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism) is described in the sutta as the belief which is based upon the past, and holds that the universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe) (loka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loka)) and the soul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul) or self (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atman_(Buddhism)) (attha) are eternal as a 'rock mountain or strong-fastened pole'. The world doesn't create new souls and therefore, the souls are living in an eternal cycle of death and rebirth, ----


This is the dvaita belief -- very necessary for the path and also for living in the world. But this is only a step.


Semi-eternalistic belief


The semi-eternalistic belief is described as belief that is based on the past, --
Seeing this happen, the Brahma being thought, "I am Brahma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_(Buddhism)), Mahābrahmā (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_(Buddhism)#Mah.C4.81brahm.C4.81), the Almighty, Omniscient, the Lord of All, Creator, -------

This is a sort of vishista advaita belief where Narayana is taken as the highest being as the creator-- very necessary for the path and also for living in the world. But this is only a step.



The fourth semi-eternalistic belief is based on logic and reflection. The people who embraced this belief concluded their faith based on their thoughts and logics as follow: "Here is what is called (atta) of eyes, nose, tongue, and our physical body, which are always changed. But, there is also atta of mind: the state of mind, awareness of 'atta', which is eternal.".

Can you show from any Hindu scripture the above understanding of Atman (marked in blue font)? The views are apabhransha and not correct. Atman is not a mental state and neither it is awareness of another thing-entity. The Wiki article is authoured by malicious and uniformed people. Please show us the original scripture.


Buddha states that there are no possibilities of feeling without contact.

This is what Brihad Aranayaka teaches several times over. You joined this forum saying you wished to study sanatana dharma, yet you seemed to have not read a line but only pasting voluminous text as per dictate of a clinging of mind.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
07 July 2009, 08:07 AM
Ud 1.3 PTS: Ud 2

Bodhi Sutta: Awakening (3)

translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
-----
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:
As phenomena grow clear to the brahman — ardent, absorbed — he stands, routing the troops of Mara, like the sun that illumines the sky.
----

Om Namah Shivaya

Anicca
07 July 2009, 08:57 AM
Namaste


The sutta was a critique of metaphysical views that were around the Buddha at the time and indeed of metaphysics generally



Can you show from any Hindu scripture the above understanding of Atman (marked in blue font)? The views are apabhransha and not correct. Atman is not a mental state and neither it is awareness of another thing-entity. The Wiki article is authoured by malicious and uniformed people. Please show us the original scripture.

As i said the sutta is in part dealing with metaphysics of ancient india




Buddha states that there are no possibilities of feeling without contact.
This is what Brihad Aranayaka teaches several times over. You joined this forum saying you wished to study sanatana dharma, yet you seemed to have not read a line but only pasting voluminous text as per dictate of a clinging of mind.

The Buddha goes onto say that all speculative metaphysical views arises because of feeling (i.e. clinging and adverting)

I have been taking in what you say but there is no weight in the argument that Buddha taught Vedanta, taught about Brahman or taught about Atman

btw i found a copy of the sutta online

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/theravada/brahma1.htm#9


Perhaps in the end there is union with Brahman, perhaps in the end there is Atman but the point is the Buddha was explicit in stating that holding such views will only hold one back, this is what the Buddha taught


metta

satay
07 July 2009, 09:16 AM
namaskar,


Namaste


Perhaps in the end there is union with Brahman, perhaps in the end there is Atman but the point is the Buddha was explicit in stating that holding such views will only hold one back, this is what the Buddha taught


metta

I think you have hit the nail on the head. Buddha shakyamuni was not a hindu as he didn't believe in the authority of the vedas or upanishads.

metta.

Anicca
07 July 2009, 09:21 AM
Ud 1.3 PTS: Ud 2

Bodhi Sutta: Awakening (3)

translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
-----
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:
As phenomena grow clear to the brahman — ardent, absorbed — he stands, routing the troops of Mara, like the sun that illumines the sky.
----

Om Namah Shivaya


On the use of Brahman, in the pali canon Brahman and Brahmin are used interchangeably


On the line "the significance of that" this is just usual language "i realized the importance of that ...)


In regards to nibbana and Vedantic moksha Brahman/Atman



The 2 aspects of Nibbāna (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_n.htm#Nibbāna) are:

1: The full ceasing of defilements kilesa-parinibbāna (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_k.htm#kilesa-parinibbāna) also called sa-upādi (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_u.htm#upādi)-sesa-nibbāna (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_n.htm#Nibbāna) see: It. (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#It.) 41, i.e. 'Nibbāna with the groups of existence still remaining' see: upādi. This takes place at the attainment of Arahatship, or perfect Nobility see: ariya-puggala (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_a.htm#ariya-puggala).

2: The full ceasing of the groups of existence khandha-parinibbāna (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_k.htm#khandha-parinibbāna) also called an-upādi (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_u.htm#upādi)-sesa-nibbāna (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_n.htm#Nibbāna) see: It. (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#It.) 41, A. (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#A.) IV, 118, i.e. 'Nibbāna without the groups remaining', in other words, the coming to rest, or rather the 'no-more-continuing' of this physico-mental process of existence. This takes place at the death of the Arahat. - App. (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#App.): Nibbāna.

Sometimes both aspects take place at one and the same moment, i.e. at the death of the Arahat; see: sama-sīsī

This, o Bhikkhus, truly is the peace, this is the highest, namely the end of all constructions, the forsaking of every substratum of rebirth, the fading away of craving, detachment, ceasing, Nibbāna; A. (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#A.) III, 32.


Enraptured with lust rāga (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_r.htm#rāga) enraged with anger dosa (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_d.htm#dosa) blinded by confusion moha (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_m.htm#moha) overwhelmed, with mind ensnared, man aims at his own ruin, at the ruin of others, at the ruin of both, and he experiences mental pain and grief. But if lust, anger and confusion are given up, man aims neither at his own ruin, nor at the ruin of others, nor at the ruin of both, and he experiences no mental pain and grief. Thus is Nibbāna (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_n.htm#Nibbāna) visible in this life, immediate, inviting, attractive, and comprehensible to the wise; A. (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#A.) III, 55.


Just as a rock of one solid mass remains unshaken by the wind, even so neither visible forms, nor sounds, nor odours, nor tastes, nor bodily contacts, neither the desired nor the undesired, can cause such a one to waver. Steadfast is his mind, gained is deliverance; A, VI, 55.


Verily, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible; Ud. (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#Ud.) VIII, 3.





One cannot too often and too emphatically stress the fact that not only for the actual realization of the goal of Nibbāna, but also for a theoretical understanding of it, it is an indispensable preliminary condition to grasp fully the truth of anattā (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_a.htm#anattā), the egolessness and insubstantiality of all forms of existence. Without such an understanding, one will necessarily misconceive Nibbāna (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_n.htm#Nibbāna) - according to one's either materialistic or metaphysical leanings - either as annihilation of an ego, or as an eternal state of existence into which an ego or self enters or with which it merges. Hence it is said:



Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found;
The deed is, but no doer of the deed is there;
Nibbāna (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_n.htm#Nibbāna) is, but not the man that enters it;
The path (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_m.htm#magga) is, but no traveler on it is seen.; Vis.M (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#Vis.M.)XVI

Literature: For texts on Nibbāna, see path (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_m.htm#magga), 36ff. - See Vis.M (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#Vis.M.) XVI. 64ff. - Anattā and Nibbāna, by Nyanaponika Thera WHEEL (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#WHEEL) 11; The Buddhist Doctrine of Nibbāna, by Ven. P. Vajiranana & F. Story WHEEL (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#WHEEL) 165/166.




From the Buddhist Dictionary


http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_n.htm


Part of my reason of quoting other sources is to show that its the majority Buddhist view, not just my own


For example Phra Prayudh Payutto is a well respected Theravada monk, his view here is the view of the majority of buddhist's



BUDDHADHAMMA by Phra Prayudh Payutto, Suny, 1995, pgs 64-5:




Many Hindu sages and Western philosophers have tried to explain


the reason why Lord Buddha did not reject the notion of self (atta) or
Atman at the highest level but only rejected some phenomena, such as
those found in the above passage. These philosophers suggest that Lord
Buddha rejected the Five Aggregates and all other phenomena as the self
because the atta that really exists is not composed of the Five Aggregates.
Accordingly, these thinkers have cited many other statements in order to
demonstrate that Lord Buddha only rejected some phenomena as the self,
but he did accept a notion of self (atta) at the highest level, and they have
attempted to explain that nibbana (nirvana) is the same state as this self
or Atman-that is, at the highest level nibbana is atta. While this matter
may be worthy of a larger philosophical discussion, I would just like to
turn to a brief consideration of the ethical importance of this: Common
people, especially those who have been educated to believe in Atman, will
have the inclination to cling to or grab at any notion or form of self (atta)
in order to fulfill a desire that is hidden and deeply imbedded in the mind.
When people are introduced to these principles and discover that they
must lose the latent sense of a self (at the level of the Five Aggregates),
they try to create or build something new to cling to. But according to
Buddhist principles, a person should not let go of one thing only to cling
to something else -- you should not free yourself only to become the slave
of something else. In other words, things that have a self do not exist;
and things that exist, are without self.
The existence of all things in a state of flux or as a flowing current,
all interrelated and interdependent, each the related cause of the other,
each impermanent, subject to dukkha, and without a self (anatta), must
be clarified by an explanation of the principle of dependent origination
(paticcasamuppada).




To me the idea that Buddha taught the same as Vedanta (Atman/Brahman concepts) contradict Anatta and Voidness



Anattā: No-self, egolessness, soullessness, impersonality (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_a.htm#anattā), absence of identity, is the last of the 3 universal characteristics of existence ti-lakkhana (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_t.htm#ti-lakkhana).



This anattā (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_a.htm#anattā) doctrine, which only is taught by a Buddha, teaches that neither within the bodily, material and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, can be found anything at all, that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a self-existing, real & same, ego-entity, identity, soul, self or independently existing substance. This is the central core doctrine of Buddhism, crucial for understanding the message & method of Buddhism. It is the only really specific Buddhist doctrine, with which the entire structure of the Buddhist teaching stands or falls. All the remaining Buddhist doctrines may, more or less, be found in other philosophic systems and religions, but the anattā (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_a.htm#anattā) doctrine has been clearly and unreservedly taught only by the Buddha, wherefore the Buddha (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/DPPN/b/buddha.htm) is known as the anattā (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_a.htm#anattā)-vādi or 'Teacher of impersonality (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_a.htm#anattā)'. Whosoever has not penetrated this universal impersonality (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_a.htm#anattā) of all existence, and does not comprehend that in reality there exists only this continually self-consuming & self-referring process of arising and passing away of bodily, material and mental phenomena, and that there is no separate ego-entity or stable and same core neither within nor outside this process, he will not be able to understand Buddhism, i.e. the teaching of the 4 Noble Truths sacca (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_s.htm#sacca), in the right light. He will think that it is his ego, his personality, that experiences suffering, his personality that performs good and evil actions and will be reborn according to these actions, his personality that will enter into Nibbāna, his personality that walks on the 8-fold path (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_m.htm#magga). This is the fatal 'personalist-view' sakkāya-ditthi (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_s.htm#sakkāya-ditthi) and self-deception māna (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_m.htm#māna) 'I Am' that keep beings wandering in Samsāra (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_s.htm#samsāra). Thus it is said in Vis.M (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#Vis.M.) XVI:



Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found;
Actions are, but no actor is ever found;
Nibbāna (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_n.htm#Nibbāna) is, but no being exists that enters it;
The path (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_m.htm#magga) is, but no traveler is seen.


Whosoever does not understand the origin of conditionally arisen phenomena, and does not comprehend that all the actions are conditioned by ignorance, greed and hate, he thinks that it is an ego or self that understands or does not understand, that acts or causes to act, and that comes into existence at rebirth. He believes there exists an identity 'I' that has the sense-contact, that feels, desires, becomes attached, continues and at rebirth again enters a new existence as the same being... Vis.M (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#Vis.M.) XVII, 117.

While in the case of the first two characteristics it is stated that all constructions sabbe sankhārā (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_s.htm#sankhāra) are impermanent and subject to suffering, the corresponding text for the third characteristic states that all states, all phenomena are no-self sabbe dhammā (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_d.htm#dhamma) anattā (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_a.htm#anattā) M. (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#M.) 35, Dhp. (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#Dhp.) 279. This is for emphasizing that the common false view of an abiding, same, constant, identical self or substance is neither applicable to any 'construction', whether internal or external, whether physical or mental nor to any conditioned phenomenon, nor to Nibbāna (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_n.htm#Nibbāna), the only Unconditioned Element asankhatā (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_a.htm#asankhata)-dhātu (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_d.htm#dhātu)</I>.

The Anattā-lakkhana Sutta (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/DPPN/ay/anattalakhana_s.htm), the 'Discourse on the Characteristic of No-self', was the second discourse after Enlightenment, preached by the Buddha (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/DPPN/b/buddha.htm) to his first five (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/DPPN/pa/pancavaggiya.htm) disciples, who after hearing it attained to perfect Nobility Arahatta (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_a.htm#arahatta-magga).
The contemplation of no-self anattānupassanā (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_a.htm#anattānupassanā) leads to the emptiness liberation su&#241;&#241;atā-vimokkha (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_s.htm#su&#241;&#241;atā-vimokkha) see. vimokkha (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_v.htm#vimokkha). Herein the ability of understanding pa&#241;&#241;indriya (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_i.htm#pa&#241;&#241;indriya) is outstanding, and one who attains in that way the path (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_m.htm#magga) of Stream-entry (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_a.htm#Stream-winner) is called a Dhamma-devotee dhammānusāri (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_a.htm#dhammānusārī) see: ariya-puggala (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_a.htm#ariya-puggala), at the next two stages of sainthood he becomes a vision-attainer ditthippatta (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_a.htm#ditthippatta); and at the highest stage, i.e. Nobility, he is called 'liberated by understanding' pa&#241;&#241;ā-vimutta (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_p.htm#pa&#241;&#241;ā-vimutti).



For further details, see paramattha-sacca (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_p.htm#paramattha), paticca-samuppāda (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_p.htm#paticcasamuppāda), khandha (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_k.htm#khandha), ti-lakkhana (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_t.htm#ti-lakkhana), nāma-rūpa (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_n.htm#nāma-rūpa), patisandhi (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_p.htm#patisandhi)

Literature: Anattā-lakkhana Sutta (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/DPPN/ay/anattalakhana_s.htm), Vinaya I, 13-14; see: XXII, 59; tr. in Three Cardinal Discourses of the Buddha (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/DPPN/b/buddha.htm) WHEEL (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#WHEEL) 17. (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel017.html) - Another important text on Anattā is the Discourse on the Snake Simile Alagaddūpama Sutta (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/DPPN/am/alagadduupama_s.htm), M. (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#M.) 22; tr. in WHEEL (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#WHEEL) 48/49. (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel048.html) Other texts in path (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_m.htm#magga). - Further: Anattā and Nibbāna, by Nyanaponika Thera WHEEL (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#WHEEL) 11; The Truth of Anattā, by Dr. G. P. Malalasekera WHEEL (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#WHEEL) 94; The Three Basic Facts of Existence III: Egolessness WHEEL (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#WHEEL) 202/204
http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_a.htm#anattā






Whilst some hindu schools do use anatta, in Buddhist terms they fall short because they still hold an idea of somekind of permanent self, being, essence etc that exists somewhere in or outside


Buddhism and Vedanta are close yes, but that still doesnt mean they are the same


There is no being, essence, higher self, Atman or anything of the like that is taught in Vedanta in Buddhadhamma

How can you hold a view of Atman and adhere to his

This anattā (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_a.htm#anattā) doctrine, which only is taught by a Buddha, teaches that neither within the bodily, material and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, can be found anything at all, that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a self-existing, real & same, ego-entity, identity, soul, self or independently existing substance. This is the central core doctrine of Buddhism, crucial for understanding the message & method of Buddhism.


I think we should put an end here, at least for the time being. Im sure this topic will crop up again in due time lol:laugh:


P.S. Thank you for your posts they were quite informative

metta

atanu
07 July 2009, 11:46 AM
On the use of Brahman, in the pali canon Brahman and Brahmin are used interchangeably

Namaste,

How does it matter? Whether it is Brahmin or Brahman or Shunyata or any other name? The names have been given in the mode of non-Self, in the mode of non-nibbana, in the mode of non-shunyata. The point is that in Shunyata also Brahmin/Brahman exists.

I thint TTA hits the nail when he says that literal minded westerns (like most christians) do not see the essence but see the lucre. Assuming that Buddha attained Nibbana, how from Shunyata, the Bikkhus (surfaces of contact) were created?


On the line "the significance of that" this is just usual language "i realized the importance of that ...)

Do you read fully? The previous line says: "When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that."

It is not just usual language that you aver. This is the teaching of the Vedas; From desire arises Ego (I Sense -Aham) , which gives rise to Mind (Mahat), which has the whole creation in it. In deep sleep the 'This' being absent 'That' is not created, but it is temporary. But in Mokhsha, the anhillation of Ego-Mind (through Jnana) is complete.



Just as a rock of one solid mass remains unshaken by the wind, even so neither visible forms, nor sounds, nor odours, nor tastes, nor bodily contacts, neither the desired nor the undesired, can cause such a one to waver. Steadfast is his mind, gained is deliverance; A, VI, 55.

Verily, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible; Ud. (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#Ud.) VIII, 3.


This is plain copy of Upanishads and this much alone is my point. Atman in Veda/Vedanta parlance is Aja (unborn), unoriginated, unformed, indivisible, has no inner or outer cognition, cannot be said to have no cognition, is free of action, is unchangeable.
As a follower of Veda, I agree fully:

Verily, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible.

There is no need for further discussion.



As i said the sutta is in part dealing with metaphysics of ancient india

No. Please show the definition of Atman that you use, from Hindu scripture. Has it ever occured to you that Buddha is talking about misconceptions rather that true teachings of Vedanta? Can you show from any Sutta that He trashed Veda/Vedanta? He was a reformer par excellence who removed many mis-conceptions/notions of Self/the unconditioned.


either as annihilation of an ego, or as an eternal state of existence into which an ego or self enters or with which it merges. Hence it is said:
Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; The deed is, but no doer of the deed is there

We agree to above in full. Yet, you fail to see that 'I am the sufferer" and that "I am the Doer" is the reality to the EGO only, which gone, these notions go. These verses are again copy from Upanishads. There is nothing new in them. Anhillation of the notion of DOERSHIP is the main teaching of Upanishads and Gita.



In other words, things that have a self do not exist;
things that exist, are without self.

Correct. Again, deficient comprehension does not allow insight. Neither the objects are Self nor the Self abides in Objects. This again is a copy of Upanishad/Gita.



This anattā (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_a.htm#anattā) doctrine, which only is taught by a Buddha, teaches that neither within the bodily, material and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, can be found anything at all, that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a self-existing, real & same, ego-entity, identity, soul, self or independently existing substance. This is the central core doctrine of Buddhism, crucial for understanding the message & method of Buddhism.

These are later interpretations and not spoken by Buddha and that is why these are incomplete assertions of unrealised people. There is actually nothing new in this teaching. Upanishads do not teach that Atman has identity or ego, which are mistaken superpositions (as per Advaita) or willed creations (by other schools of thought).

So, Atman and anatman Vichara is a deliberate pracitise.
----------------------

Buddha and you say (correctly) "that there are no possibilities of feeling without contact". And there are no objects that have self in Nibbana. So, How Buddha, after attaining Nibbana, teaches the Bikkhus (a situation full of contacts)?

Please also check your signature line. How will you overcome all those notions of contacts associated with "Not doing Evil" and "Purifying Mind"? All this is pure bull sh-t, since there is no self, whose mind is to be purified, and who can be touched by evil?

But we understand and respect Buddha as Purushottama. There are steps before the notion free (nescience free or memory free), unconditioned ungraspable, contact less truth can be comprehended. Towards that Dvaita, Vishistaadvaita, and Advaita knowledges are essential. They are the steps.

When a man associates suffering with sufferer (himself), it is futile to say "There is no sufferer". When a man takes pride in doing, it is futile to preach "There is doing but no doer".

These are the ultimate Jnana of Vedanta that Buddha taught. Neti-Neti discrimination prepares the mind to become tenuos and more tenuos, when in a flash it is realised that "There is no one who is bound. There is no one who is suffering".

Om Namah Shivaya

Verily, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible.


Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
07 July 2009, 12:48 PM
Whilst some hindu schools do use anatta, in Buddhist terms they fall short because they still hold an idea of somekind of permanent self, being, essence etc that exists somewhere in or outside

Buddhism and Vedanta are close yes, but that still doesnt mean they are the same



No two paths are same.

The point is that:

Verily, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible; Ud. (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#Ud.) VIII, 3.

And while shunyata cannot explain how dependent origination can occur from that which is shunya, the understanding/knowing of the object less shunya as Brahman-prajnanam offers moksha.

Shunyata is a specialist knowledge to wean away from association with objects but it does not negate Brahman, since:

Ud 1.3 PTS: Ud 2

Bodhi Sutta: Awakening (3)

translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
-----
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:
As phenomena grow clear to the brahman — ardent, absorbed — he stands, routing the troops of Mara, like the sun that illumines the sky.
----
The awakened remains as Brahman, routing death. And Brahman is:

Verily, the Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible; Ud. (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#Ud.) VIII, 3.

Om Namah Shivaya

Ekanta
07 July 2009, 01:04 PM
In interesting observation for you to think about (I have already thought about it ^^):

"Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.” (Jesus, "John 14:9")

“Whoever sees me sees the Dharma." (Buddha, "Samyutta Nikaya 22.87")

Anicca
07 July 2009, 01:08 PM
Namaste

One thing first



Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; The deed is, but no doer of the deed is there
Again I say that your understanding is deficient. We agree to above in full. Yet, you fail to see that 'There is no sufferer" and that "There is no Doer" is the reality to the EGO only. These verses are again copy from Upanishads. There is nothing new in them. Anhillation of the notion of DOERSHIP is the main teaching of Upanishads and Gita.

It wasnt my quote, it was the words of Ven. Buddhaghosa from the 5th century

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhaghosa

What he said is the bedrock understanding of Buddhism, summed up in those few lines. Hence you prove my point that Buddhadhamma and Vedanta are different and not one in the same (since you wont find many Buddhists or monks that disagree with that sentence)

"The interpretations provided by Buddhaghosa have generally constituted the orthodox understanding of Theravada scriptures since at least the 12th century CE."


Now onto the rest


How does it matter? Whether it is Brahmin or Brahman or Shunyata or any other name? The names have been given in the mode of non-Self, in the mode of non-nibbana, in the mode of non-shunyata. The point is that in Shunyata also Brahmin/Brahman exists.

Dont you see that this is your understanding of what Buddhadhamma is or should be and not how its been taught for the last 2,500 years. In essence you suggest that Buddhists dont understand their own religion as much as you do


I thint TTA hits the nail when he says that literal minded westerns (like most christians) do not see the essence but see the lucre. Assuming that Buddha attained Nibbana, how from Shunyata, the Bikkhus (surfaces of contact) were created? Your understanding of Buddhism is just incomplete and literal, since there is absence of contemplation.

As i said what i have posted here is the understanding of Buddhits, you will be hard pressed to find one that will disagree with what i have said



This is plain copy of Upanishads and this much alone is my point. Atman in Veda/Vedanta parlace is Aja (unborn), unoriginated, unformed, indivisible, has no inner or outer cognition, cannot be said to have no cognition, is free of action, in unchangeable

The Buddha constantly plays on Vedic and Vedantic terminology, read the canon and you will find many Vedantic terms re-worked by the Buddha to expound his own doctrine. This is why you cant just select passages in Buddhadhamma that have similar terminology and claim they mean the same thing

Same with Jainism and Buddhism, both have a concept of nibbana but the word means completely different things in both traditions. Same with Kamma in buddhism and Jainism, Buddhism and Vedanta are no different, similar words but different meanings and doctrines



Has it ever occured to you that Buddha is talking about misconceptions rather that true teachings of Vedanta? Can you show from any Sutta that He trashed Veda/Vedanta?
He was a reformer par excellence who removed many mis-conceptions/notions of Self/the unconditioned.

Because the Buddha has stated in many suttas that to have thoughts about there being an Atman, Brahman, Ultimate reality, permanent ground of being, higher Self, Union with Ultimate reality, Self and reality as one etc to be an ignorant wrong view that leads to suffering and not part of the holy life, this is what the Buddha taught

The Buddha said that his teachings go against the stream, thats the stream of religious thought at the time, all religious thought as well as against the stream oft he notion humans have of there being some permanent entity, self, ground, spark, essence, self, "I" that exists as part of the khandas or outside them or anywhere else



These are later interpretations and not spoken by Buddha and that is why these are foolish assertions of unrealised people. There is actually nothing new in this teaching. Upanishads do not teach that Atman has identity or ego -- these are mistaken superpositions (as per Advaita) or willed creations.

It was written by a Bhikkhu who new the texts and tradition of Buddhism itself very well, its a standard and fundemental tenent of Buddhism. Its also a bit arrogant to claim that someone is "unrealised" without ever having actually met them and saying so just because it goes against what you think their religion should be saying in order to fit it with your own tradition. This once again represent the teachings of Buddhism as it has been practiced for 2,500 years so it seems your issue is that you dont believe the Sangha kept the teachings very well



Upanishads do not teach that Atman has identity or ego

You missed the rest of the passage

This anattā (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_a.htm#anattā) doctrine, which only is taught by a Buddha, teaches that neither within the bodily, material and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, can be found anything at all, that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a self-existing, real & same, ego-entity, identity, soul, self or independently existing substance.


Its a negation of all possible stand points for there being any kind of ground of being, brahman, Atman, ultimate reality behind everythin, spark etc in any form

[quot]Buddha and you say (correctly) "that there are no possibilities of feeling without contact". And there are no objects that have self in Nibbana. So, How Buddha, after attaining Nibbana, teaches the Bikkhus (all full of contacts)? [/quote]

There is still feeling but one feels it detached

Therefore when there is feelings, because one is awake, one does not crave, there being no craving there is no clinging, there being no clinging there is no birth of "I" or "I am" (since these arise through clinging)

There being no birth or "I" or "I am" etc there is no sickness, no death, no despair and no dukkha


Please check your signature line. How will you overcome all those notions of contacts associated with "Not doing Evil" and "Purifying Mind"? All this is pure bull sh-t, since there is no self, whose mind is to be purified, and who can be touched by evil? or by purity?


If you think "i will purify my mind" then you are still coming from ignorance

There is no concept of "I" or me or self in relation to these things in buddhahdamma, they are anatta, not-self

You post is also very revealing in that you seem to hold to the idea of Self (contradiction of Buddhadhamma) and cant conceive how these things make sense without appealing to some kind of self



It is pure bullsh-t.

So you think Buddha must have taught about Atman because you cant conceive any other possibilty of this teaching making sense?


When a man associates suffering with sufferer (himself), it is futile to say "There is no sufferer". When a man takes pride in doing, it is futile to preach "There is doing but no doer".

The correct way is to look at all things as anatta and empty of self, this means everything

The wording Ven. Buddhaghosa used (they arent mine) is an attempt to help people view things in the correct way



Mogharaja:
In what way does one view the world
so that the King of Death does not see one?


The Buddha:
Having removed any view
in terms of self,
always mindful, Mogharaja,
view the world as void.
This way one is above & beyond death.
This is the way one views the world
so that the King of Death does not see one.

If you posit some kind of Atman or higher self or ground of being in anyway then your not viewing the world as Void, you havent removed all views in regards to self (and yes Atman does imply somekind of universal higher Self)



These are the ultimate Jnana of Vedanta that Buddha taught. Neti-Neti discrimination prepares the mind to become tenuos and more tenuos, when in a flash it is realised that "There is no one who is bound. There is no one who is suffering".

So there is no Atman or Brahman then, there are just empty dhammas going about "their" business



It seems you like the idea of Buddha teaching Vedanta and the thought of him as not being new in any kind of way. Thats fine thats your choice and opinion

However you cant claim that someone else doesnt understand their own religion as well as you do just because of that fact and you cant tear down 2,500 years of teachings in that religion by monks, nuns and laymen/women because it doesnt agree with how you personally think of the founder of said religion

Everything you have said goes against the whole Buddhist tradition and the understandings of the followers of Buddhism. If you like it or not Buddhism is different from Vedanta

I think its good to compare and share what is the same but lets not try to force things together as one when they obviously teach different things and look at the world and understand the world in different ways, this is being honest to the truth

Metta friend

Anicca
07 July 2009, 01:11 PM
Im posting this here because the other post is too long

You asked where Buddha criticised Vedanta

"O Bhikkhus! At that time Baka, the Brahmā, produced the following pernicious view: 'It is permanent. It is eternal. It is always existant. It is independent existence. It has the dharma of non-perishing. Truly it is not born, does not become old, does not die, does not disappear, and is not born again. Furthermore, no liberation superior to it exists elsewhere."


This is the view of Brahman/Atman

Buddha said this was an "unwise" and wrong view and criticised it

metta

atanu
07 July 2009, 01:17 PM
Namaste

So there is no Atman or Brahman then, there are just empty dhammas going about "their" business.

Namaste Anicca,

That verily is the problem that you need to solve. You only quoted: There is doing but no doer.

Yet:
Verily, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible; Ud. (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#Ud.) VIII, 3.

and

Ud 1.3 PTS: Ud 2

Bodhi Sutta: Awakening (3)

When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
-----
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:
As phenomena grow clear to the brahman — ardent, absorbed — he stands, routing the troops of Mara, like the sun that illumines the sky.
------------------------------------

Without that Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible;

So, it hardly is the work of empty dhammas. Empty dhammas are hardly empty and that is why good thoughts and good deeds are helpful while evil thoughts and evil deeds are unhelpful. What you call empty dhammas is pervaded in and out by pure intelligence. Prajnanam Brahman.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
07 July 2009, 01:25 PM
Im posting this here because the other post is too long

You asked where Buddha criticised Vedanta

"O Bhikkhus! At that time Baka, the Brahmā, produced the following pernicious view: 'It is permanent. It is eternal. It is always existant. It is independent existence. It has the dharma of non-perishing. Truly it is not born, does not become old, does not die, does not disappear, and is not born again. Furthermore, no liberation superior to it exists elsewhere."

This is the view of Brahman/Atman Buddha said this was an "unwise" and wrong view and criticised it

Namaste

I am sorry that you are impatient. Buddha is countering brahmA, the mind, the creator and this is not negation of Brahman or Veda. In fact, for Hindus, Shiva has banned worship of creator BrahmA. Please also check as to what view of BrahmA was criticised by Buddha. You will find nearly the same story in the teaching of Prajapati to Virochana (the asura who considered the body-object as self) and Indra (the deva who enquired and enquired and reached the unborn).

Please get something better to show that Buddha trashes Veda.


Om Namah Shivaya

Anicca
07 July 2009, 01:31 PM
Namaste Anicca,

That verily is the problem that you need to solve. You only quoted: There is doing but no doer.

Yet:
Verily, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible; Ud. (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#Ud.) VIII, 3.

and

Ud 1.3 PTS: Ud 2

Bodhi Sutta: Awakening (3)

When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
-----
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:
As phenomena grow clear to the brahman — ardent, absorbed — he stands, routing the troops of Mara, like the sun that illumines the sky.
------------------------------------

Without that Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible;

So, it hardly is the work of empty dhammas. Empty dhammas are hardly empty and that is why good thoughts and good deeds are helpful while evil thoughts and evil deeds are unhelpful. What you call empty dhammas is pervaded in and out by pure intelligence. Prajnanam Brahman.

Om Namah Shivaya


The problem arises because your used to these terms as being in relation to Atman/Brahman etc

These terms relate to Sati or mindfulness

You seem to want to keep putting Atman into things


Adviata Vedanta posits a monistic thing in of itself, buddhism does not

metta

atanu
07 July 2009, 01:34 PM
The problem arises because your used to these terms as being in relation to Atman/Brahman etc
These terms relate to Sati or mindfulness
You seem to want to keep putting Atman into things
metta
I am perplexed. Who/what can engage in Sati? Shunya cannot.


Adviata Vedanta posits a monistic thing in of itself, buddhism does not
Oh. That is the problem. Then shunya is not shunya after all? The Shunya has some other things as well?

Om

Anicca
07 July 2009, 01:41 PM
I am perplexed. Who/what can engage in Sati? Shunya cannot.

There is just sati, there is no "who can engage in sati" or "I engage in sati" etc etc


Oh. That is the problem. Then shunya is not shunya after all? The Shunya has some other things as well

This is a common misunderstanding

Voidness is not a thing, entity or ground of being


Su&#241;&#241;atā signifies that everything one encounters in life is empty of absolute identity, permanence, or an in-dwelling 'self'. This is because everything is inter-related and mutually dependent never wholly self-sufficient or independent. All things are in a state of constant flux where energy and information are forever flowing throughout the natural world giving rise to and themselves undergoing major transformations with the passage of time.

Good explanation above

metta

atanu
07 July 2009, 01:49 PM
There is just sati, there is no "who can engage in sati" or "I engage in sati" etc etc

Then let the sati alone.

Why bother witrh this?: Not to do evil, to cultivate the good, and to purify the mind. This is the teaching of all the Buddha's"

The fact is that there is a doer who has to shed the notion of doership and for that the following applies:

Verily, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible; Ud. (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#Ud.) VIII, 3.
and later on shedding away doership the following:


Ud 1.3 PTS: Ud 2

Bodhi Sutta: Awakening (3)

When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
-----
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:
As phenomena grow clear to the brahman — ardent, absorbed — he stands, routing the troops of Mara, like the sun that illumines the sky
------------------------------------

This is a common misunderstanding, Voidness is not a thing

Who said monism is a thing?

Om Namah Shivaya

Anicca
07 July 2009, 02:11 PM
Namaste



Why bother witrh this?: Not to do evil, to cultivate the good, and to purify the mind. This is the teaching of all the Buddha's"

Because there is dukkha, First Noble Truth



The fact is that there is a doer who has to shed the notion of doership and for that the following applies:

The fact is that this is your own understanding and is something that would be denied outright by Buddhism

All notions of a "doer" are just the result of clinging to the khandas, just are all notions of Brahman or some unifying underlying reality/principle



Who said monism is a thing?

Adviata Vedanta monism is concerned with some thing, agent, being, divine spark, entity, ground of being thing

The Buddhist take on Brahman and Atman is rather than deal with the reality of anatta because it is frightening, some people will try to find a truly true self, and the Buddha states that whatever truly true self one might find, it in reality is grounded in the khandhas, making it a constructed impermanent thingie.


"The five aggregates together, which we popularly call a 'being', are dukkha itself (sa.mkhaara-dukkha). There is no other 'being' or 'I', standing behind these five aggregates, who experiences dukkha.

As Buddhaghosa says:

'Mere suffering exists, but no suffering is found;
The deeds are, but no doer is found.'

There is no unmoving mover behjind the movement. It is only movement. It is not correct to say that life is moving, but life is movement itself. Life and movement are not two different things. In other words, there is no thinker behing the thought. Thought itself is the thinker. If you remove the thought, there is no thinker to be found." (The Doctrine of No-Soul: Anatta. p. 26)



Im familliar with Adviata saying the thought is just thought but the main thrust and teaching is that there is no agent in, outside or apart from the khandas and as i said Buddha never taught about somekind of union or relization of "not two" with Brahman



SN 12.48 PTS: S ii 77 CDB i 584
Lokayatika Sutta: The Cosmologist
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
© 1999–2009

Staying at Savatthi. Then a brahman cosmologist [1] went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Now, then, Master Gotama, does everything [2] exist?"

"'Everything exists' is the senior form of cosmology, brahman."

"Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?"

"'Everything does not exist' is the second form of cosmology, brahman."

"Then is everything a Oneness?"

"'Everything is a Oneness' is the third form of cosmology, brahman."

"Then is everything a Manyness?"

"'Everything is a Manyness' is the fourth form of cosmology, brahman. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

"Magnificent, Master Gotama! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has Master Gotama — through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go to Master Gotama for refuge, to the Dhamma, and to the Sangha of monks. May Master Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge, from this day forward, for life."

Notes
1.The cosmologist (lokayata) schools of thought reasoned from what they saw as the basic principles of the physical cosmos in formulating their teachings on how life should be lived. In modern times, they would correspond to those who base their philosophies on principles drawn from the physical sciences, such as evolutionary biology or quantum physics. Although the cosmologists of India in the Buddha's time differed on first principles, they tended to be more unanimous in using their first principles — whatever they were — to argue for hedonism as the best approach to life.

2."Everything" may also be translated as "the All." Concerning this term, SN 35.23 says, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This is termed the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his assertion, would be unable to explain, and furthermore would be put to grief. Why is that? Because it lies beyond range." For more on this topic, see The Mind Like Fire Unbound, Chapter 1.


Metta

Anicca
07 July 2009, 05:07 PM
Namaste

Found an interesting article in relation to this topic



Preface

Vedanta and Buddhism
A Comparative Study
selected essays edited by
Helmuth von Glasenapp
© 1995–2009 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/vonglasenapp/wheel002.html#F_termsOfUse)


The present treatise by Prof. Dr. H.V. Glasenapp has been selected for reprint particularly in view of the excellent elucidation of the Anatta Doctrine which it contains. The treatise, in its German original, appeared in 1950 in the Proceeding of the "Akademie der Wissenschaften and Literatur" (Academy of Sciences and Literature). The present selection from that original is based on the abridged translations published in "The Buddhist," Vol.XXI, No. 12 (Colombo 1951). Partial use has also been made of a different selection and translation which appeared in "The Middle Way," Vol. XXXI, No. 4 (London 1957).
The author of this treatise is an eminent Indologist of Western Germany, formerly of the University of Koenigsberg, now occupying the indological chair of the University of Tuebingen. Among his many scholarly publications are books on Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism and on comparative religion.
— Buddhist Publication Society
Vedanta and Buddhism

Vedanta and Buddhism are the highlights of Indian philosophical thought. Since both have grown in the same spiritual soil, they share many basic ideas: both of them assert that the universe shows a periodical succession of arising, existing and vanishing, and that this process is without beginning and end. They believe in the causality which binds the result of an action to its cause (karma), and in rebirth conditioned by that nexus. Both are convinced of the transitory, and therefore sorrowful character, of individual existence in the world; they hope to attain gradually to a redeeming knowledge through renunciation and meditation and they assume the possibility of a blissful and serene state, in which all worldly imperfections have vanished for ever. The original form of these two doctrines shows however strong contrast. The early Vedanta, formulated in most of the older and middle Upanishads, in some passages of the Mahabharata and the Puranas, and still alive today (though greatly changed) as the basis of several Hinduistic systems, teaches an ens realissimum (an entity of highest reality) as the primordial cause of all existence, from which everything has arisen and with which it again merges, either temporarily or for ever.

With the monistic metaphysics of the Vedanta contrasts the pluralistic Philosophy of Flux of the early Buddhism of the Pali texts which up to the present time flourishes in Ceylon, Burma and Siam. It teaches that in the whole empirical reality there is nowhere anything that persists; neither material nor mental substances exist independently by themselves; there is no original entity or primordial Being in whatsoever form it may be imagined, from which these substances might have developed. On the contrary, the manifold world of mental and material elements arises solely through the causal co-operation of the transitory factors of existence (dharma) which depend functionally upon each other, that is, the material and mental universe arises through the concurrence of forces that, according to the Buddhists, are not reducible to something else. It is therefore obvious that deliverance from the Samsara, i.e., the sorrow-laden round of existence, cannot consist in the re-absorption into an eternal Absolute which is at the root of all manifoldness, but can only be achieved by a complete extinguishing of all factors which condition the processes constituting life and world. The Buddhist Nirvana is, therefore, not the primordial ground, the eternal essence, which is at the basis of everything and form which the whole world has arisen (the Brahman of the Upanishads) but the reverse of all that we know, something altogether different which must be characterized as a nothing in relation to the world, but which is experienced as highest bliss by those who have attained to it (Anguttara Nikaya, Navaka-nipata 34). Vedantists and Buddhists have been fully aware of the gulf between their doctrines, a gulf that cannot be bridged over. According to Majjhima Nikaya, Sutta 22, a doctrine that proclaims "The same is the world and the self. This I shall be after death; imperishable, permanent, eternal!" (see Brh. UP. 4, 4, 13), was styled by the Buddha a perfectly foolish doctrine. On the other side, the Katha-Upanishad (2, 1, 14) does not see a way to deliverance in the Buddhist theory of dharmas (impersonal processes): He who supposes a profusion of particulars gets lost like rain water on a mountain slope; the truly wise man, however, must realize that his Atman is at one with the Universal Atman, and that the former, if purified from dross, is being absorbed by the latter, "just as clear water poured into clear water becomes one with it, indistinguishably."


Vedanta and Buddhism have lived side by side for such a long time that obviously they must have influenced each other. The strong predilection of the Indian mind for a doctrine of universal unity (monism) has led the representatives of Mahayana to conceive Samsara and Nirvana as two aspects of the same and single true reality; for Nagarjuna the empirical world is a mere appearance, as all dharmas, manifest in it, are perishable and conditioned by other dharmas, without having any independent existence of their own. Only the indefinable "Voidness" (sunyata) to be grasped in meditation, and realized in Nirvana, has true reality.


This so-called Middle Doctrine of Nagarjuna remains true to the Buddhist principle that there can be nowhere a substance, in so far as Nagarjuna sees the last unity as a kind of abyss, characterized only negatively, which has no genetic relation to the world. Asanga and Vasubandhu, however, in their doctrine of Consciousness Only, have abandoned the Buddhist principle of denying a positive reality which is at the root all phenomena, and in doing so, they have made a further approach to Vedanta. To that mahayanistic school of Yogacaras, the highest reality is a pure and undifferentiated spiritual element that represents the non- relative substratum of all phenomena. To be sure, they thereby do not assert, as the (older) Vedanta does, that the ens realissimum (the highest essence) is identical with the universe, the relation between the two is rather being defined as "being neither different nor not different." It is only in the later Buddhist systems of the Far East that the undivided, absolute consciousness is taken to be the basis of the manifold world of phenomena. But in contrast to the older Vedanta, it is never maintained that the world is an unfoldment from the unchangeable, eternal, blissful Absolute; suffering and passions, manifest in the world of plurality, are rather traced back to worldly delusion.


On the other hand, the doctrines of later Buddhist philosophy had a far-reaching influence on Vedanta. It is well known that Gaudapada, and other representatives of later Vedanta, taught an illusionistic acosmism, for which true Reality is only "the eternally pure, eternally awakened, eternally redeemed" universal spirit whilst all manifoldness is only delusion; the Brahma has therefore not developed into the world, as asserted by the older Vedanta, but it forms only the world's unchangeable background, comparable to the white screen on which appear the changing images of an unreal shadow play.


In my opinion, there was in later times, especially since the Christian era, much mutual influence of Vedanta and Buddhism, but originally the systems are diametrically opposed to each other. The Atman doctrine of the Vedanta and the Dharma theory of Buddhism exclude each other. The Vedanta tries to establish an Atman as the basis of everything, whilst Buddhism maintains that everything in the empirical world is only a stream of passing Dharmas (impersonal and evanescent processes) which therefore has to be characterized as Anatta, i.e., being without a persisting self, without independent existence.


Again and again scholars have tried to prove a closer connection between the early Buddhism of the Pali texts, and the Vedanta of the Upanishads; they have even tried to interpret Buddhism as a further development of the Atman doctrine. There are, e.g., two books which show that tendency: The Vedantic Buddhism of the Buddha, by J.G. Jennings (Oxford University Press, 1947), and in German language, The Soul Problem of Early Buddhism, by Herbert Guenther (Konstanz 1949).


The essential difference between the conception of deliverance in Vedanta and in Pali Buddhism lies in the following ideas: Vedanta sees deliverance as the manifestation of a state which, though obscured, has been existing from time immemorial; for the Buddhist, however, Nirvana is a reality which differs entirely from all dharmas as manifested in Samsara, and which only becomes effective, if they are abolished. To sum up: the Vedantin wishes to penetrate to the last reality which dwells within him as an immortal essence, or seed, out of which everything has arisen. The follower of Pali Buddhism, however, hopes by complete abandoning of all corporeality, all sensations, all perceptions, all volitions, and acts of consciousness, to realize a state of bliss which is entirely different from all that exists in the Samsara.


After these introductory remarks we shall now discuss systematically the relation of original Buddhism and Vedanta.


(1) First of all we have to clarify to what extent a knowledge of Upanishadic texts may be assumed for the canonical Pali scriptures. The five old prose Upanishads are, on reasons of contents and language, generally held to be pre-Buddhistic. The younger Upanishads, in any case those beginning from Maitrayana, were certainly written at a time when Buddhism already existed.
The number of passages in the Pali canon dealing with Upanishadic doctrines, is very small. It is true that early Buddhism shares many doctrines with the Upanishads (Karma, rebirth, liberation through insight), but these tenets were so widely held in philosophical circles of those times that we can no longer regard the Upanishads are the direct source from which the Buddha has drawn. The special metaphysical concern of the Upanishads, the identity of the individual and the universal Atman, has been mentioned and rejected only in a few passages in the early Buddhist texts, for instance in the saying of the Buddha quoted earlier. Nothing shows better the great distance that separates the Vedanta and the teachings of the Buddha, than the fact that the two principal concepts of Upanishadic wisdom, Atman and Brahman, do not appear anywhere in the Buddhist texts, with the clear and distinct meaning of a "primordial ground of the world, core of existence, ens realissimum (true substance)," or similarly. As this holds likewise true for the early Jaina literature, one must assume that early Vedanta was of no great importance in Magadha, at the time of the Buddha and the Mahavira; otherwise the opposition against if would have left more distinct traces in the texts of these two doctrines.


(2) It is of decisive importance for examining the relation between Vedanta and Buddhism, clearly to establish the meaning of the words atta and anatta in Buddhist literature.
The meaning of the word attan (nominative: atta, Sanskrit: atman, nominative: atma) divides into two groups: (1) in daily usage, attan ("self") serves for denoting one's own person, and has the function of a reflexive pronoun. This usage is, for instance, illustrated in the 12th Chapter of the Dhammapada. As a philosophical term attan denotes the individual soul as assumed by the Jainas and other schools, but rejected by the Buddhists. This individual soul was held to be an eternal unchangeable spiritual monad, perfect and blissful by nature, although its qualities may be temporarily obscured through its connection with matter. Starting from this view held by the heretics, the Buddhists further understand by the term "self" (atman) any eternal, unchangeable individual entity, in other words, that which Western metaphysics calls a "substance": "something existing through and in itself, and not through something else; nor existing attached to, or inherent in, something else." In the philosophical usage of the Buddhists, attan is, therefore, any entity of which the heretics wrongly assume that it exists independently of everything else, and that it has existence on its own strength.
The word anattan (nominative: anatta) is a noun (Sanskrit: anatma) and means "not-self" in the sense of an entity that is not independent. The word anatman is found in its meaning of "what is not the Soul (or Spirit)," also in brahmanical Sanskrit sources (Bhagavadgita, 6,6; Shankara to Brahma Sutra I, 1, 1, Bibl, Indica, p 16; Vedantasara Section 158). Its frequent use in Buddhism is accounted for by the Buddhist' characteristic preference for negative nouns. Phrases like rupam anatta are therefore to be translated "corporeality is a not-self," or "corporeality is not an independent entity."
As an adjective, the word anattan (as occasionally attan too; see Dhammapada 379; Geiger, Pali Lit., Section 92) changes from the consonantal to the a-declension; anatta (see Sanskrit anatmaka, anatmya), e.g., Samyutta 22, 55, 7 PTS III p. 56), anattam rupam... anatte sankare... na pajanati ("he does not know that corporeality is without self,... that the mental formations are without self"). The word anatta is therefore, to be translated here by "not having the nature of a self, non-independent, without a (persisting) self, without an (eternal) substance," etc. The passage anattam rupam anatta rupan ti yathabhutam na pajanati has to be rendered: "With regard to corporeality having not the nature of a self, he does not know according to truth, 'Corporeality is a not-self (not an independent entity).'" The noun attan and the adjective anatta can both be rendered by "without a self, without an independent essence, without a persisting core," since the Buddhists themselves do not make any difference in the use of these two grammatical forms. This becomes particularly evident in the case of the word anatta, which may be either a singular or a plural noun. In the well-known phrase sabbe sankhara anicca... sabbe dhamma anatta (Dhp. 279), "all conditioned factors of existence are transitory... all factors existent whatever (Nirvana included) are without a self," it is undoubtedly a plural noun, for the Sanskrit version has sarve dharma anatmanah.
The fact that the Anatta doctrine only purports to state that a dharma is "void of a self," is evident from the passage in the Samyutta Nikaya (35, 85; PTS IV, p.54) where it is said rupa sunna attena va attaniyenava, "forms are void of a self (an independent essence) and of anything pertaining to a self (or 'self-like')."
Where Guenther has translated anattan or anatta as "not the self," one should use "a self" instead of "the self," because in the Pali canon the word atman does not occur in the sense of "universal soul."


(3) It is not necessary to assume that the existence of indestructible monads is a necessary condition for a belief in life after death. The view that an eternal, immortal, persisting soul substance is the conditio sine qua non of rebirth can be refuted by the mere fact that not only in the older Upanishads, but also in Pythagoras and Empedocles, rebirth is taught without the assumption of an imperishable soul substance.


(4) Guenther can substantiate his view only through arbitrary translations which contradict the whole of Buddhist tradition. This is particularly evident in those passages where Guenther asserts that "the Buddha meant the same by Nirvana and atman" and that "Nirvana is the true nature of man." For in Udana 8,2, Nirvana is expressly described as anattam, which is rightly rendered by Dhammapala's commentary (p. 21) as atta-virahita (without a self), and in Vinaya V, p. 86, Nirvana is said to be, just as the conditioned factors of existence (sankhata), "without a self" (p. 151). Neither can the equation atman=nirvana be proved by the well-known phrase attadipa viharatha, dhammadipa, for, whether dipa here means "lamp" or "island of deliverance," this passage can, after all, only refer to the monks taking refuge in themselves and in the doctrine (dhamma),and attan and dhamma cannot possibly be interpreted as Nirvana. In the same way, too, it is quite preposterous to translate Dhammapada 160, atta hi attano natho as "Nirvana is for a man the leader" (p. 155); for the chapter is concerned only with the idea that we should strive hard and purify ourselves. Otherwise Guenther would have to translate in the following verse 161, attana va katam papam attajam attasambhavam: "By Nirvana evil is done, it arises out of Nirvana, it has its origin in Nirvana." It is obvious that this kind of interpretation must lead to manifestly absurd consequences.


(5) As far as I can see there is not a single passage in the Pali canon where the word atta is used in the sense of the Upanishadic Atman.1 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/vonglasenapp/wheel002.html#n-1) This is not surprising, since the word atman, current in all Indian philosophical systems, has the meaning of "universal soul, ens realissimum, the Absolute," exclusively in the pan-en-theistic and theopantistic Vedanta, but, in that sense, it is alien to all other brahmanical and non-Buddhist doctrines. Why, then, should it have a Vedantic meaning in Buddhism? As far as I know, no one has ever conceived the idea of giving to the term atman a Vedantic interpretation, in the case of Nyaya, Vaisesika, classical Sankhya, Yoga, Mimamsa, or Jainism.


(6) The fact that in the Pali canon all worldly phenomena are said to be anatta has induced some scholars of the West to look for an Atman in Buddhism. For instance, the following "great syllogism" was formulated by George Grimm: "What I perceive to arise and to cease, and to cause suffering to me, on account of that impermanence, cannot be my ego. Now I perceive that everything cognizable in me and around me, arises and ceases, and causes me suffering on account of its impermanence. Therefore nothing cognizable is my ego." From that Grimm concludes that there must be an eternal ego-substance that is free from all suffering, and above all cognizability. This is a rash conclusion. By teaching that there is nowhere in the world a persisting Atman, the Buddha has not asserted that there must be a transcendental Atman (i.e., a self beyond the world). This kind of logic resembles that of a certain Christian sect which worships its masters as "Christs on earth," and tries to prove the simultaneous existence of several Christs from Mark 13,22, where it is said: "False Christs and false prophets shall arise"; for, if there are false Christs, there must also be genuine Christs!
The denial of an imperishable Atman is common ground for all systems of Hinayana as well as Mahayana, and there is, therefore, no reason for the assumption that Buddhist tradition, unanimous on that point, has deviated from the original doctrine of the Buddha. If the Buddha, contrary to the Buddhist tradition, had actually proclaimed a transcendental Atman, a reminiscence of it would have been preserved somehow by one of the older sects. It is remarkable that even the Pudgalavadins, who assume a kind of individual soul, never appeal to texts in which an Atman in this sense is proclaimed. He who advocates such a revolutionary conception of the Buddha's teachings, has also the duty to show evidence how such a complete transformation started and grew, suddenly or gradually. But non of those who advocate the Atta-theory has taken to comply with that demand which is indispensable to a historian.


(7) In addition to the aforementioned reasons, there are other grounds too, which speak against the supposition that the Buddha has identified Atman and Nirvana. It remains quite incomprehensible why the Buddha should have used this expression which is quite unsuitable for Nirvana and would have aroused only wrong associations in his listeners. Though it is true that Nirvana shares with the Vedantic conception of Atman the qualification of eternal peace into which the liberated ones enter forever, on the other hand, the Atman is in brahmanical opinion, something mental and conscious, a description which does not hold true for Nirvana. Furthermore, Nirvana is not, like the Atman, the primordial ground or the divine principle of the world (Aitareya Up. 1,1), nor is it that which preserves order in the world (Brhadar. Up. 3,8,9); it is also not the substance from which everything evolves, nor the core of all material elements.


(8) Since the scholarly researches made by Otto Rosenberg (published in Russian 1918, in German trs. 1924), Th. Stcherbatsky (1932), and the great work of translation done by Louis de la Vallee Poussin Abhidharmakosa (1923-31) there cannot be any doubt about the basic principle of Buddhist philosophy. In the light of these researches, all attempts to give to the Atman a place in the Buddhist doctrine, appear to be quite antiquated. We know now that all Hinayana and Mahayana schools are based on the anatma-dharma theory. This theory explains the world through the causal co-operation of a multitude of transitory factors (dharma), arising in mutual functional dependence. This theory maintains that the entire process of liberation consists in the tranquilization of these incessantly arising and disappearing factors. For that process of liberation however, is required, apart from moral restraint (sila) and meditative concentration (samadhi), the insight (prajna) that all conditioned factors of existence (samskara) are transitory, without a permanent independent existence, and therefore subject to grief and suffering. The Nirvana which the saint experiences already in this life, and which he enters for ever after death, is certainly a reality (dharma), but as it neither arises nor vanishes, it is not subject to suffering, and is thereby distinguished from all conditioned realities. Nirvana being a dharma, is likewise anatta, just as the transitory, conditioned dharmas of the Samsara which, as caused by volitions (that is, karma-producing energies (samskara)), are themselves also called samskara. Like them, Nirvana is no individual entity which could act independently. For it is the basic idea of the entire system that all dharmas are devoid of Atman, and without cogent reasons we cannot assume that the Buddha himself has thought something different from that which since more than two thousand years, his followers have considered to be the quintessence of their doctrine.


Note

1 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/vonglasenapp/wheel002.html#t-1). Except in a few passages rejecting it, as the one quoted by the author: "The same is the world and the self"; see also Sutta-nipata, v 477; and one of the six Ego- beliefs rejected in Majjh. 2: "'Even by the self I perceive the self': this view occurs to him as being true and correct" (attana va attanam sanjanamit'titi). Of Bhagavadgita VI 19 Yatra caiv' atmana atmanam pasyann-atmani tusyati. — The BPS Editor


Publisher's noteThe Buddhist Publication Society (http://www.bps.lk/) is an approved charity dedicated to making known the Teaching of the Buddha, which has a vital message for people of all creeds.
Founded in 1958, the BPS has published a wide variety of books and booklets covering a great range of topics. Its publications include accurate annotated translations of the Buddha's discourses, standard reference works, as well as original contemporary expositions of Buddhist thought and practice. These works present Buddhism as it truly is — a dynamic force which has influenced receptive minds for the past 2500 years and is still as relevant today as it was when it first arose.
Buddhist Publication Society
P.O. Box 61
54, Sangharaja Mawatha
Kandy, Sri Lanka

[/URL]
Provenance:
©1978 Buddhist Publication Society.
The Wheel Publication No. 2 (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1978). Transcribed from from the print edition in 1995 by Gaston Losier under the auspices of the DharmaNet Dharma Book Transcription Project, with the kind permission of the Buddhist Publication Society.
This Access to Insight edition is ©1995–2009 John T. Bullitt.


Terms of use: You may copy, reformat, reprint, republish, and redistribute this work in any medium whatsoever, provided that: (1) you only make such copies, etc. available free of charge; (2) you clearly indicate that any derivatives of this work (including translations) are derived from this source document; and (3) you include the full text of this license in any copies or derivatives of this work. Otherwise, all rights reserved. For additional information about this license, see the [URL="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/faq.html#copyright"]FAQ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/vonglasenapp/wheel002.html#top).

How to cite this document (one suggested style): "Vedanta and Buddhism: A Comparative Study", selected essays edited by Helmuth von Glasenapp. Access to Insight, June 7, 2009, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/vonglasenapp/wheel002.html (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/vonglasenapp/wheel002.html).


Metta

TatTvamAsi
07 July 2009, 06:43 PM
The problem here is Buddhists associate the ego, AhamkArA, with the word 'self' whereas, Advaita Vedanta states that the Self/Brahman is beyond all imaginations, explanations, contemplations, and discussions. It is that which has to be EXPERIENCED.

I agree that during the time of Buddha, Hindus were too focused on rituals and dualistic interpretations of the Veda. However, this does not mean that the Veda itself posits this notion of permanent ego-self or mind. The Veda, posits that REALITY is beyond any description, explanation, and theory; it is something that has to be experienced.

Buddha might have stated that avoid all objects of worship in order to not cling to anything (mind-wise), however, he NEVER stated that Brahman/Atman/Self doesn't exist! Talking about the Self and discussing it is futile because it will not lead one to Moksha; again this does not mean the existence of the Self is denied.

The point is that, Buddha's philosophy, as Atanu correctly stated, was reformist in that day and age in India.

The other nonsensical thing that Buddhists posit is that Buddha was not Hindu and Hinduism didn't exist then! hahaha.. this is an absolute affront to Sanatana Dharma--> THAT WHICH IS ETERNAL! If Krishna spoke the Bhagavad Gita around 3130 BCE, that's about 2600 years BEFORE Buddha, which forms the core of Upanishadic thought.

Of course, many so-called scholars state that the Rig Veda was "composed" around 1700 BCE, which is still 1200 years before Buddha, but that is completely erroneous. The Rig Veda is many thousands of years older than that.

And, Buddha, Buddhism, and even Jainism were formed in India and could have been possible ONLY in India. This is not coincidental. The rest of the world was living in caves and murdering each other when Indians were peering into the nature of reality!

JAI HIND!

Namaskar.

devotee
07 July 2009, 09:58 PM
Namaste,

The excerpts from book written by Helmuth von Glasenapp quoted by Anicca above shows only the ignorance of the author. I would like to add here that he is not the only one subscribing to such views, there are many. The problem is the typical western-mindset arising out of heavy conditioning by Abrahimic religions. Comparisons showing the differences in the passage quoted showing the poor understanding of the writer & his biases. Anyone who understands Vedanta correctly can see through the fallacious arguments made in the passage.

The Buddhism & Vedanta schools both have produced several enlightened beings . If they really contradict each other, how they produce same result ?

Somewhere Anicca has posted some passage indicating how Buddha himself denied Vedantic philosophy. That passage doesn't put forward any logical comparison between the Vedantic philosophy & Buddhism. Buddha says, "It is very complicated & difficult to understand ..... & can it get you Nirvana ? etc." .... the students readily say, "No, sir" ! What is this all ? What does it really prove ? Nothing !!

In the above passage, Buddha allegedly says that freedom from Dukkha is not possible by following the Vedantic philosophy. This is a blatant lie. The proof are many enlightened beings who were & are Vedantins. So, was Buddha lying ? If yes, what could be his motive ? What was the temptation for him to commit such heinous act after getting enlightenment ? Or was Buddha ignorant of correct interpretation of Vedanta ?

I think Buddha was neither ignorant of Vedanta & never he told lies. So, where do we reach ? The authenticity of the passage is seriously doubtful. As for the Heart Sutras & Diamond Sutras are denied (by people subscribing to Annica's school of thinking) to have originated from Buddha & are called to be a manipulation ... in fact, there appears to be many manipulations by people clinging to such thoughts giving birth to passages similar to that quoted by Anicca. The problem is that people subscribing to such views don't understand that there is no difference between Shakyamuni Buddha & any other Buddha/enlightened being. If anyone sees any difference then he doesn't understand even a thread of Buddhism. So, whatever was revealed to Shakyamuni Buddha & what was revealed to Buddhas of Mahayana Buddhism .... can they be different ? It will be height of foolishness to say that they had different revelations !

------------------------------------------------

Reading a scripture ( mugging it scholarly ) & having a clear understanding of the scriptures are two different things. That was reflected in MahaHrada's posts & that is reflected in writings by such scholars. The spiritiuality is different from getting a degree in college. The Abrahimical way of becoming spiritually knowledgeable is getting a degree in that subject (including getting a Ph.D. etc.).

Let anyone who has attained enlightenment & tried both the ways say the difference. The enlightened Saint Ramakrishna ( disciple of Saint Totapuri, a Vedantin) tried several paths & declared that all the paths lead to the same reality.

Should we believe the enlightened Saints/ the scriptures or the so called Scholars or the manipulated texts ?

OM

atanu
08 July 2009, 01:23 AM
Namaste
Because there is dukkha, First Noble Truth
-----------
The fact is that this is your own understanding and is something that would be denied outright by Buddhism
------------
All notions of a "doer" are just the result of clinging to the khandas, just are all notions of Brahman or some unifying underlying reality/principle
----------
'Mere suffering exists, but no suffering is found;
The deeds are, but no doer is found.'


Namaste Anicca,

There is Dukkha. There is no Dukhi (sufferer). Then why do you say: Since there is Dukkha therefore "Not to do evil, to cultivate the good, and to purify the mind. This is the teaching of all the Buddha's" ".

It is outright funny that you say there is no doer and there is no sufferer yet you exhort to do something. Funny.


Anyway, I do not think that you will acknowledge that you cannot explain. Instead of abiding by the following clear teachings you cite contorted purports from unrealised-unenlightened scholars:
Verily, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible; Ud. (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#Ud.) VIII, 3.

and
Ud 1.3 PTS: Ud 2
Bodhi Sutta: Awakening (3)
When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.-----
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:
As phenomena grow clear to the brahman — ardent, absorbed — he stands, routing the troops of Mara, like the sun that illumines the skyThe above two passages clearly show that there is Verily, an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. You may call this by any name, it does not matter.



Adviata Vedanta monism is concerned with some thing, agent, being, divine spark, entity, ground of being thing

No. If Shunyata is true, then MONISM is automatically true. What is there in Shunyata? Shunyata alone IS.


"The five aggregates together, which we popularly call a 'being', are dukkha itself (sa.mkhaara-dukkha). There is no other 'being' or 'I', standing behind these five aggregates, who experiences dukkha.

We do not deny it. We endorse it. But: Verily, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed.


Im familliar with Adviata saying the thought is just thought but the main thrust and teaching is that there is no agent in, outside or apart from the khandas and as i said Buddha never taught about somekind of union or relization of "not two" with Brahman

You are not at all familiar with Advaita. Do you mean to say that in Shunyata, Buddha saw other Bhikkus? Shunyata is that which does not have any surface or base where the consciousness can land. Shunyata itself is Advaita. Shunyata will not be Shunyata, if there was Buddha and Bikkhus in it.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
08 July 2009, 01:30 AM
Namaste,

The excerpts from book written by Helmuth von Glasenapp quoted by Anicca above shows only the ignorance of the author. ----
Reading a scripture ( mugging it scholarly ) & having a clear understanding of the scriptures are two different things. That was reflected in MahaHrada's posts & that is reflected in writings by such scholars.
OM

Namaste TTA and Devotee,

Hinduism comprises of devotion in Dvaita mode and also Jnana in Advaita mode. This whole spectrum has a very vast variety, suitable for vast variety of minds.

Those who have been taught a specialist line, however, do not see the whole. They point out just one aspect and try to trash the full teachings. Not only they cling to their false notions, which are so easily pointed out, but they accuse Hindus of clinging. So strong is their clinging and ego association that they are not able to acknowledge their false notions.

Om

atanu
08 July 2009, 01:48 AM
Vedanta and Buddhism
A Comparative Study
selected essays edited by
Helmuth von Glasenapp
-----With the monistic metaphysics of the Vedanta contrasts the pluralistic Philosophy of Flux of the early Buddhism of the Pali texts which up to the present time flourishes in Ceylon, Burma and Siam. It teaches that in the whole empirical reality there is nowhere anything that persists --------


Buddhist teaching says:
Verily, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible; Ud. (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#Ud.) VIII, 3.Verily there is continuity and persitence of the unborn, unoriginated.

Oh. I see. On further reading, I find "in the whole empirical reality there is nowhere anything that persists ----"

Does Advaita say that the empirical reality is persistent?
-------------------------------
The problem is not that there is an erroneous understanding. The problem is not willing to contemplate and acknowledge that there may be some mis-understanding. Diverse opinions are present in both Buddhism and Hinduism.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
08 July 2009, 06:31 AM
Namaste


-----The meaning of the word attan (nominative: atta, Sanskrit: atman, nominative: atma) divides into two groups: (1) in daily usage, attan ("self") serves for denoting one's own person, and has the function of a reflexive pronoun. This usage is, for instance, illustrated in the 12th Chapter of the Dhammapada. As a philosophical term attan denotes the individual soul as assumed by the Jainas and other schools, but rejected by the Buddhists. This individual soul was held to be an eternal unchangeable spiritual monad, perfect and blissful by nature, although its qualities may be temporarily obscured through its connection with matter.

Namaste,

The writer paints the whole of Vedanta with one brush. The definition of 'Atman'-'atta' as the unchangeable eternal individual soul, is only held by dualists and not by non-dualists and also to some extent by qualified monists.

The whole contrast is pointless. It dis-regards that Vedanta has shruti that Atman is "NOT TWO". It is similar to the arguments between advaitins and dvaitins, who dis regard the clear cut abheda shruti by contrasting them with non-abheda mantras and other empirical teachings of Veda/Upanishad.

It does not take great intelligence to aver that one who holds to the unchangeable eternal individual soul, does not even aspire for a moksha proper. Such a devotee's mukti is bhakti/worship in eternal dual mode.

Upanishad says "Atman is fearless". On the other hand, it also says "One who sees a second is not free of fear" and "One who sees any difference here goes from death to death", we believe that "Atman" is indivisible "Not Two". We also believe that dualistic belief (even if vedantic) does not result in freedom from fear and death.

So, where is the validity of the contrast?

I can show that Atman is indeed "Not Two" as per Upanishads. It also is 'not a being and neither a non being'. So, starting with a premise of 'attas' which refers to 'many beings' in the Pali context, the whole issue is confused.


The simple thing to remember is:
Verily, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible; Ud. (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#Ud.) VIII, 3.There is a great clarity here that there is 'AN Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed'. So, it is a clear cut advaita. There are not 'many Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed'.


An enlightened having escaped from the world of born, the originated, the created, the formed cannot yet make a second Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed' . Monism is the only truth for the enlightened and thus Guru Tattva is also non-dual.

Om Namah Shivaya

Anicca
08 July 2009, 09:42 AM
Namaste

This is going to be a long post since im replying to everyone in one


The problem here is Buddhists associate the ego, AhamkArA, with the word 'self' whereas, Advaita Vedanta states that the Self/Brahman is beyond all imaginations, explanations, contemplations, and discussions. It is that which has to be EXPERIENCED.

Any idea of a self permanent agent thingie is not in line with Buddhadhamma as it has been taught for over 2000 years. You also fall off the Buddhist path straight away by holding a view of some metaphysical reality


I agree that during the time of Buddha, Hindus were too focused on rituals and dualistic interpretations of the Veda. However, this does not mean that the Veda itself posits this notion of permanent ego-self or mind. The Veda, posits that REALITY is beyond any description, explanation, and theory; it is something that has to be experienced.

Which isnt taught as part of the Buddhist path


Buddha might have stated that avoid all objects of worship in order to not cling to anything (mind-wise), however, he NEVER stated that Brahman/Atman/Self doesn't exist! Talking about the Self and discussing it is futile because it will not lead one to Moksha; again this does not mean the existence of the Self is denied.

He said any idea of self on any level and in anway is just ignorance on the persons part because any idea of a self on any level is just simply the result of clinging to the khandas even if the "person" is aware of it or not


The other nonsensical thing that Buddhists posit is that Buddha was not Hindu and Hinduism didn't exist then! hahaha.. this is an absolute affront to Sanatana Dharma--> THAT WHICH IS ETERNAL! If Krishna spoke the Bhagavad Gita around 3130 BCE, that's about 2600 years BEFORE Buddha, which forms the core of Upanishadic thought.

Hinduism didnt exist since this is a modern term, a form of Sanatana Dharma did exist however yes

As for Buddha being a hindu i dont think its here nor there


The Buddhism & Vedanta schools both have produced several enlightened beings . If they really contradict each other, how they produce same result ?

Well in Buddhism its slightly more than several, i dont know what Vedanta has to say on it.

The problem is in what hindus and buddhist see awakening as

Doesnt Adviata Vedanta state that awakening is realizing that self is already enlightened and is non-dual with Brahman?

Buddhism awakening is seeing the mark of anicca in everything conditioned, seeing it as dukkha and so is anatta. This is then a state of complete non-attachment and clinging where the fires of greed, hatred and delusion are blown out and all that remains is cool


"It is very complicated & difficult to understand ..... & can it get you Nirvana ? etc." .... the students readily say, "No, sir" ! What is this all ? What does it really prove ? Nothing !!

What passage does this refer to?


In the above passage, Buddha allegedly says that freedom from Dukkha is not possible by following the Vedantic philosophy. This is a blatant lie. The proof are many enlightened beings who were & are Vedantins. So, was Buddha lying ? If yes, what could be his motive ? What was the temptation for him to commit such heinous act after getting enlightenment ? Or was Buddha ignorant of correct interpretation of Vedanta ?

In Buddhadhamma they are not enlightened they are deluded still because of the very concept of Atman/Brahman in Vedanta. The Buddha said the only way to reach Nibbana is to follow the NEFP and no other way to reach it is possible, including Vedanta


I think Buddha was neither ignorant of Vedanta & never he told lies. So, where do we reach ? The authenticity of the passage is seriously doubtful. As for the Heart Sutras & Diamond Sutras are denied (by people subscribing to Annica's school of thinking) to have originated from Buddha & are called to be a manipulation ... in fact, there appears to be many manipulations by people clinging to such thoughts giving birth to passages similar to that quoted by Anicca. The problem is that people subscribing to such views don't understand that there is no difference between Shakyamuni Buddha & any other Buddha/enlightened being. If anyone sees any difference then he doesn't understand even a thread of Buddhism. So, whatever was revealed to Shakyamuni Buddha & what was revealed to Buddhas of Mahayana Buddhism .... can they be different ? It will be height of foolishness to say that they had different revelations !

Mahayana sutra are agreed upon by Theravadins, Historical Scholars and even by some Mahayana buddhists to not be the word of the Buddha, not the orignal teachings but ideas from monks and so inspired by him, if you like

Stating that they come from Buddha is just not in accord with reality when looked at the facts and not school specific mythology, in one case being the idea that the teachings were being hidden in the realm of nagas because people were to stupid to understand them



Should we believe the enlightened Saints/ the scriptures or the so called Scholars or the manipulated texts ?

Depends on who you think is enlightened

Atanu


There is Dukkha. There is no Dukhi (sufferer). Then why do you say: Since there is Dukkha therefore "Not to do evil, to cultivate the good, and to purify the mind. This is the teaching of all the Buddha's" ".

It is outright funny that you say there is no doer and there is no sufferer yet you exhort to do something. Funny.

First of all you back my point since you clearly dont agree with the Buddhas doctine

2nd point, it states to purify the mind, not purify YOUR mind

This is just action, no agent of action






Verily, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible; Ud. (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#Ud.) VIII, 3. and
Ud 1.3 PTS: Ud 2
Bodhi Sutta: Awakening (3)
When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.-----
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:
As phenomena grow clear to the brahman — ardent, absorbed — he stands, routing the troops of Mara, like the sun that illumines the skyThe above two passages clearly show that there is Verily, an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. You may call this by any name, it does not matter.

quoting the same passages again i see, i have already told you what these allude to and it is not a Brahman/Atman thingie


No. If Shunyata is true, then MONISM is automatically true. What is there in Shunyata? Shunyata alone IS.

I think your thinking of the Tibetan Buddhist doctrine on this


We do not deny it. We endorse it. But: Verily, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed.

Nothing to do with Atman/Brahman Vedantic thought


You are not at all familiar with Advaita. Do you mean to say that in Shunyata, Buddha saw other Bhikkus? Shunyata is that which does not have any surface or base where the consciousness can land. Shunyata itself is Advaita. Shunyata will not be Shunyata, if there was Buddha and Bikkhus in it.

So Adviata doesnt teach a non-dual or not-two aspect and doesnt teach Atman and Brahman, perhaps Adviata is Buddhism in disguise


Voidness is the way to look at the whole os existence, void of anything in regards to self or beloning to a self of any kind

Its in the name really, VOID


Those who have been taught a specialist line, however, do not see the whole. They point out just one aspect and try to trash the full teachings. Not only they cling to their false notions, which are so easily pointed out, but they accuse Hindus of clinging. So strong is their clinging and ego association that they are not able to acknowledge their false notions.

Some people cant seem to accept that not everything is Vedanta





Buddhist teaching says:
Verily, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible; Ud. (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#Ud.) VIII, 3.Verily there is continuity and persitence of the unborn, unoriginated.

Oh. I see. On further reading, I find "in the whole empirical reality there is nowhere anything that persists ----"

Does Advaita say that the empirical reality is persistent?
-------------------------------
The problem is not that there is an erroneous understanding. The problem is not willing to contemplate and acknowledge that there may be some mis-understanding. Diverse opinions are present in both Buddhism and Hinduism.


You added "continuity and persitence"

I agree there is a wrong understanding of Buddhism. There is a view here that you know someone elses religion more than they do because of what you think it should be saying in relation to your own religious school of thought

How many ways you try to mesh them together, buddhism and Vedanta are apart

Lets entertain your notion that Buddha taught about Atman/Brahman and union etc etc that still doesnt change the fact that buddha said

not to hold any metaphysical views or views about self, ultimate reality or permanent thing

This is the Buddhas way, if you insert the notion of Brahman/Atman in then you undo all that and, if Buddhism is another form of Vedanta you close down a root of practice for many


Lets look at the fundemental part of a Buddhist practice, the Noble Eight Fold Path

This is the only way to reach nibbana and is the path all Buddhists (or beings) have to walk




&#167; 102. Analysis of the Path.

Monks, what is the noble eightfold path? Right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

And what is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the cessation of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called right view. [&#167;&#167;184 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part3.html#passage-184)-240 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part3.html#passage-240)]


And what is right resolve? Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom from ill will, on non-violence: This is called right resolve.


And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.


And what is right action? Abstaining from taking life, from stealing, & from unchastity: This is called right action.


And what is right livelihood? There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, having abandoned dishonest livelihood, keeps his life going with right livelihood. This is called right livelihood.


And what is right effort? There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen... for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen... for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen...(and) for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen. This is called right effort. [&#167;49 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part2.html#passage-49)]


And what is right mindfulness? There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. This is called right mindfulness. [&#167;30 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part2.html#passage-30)]





And what is right concentration? There is the case where a monk — quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful [mental] qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thoughts & evaluations. With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of concentration, unification of awareness free from directed thoughts & evaluations — internal assurance. With the fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.' With the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier disappearance of joys & distresses — he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is called right concentration. [&#167;150 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part3.html#passage-150)]
— SN 45.8 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.008.than.html)


For buddhist the only view is the Four Noble Truths, by stating that there is Brahman/Atman you ask us to accept a different view or add a view

The Nature of Suffering (Dukkha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha)):
"This is the noble truth of suffering: birth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jati_(Buddhism)) is suffering, aging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaramarana) is suffering, illness is suffering, death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaramarana) is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha) subject to clinging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upadana) are suffering."[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths#cite_note-BodhiDhammacakka-8)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths#cite_note-ChineseBodhiDhammacakka-9)
Suffering's Origin (Samudaya):
"This is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanha) which leads to renewed existence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhava), accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K&#37;C4%81ma), craving for existence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhava), craving for extermination."[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths#cite_note-BodhiDhammacakka-8)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths#cite_note-ChineseBodhiDhammacakka-9)
Suffering's Cessation (Nirodha):
"This is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, nonreliance on it."[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths#cite_note-BodhiDhammacakka-8)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths#cite_note-ChineseBodhiDhammacakka-9)
The Way (Mārga) Leading to the Cessation of Suffering:
"This is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering: it is the Noble Eightfold Path (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path); that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Right_Exertions), right mindfulness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness), right concentration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samadhi_(Buddhism))."[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths#cite_note-10)[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths#cite_note-11)





If no concept of ātman were to exist at all, then we would all be naturally free from saṃsāra. What this entails is that ātman is identified as existing as a concept - more specifically, as an afflictive misunderstanding; moreover, it is this specific affliction which is identified as being the root cause of all suffering.
So, when Buddhists claim that there is no ātman, they are not really saying that it does not exist, but that it exists solely as an affliction - an innate response to the world around us; and this deeply enmeshed affliction lies at the root of all misery.This topic has been interesting however, its interesting to see how Buddhim influenced hinduism later on
metta

devotee
08 July 2009, 10:11 AM
So, Buddhism has more enlightened beings than Hindusim ? the Hindu enlightened beings are actually deluded ? They need a certificate from Anicca for being declared enlightened, right ? The Vedanta is a copy of Buddhism ?

Control yourself Anicca, or you will burst with your highly inflated ego ! You neither understand Buddhism nor will you ever understand Vedanta.You come in disguise of understanding Vedanta/Hinduism & start showing your true colors ???


Please go & meditate. These extreme views & uncalled for superiority complex arising out of ignorance would not lead you anywhere.

May Buddha bless you with right understanding !

Metta

Anicca
08 July 2009, 10:11 AM
Agitation & Non-Agitation

"But, lord, might there be agitation over what is internally not present?"
"There might, monk," the Blessed One said. "There is the case where someone has this view: 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity.' He hears a Tathagata or a Tathagata's disciple teaching the Dhamma for the elimination of all view-positions, determinations, biases, inclinations, & obsessions; for the stilling of all fabrications; for the relinquishing of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. The thought occurs to him, 'So it might be that I will be annihilated! So it might be that I will perish! So it might be that I will not exist!' He grieves & is tormented, weeps, beats his breast, & grows delirious. It's thus that there is agitation over what is internally not present."

"But, lord, might there be non-agitation over what is internally not present?"

"There might, monk," the Blessed One said. "There is the case where someone doesn't have this view: 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity.' He hears a Tathagata or a Tathagata's disciple teaching the Dhamma for the elimination of all view-positions, determinations, biases, inclinations, & obsessions; for the stilling of all fabrications; for the relinquishing of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. The thought doesn't occur to him, 'So it might be that I will be annihilated! So it might be that I will perish! So it might be that I will not exist!' He doesn't grieve, isn't tormented, doesn't weep, beat his breast, or grow delirious. It's thus that there is non-agitation over what is internally not present."
Abandoning Possessions & Views

"Monks, you would do well to possess that possession, the possession of which would be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, that would stay just like that for an eternity. But do you see that possession, the possession of which would be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, that would stay just like that for an eternity?"

"No, lord."

"Very good, monks. I, too, do not envision a possession, the possession of which would be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, that would stay just like that for an eternity.

"Monks, you would do well to cling to that clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair. But do you see a clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair?"

"No, lord."

"Very good, monks. I, too, do not envision a clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair.

"Monks, you would do well to depend on a view-dependency (ditthi-nissaya), depending on which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair. But do you see a view-dependency, depending on which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair?"

"No, lord."

"Very good, monks. I, too, do not envision a view-dependency, depending on which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair.
"Monks, where there is a self, would there be [the thought,] 'belonging to my self'?"

"Yes, lord."

"Or, monks, where there is what belongs to self, would there be [the thought,] 'my self'?"

"Yes, lord."

"Monks, where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality, then the view-position — 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity' — Isn't it utterly & completely a fool's teaching?"

"What else could it be, lord? It's utterly & completely a fool's teaching."


-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Staying at Savatthi. Then a brahman cosmologist [1] went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Now, then, Master Gotama, does everything [2] exist?"

"'Everything exists' is the senior form of cosmology, brahman."

"Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?"

"'Everything does not exist' is the second form of cosmology, brahman."

"Then is everything Oneness?"

"'Everything is Oneness' is the third form of cosmology, brahman."

"Then is everything Manyness?"

"'Everything is Manyness' is the fourth form of cosmology, brahman. Avoiding these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

"Magnificent, Master Gotama! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has Master Gotama — through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go to Master Gotama for refuge, to the Dhamma, and to the Sangha of monks. May Master Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge, from this day forward, for life."



"Everything is oneness" i.e. monism, non-duality or not-two here we have Adviata Vedanta being dismissed as something the Buddha does not teach

(on a note, notice in this sutta how Brahman is used in the same way as Brahmin, the two get used interchangeably in the suttas)




Perhaps in the end there is union with Brahman, perhaps in the end there is Atman but the point is the Buddha was explicit in stating that holding such views will only hold one back, this is what the Buddha taught


Metta

Anicca
08 July 2009, 10:14 AM
So, Buddhism has more enlightened beings than Hindusim ? the Hindu enlightened beings are actually deluded ? They need a certificate from Anicca for being declared enlightened, right ? The Vedanta is a copy of Buddhism ?

Control yourself Anicca, or you will burst with your highly inflated ego ! You neither understand Buddhism nor will you ever understand Vedanta.You come in disguise of understanding Vedanta/Hinduism & start showing your true colors ???


Please go & meditate. These extreme views & uncalled for superiority complex arising out of ignorance would not lead you anywhere.

May Buddha bless you with right understanding !

Metta


im not saying if they have or not

In terms of Buddhism thousands since buddhas time are said to have reached nibbana

As for if there are any hindu's who are enlightened, i dont know but in buddhist doctine they can only be enlightened by following the Buddhist NEFP

I wasnt saying one is better than another but if you want to know Theravada buddhist doctrine (and most mahayana) then its as i said above

metta

Anicca
08 July 2009, 10:33 AM
If you would like to hear what some enlightened buddhist monks have to say i have some quotes (in case you think i just go by scholars)


Ajahn Chah

"A devout elderly lady from a nearby province came on a pilgrimage to Wat Pah Pong. She told Ajahn Chah she could stay only a short time, as she had to return to take care of her grandchildren, and since she was an old lady, she asked if he could please give her a brief Dhamma talk. Ajahn Chah replied with great force, "Hay, listen! There’s no one here, just this! No owner, no one to be old, to be young, to be good or bad, weak or strong. Just this, that’s all - just various elements of nature going their own way, all empty. No one born and no one to die! Those who speak of birth and death are speaking the language of ignorant children. In the language of the heart, of Dhamma, there are no such things as birth and death."

(when he says just this he means just this body, just this feeling etc)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

"People don’t study that which is beyond good and evil. This is what they should study. "I’m going to be like this; I’m going to be like that," they say. But they never say, "I’m not going to be anything because there really isn’t any ‘I’." This they don’t study"

----------------------------------------------------------------

All bodies are composed of the four elements of earth, water, wind and fire. When they come together and form a body we say it’s a male, a female, giving it names, and so on, so that we can identify each other more easily. But actually there isn’t anyone there - only earth, water, wind and fire. Don’t get excited over it or infatuated by it. If you really look into it, you will not find anyone there.


metta

atanu
08 July 2009, 12:02 PM
Any idea of a self permanent agent thingie is not in line with Buddhadhamma as it has been taught for over 2000 years. You also fall off the Buddhist path straight away by holding a view of some metaphysical reality

Namaste,

Brahman/Atman is a thingy is bad notion in YOUR mind and no one else's.


Well in Buddhism its slightly more than several, i dont know what Vedanta has to say on it.

Another notion. When there is no self, what does the above mean?


In Buddhadhamma they are not enlightened they are deluded still because of the very concept of Atman/Brahman in Vedanta. The Buddha said the only way to reach Nibbana is to follow the NEFP and no other way to reach it is possible, including Vedanta

Where did he say so? You are Buddha's spokesperson or what?

Atanu


First of all you back my point since you clearly dont agree with the Buddhas doctine. 2nd point, it states to purify the mind, not purify YOUR mind

Surely not. It is YOUR mind versus other minds. Whether you accept it or not.


quoting the same passages again i see, i have already told you what these allude to and it is not a Brahman/Atman thingie

Atman/Brahman is not a thingie. Atman is not atta, which refers to individual souls, which is called ego (ahamkara) in Vedanta parlance. Ahamkara is VOID and ignorance.

I repeat that Atman is not atta, which as per me means individual soul.


You are crass and unkind. Atman/Brahman definition and source of the definition has been told to you and you constantly ignore that.
Verily, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible; Ud. (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#Ud.) VIII, 3. and
Ud 1.3 PTS: Ud 2
Bodhi Sutta: Awakening (3)
When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.-----
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:
As phenomena grow clear to the brahman — ardent, absorbed — he stands, routing the troops of Mara, like the sun that illumines the skyThe above two passages clearly show that there is Verily, an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. You may call this by any name, it does not matter.

Buddha was not a Brahmana, and neither he believed in self (individual soul). It does not refer to a person of Brahman caste. It refers to an enlightened, who cannot be different from Brahman -- the unlimited Pragnya.


Nothing to do with Atman/Brahman Vedantic thought

Vedantic thought is not. Vedanta is shruti. Half knowledge is indeed dangerous. And waht you say is YOUR thought.



So Adviata doesnt teach a non-dual or not-two aspect and doesnt teach Atman and Brahman, perhaps Adviata is Buddhism in disguise


May be. How does it matter, except to YOUR ego?
Verily, there is AN Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed.Advaita is proven by the scripture you provided.


Voidness is the way to look at the whole os existence, void of anything in regards to self or beloning to a self of any kind

VOID devoid of intelligence (VidyaAvidya) cannot give rise to Buddha the teacher.


Some people cant seem to accept that not everything is Vedanta

Yes. Nothing is beyond OM, so Buddhists mantras use OM.


You added "continuity and persitence"

Yes. While you are on the path, the Verily, THE Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, makes it possible.


I agree there is a wrong understanding of Buddhism. There is a view here that you know someone elses religion more than they do because of what you think it should be saying in relation to your own religious school of thought

That applies to YOU. Since Vedanta is not a thought.


How many ways you try to mesh them together, buddhism and Vedanta are apart

Yes. All paths are distinct. But Vedanta is the SEA. That is why Buddhists have to resort to OM.


Lets entertain your notion that Buddha taught about Atman/Brahman and union etc etc that still doesnt change the fact that buddha said

Vedanta does not teach of Union. Union with another is possible. Union with SELF, is not possible. Only the wandering mind can be brought back to SELF.


This is the Buddhas way, if you insert the notion of Brahman/Atman in then you undo all that and, if Buddhism is another form of Vedanta you close down a root of practice for many

When there is no self, atanu cannot insert anything. Remember that there is no doer.


Lets look at the fundemental part of a Buddhist practice, the Noble Eight Fold Path

You fail to discriminate between the Path and the THE Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed,

Nothing new.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
08 July 2009, 12:18 PM
All bodies are composed of the four elements of earth, water, wind and fire. When they come together and form a body we say it’s a male, a female, giving it names, and so on, so that we can identify each other more easily. But actually there isn’t anyone there - only earth, water, wind and fire. Don’t get excited over it or infatuated by it. If you really look into it, you will not find anyone there.

High Knowledge.:D It seems that this knowledge is new to you. But every Hindu child starts with this knowledge.

All your posts indicate (as has been pointed out by Devotee) that you are striving with YOUR ego laden mind with a false notion that we know otherwise.

atta is ego soul, which is ignorance. Atman, on the other hand, is only indicated by pure Pragnya of deep sleep, which appears shunya , since there remains no second..

Shunya means advaita, objectless and unbroken. But shunya does not explain Buddha the teacher, teaching intelligent things. Atman, which is shunya to the senses, however is full Pragnya.

Om Namah Shivaya

Anicca
08 July 2009, 01:02 PM
Namaste




Well in Buddhism its slightly more than several, i dont know what Vedanta has to say on it.

Another notion. When there is no self, what does the above mean?


Switching between conventional language and Dhamma language will only confuse posts, you know what anatta means in relation to the above post



In Buddhadhamma they are not enlightened they are deluded still because of the very concept of Atman/Brahman in Vedanta. The Buddha said the only way to reach Nibbana is to follow the NEFP and no other way to reach it is possible, including Vedanta


Where did he say so? You are Buddha's spokesperson or what?


from accesstoinsight.org



Enlightenment is accessible only to those who follow this path

"In any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is not found, no contemplative of the first... second... third... fourth order [stream-winner (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/stream.html), once-returner (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html#sakadagami), non-returner (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html#anagami), or arahant (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html#arahant)] is found. But in any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is found, contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order are found. The noble eightfold path is found in this doctrine & discipline, and right here there are contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order. Other teachings are empty of knowledgeable contemplatives. And if the monks dwell rightly, this world will not be empty of arahants."
— DN 16 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html)




You are crass and unkind. Atman/Brahman definition and source of the definition has been told to you and you constantly ignore that.

My intention is not to be unkind. I have read definitions of Atman and Brahman from the upanishad you gave me as well as some books and websites

All of them dont have a place in Buddhadhamma, hence a seperation of Buddhadhamma and Vedanta

I know you practice Advaita Vedanta (or i assume you do) so perhaps your training of non-duality is the very reason you cant consider Buddhadhamma being seperate since that would contradict the Advaita

Perhaps you also feel that Buddhism is a non-dual teaching as well. This is true in part but not as a whole as shown in the sutta i gave earlier

Staying at Savatthi. Then a brahman cosmologist [1] went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Now, then, Master Gotama, does everything [2] exist?"

"'Everything exists' is the senior form of cosmology, brahman."

"Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?"

"'Everything does not exist' is the second form of cosmology, brahman."

"Then is everything Oneness?"

"'Everything is Oneness' is the third form of cosmology, brahman."

"Then is everything Manyness?"

"'Everything is Manyness' is the fourth form of cosmology, brahman. Avoiding these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

"Everything is oneness" i.e. monism, non-duality or not-two here we have Adviata Vedanta being dismissed as something the Buddha does not teach

(on a note, notice in this sutta how Brahman is used in the same way as Brahmin, the two get used interchangeably in the suttas)



Buddha was not a Brahmana, and neither he believed in self. It does not refer to a person of Brahman caste. It refers to an enlightened, who cannot be different from Brahman -- the unlimited Pragnya

The "Brahman" in the text is reffering to any "person" who is reaching the goal, look at the above text and you see Brahman there. He isnt using the word in the upanishadic sense


Vedantic thought is not. Vedanta is shruti. Half knowledge is indeed dangerous. And waht you say is YOUR thought.

Its a figure of speech from where i come from, of course in Hinduism Vedanta is shruti but in Buddhadhamma its specualtive metaphysical thought

(n.b. im not saying if Vedanta is or isnt only what Buddhism teaches, it takes the same view of all religions as being based in speculative metaphysics being born from clinging)


May be. How does it matter, except to YOUR ego?

I dont care if advaita vedanta is a copy of Buddhism, the only reason im posting so much in relation to this is because of an attempt to insert a Vedantic doctrine into Buddhism when Buddhism doesnt contain it, reguardless of if it is ultimately real or not

When you say "Buddha taught Vedanta" or something akin to that then you add Vedanta thought into Buddhism


VOID devoid of intelligence (VidyaAvidya) cannot give rise to Buddha the teacher.

Its because the Buddhas mind is Void that he can teach Dhamma

(im aware of the conventional here)



Yes. Nothing is beyond OM, so Buddhists mantras use OM.

This is from the later, Vedantic influenced, Mahayana and Vajrayana schools


Yes. All paths are distinct. But Vedanta is the SEA. THat is why Buddhists have to resort to OM.

Once again i think this boils down to your non-dualistic world view so perhaps its fruitless to debate with you since if you accept that Buddhism is different then you engage in dualistic thinking?


Vedanta does not teach of Union. Union with another is possible. Union with SELF, is not possible. Only the wandering mind can be brought back to SELF.

Outside of Buddhadhamma again


Actually, you lack cool contemplation. When there is no self, atanu cannot insert anything. Remember that there is no doer.

who said there isnt personality labelled atanu? The personality is real in Buddhadhamma but its anatta, not-self

and yes "you" are trying to insert things into buddhism, hence the constant re-quote of the same passages over and over (which i alread explained away)


You are totally confused. You cannot discriminate between the Path and the THE Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed,


Only in the teachings of advaita vedanta. You are confused in reguards to Buddhism


Now, again, lady, what is the noble eightfold path?"
"This is the noble eightfold path, friend Visakha: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration."
"Is the noble eightfold path conditioned or unconditioned?"
"The noble eightfold path is conditioned."

The Noble Eight Fold Path is not "unborn.........." it is born, created, formed, conditioned but leads to nibbana. Then the NEFP turns into the Noble Ten Fold Path when there is right knowledge and right liberation




High Knowledge.:D It seems that this knowledge is new to you. But every Hindu child starts with this knowledge.

lol i knew about this knowledge a long time ago now


All your posts indicate (as has been pointed out by Devotee) that you are striving with your ego laden with a false notion that we know otherwise.

I see opposite, an attempt to put a Vedanta metaphysics into the Buddhas teachings. Something that seems to be coming from craving

All i have done is show you that your claims about Buddhadhamma hold no weight in light of the Suttas and with how its been taught for centuries


atta is ego soul, which is ignorance. Atman is, on ther hand, points to pure unbroken intelligence, which appears shunya to likes of you who are still struggling

"pure unbroked intelligence" is and idea "you" have that has resulted from clinging in buddhist terms


Shunya means advaita, objectless and unbroken. But shunya does not explain Buddha the teacher, teaching intelligent things. Atman, which is shunya to the senses, however is full Pragnya.

Voidness just means you wisely see dhammas as void of an agent or as beloning to an agent (so yes its a non-dual approach to things). Intelligence which you seem to cling to, is anicca, dukkha and anatta. Intelligence is Void of a self or agent

When the khandas go at death so does this intelligence you speak of since its anicca

As for intelligence outside khandas, no concept of this kind is found in the Pali Suttas

In an Arahant there is still intelligence, personality and these still function but there is no more delusion in regards to them, they are seen with propper wisdom as anatta (which i know you agree with)


metta

Anicca
08 July 2009, 01:06 PM
Im interested to know what other members here think about this issue?

atanu
08 July 2009, 01:37 PM
If you would like to hear what some enlightened buddhist monks have to say i have some quotes (in case you think i just go by scholars)
(when he says just this he means just this body, just this feeling etc)

All bodies are composed of the four elements of earth, water, wind and fire. When they come together and form a body we say it’s a male, a female, giving it names, and so on, so that we can identify each other more easily. But actually there isn’t anyone there - only earth, water, wind and fire. Don’t get excited over it or infatuated by it. If you really look into it, you will not find anyone there.


Namaste All,

When my daughter was 4 year old, she started learning 1 plus 1 is 2; 1 plus 2 is 3 etc. She was highly spirited (touch wood! she still is). She asked "Papa tumko pata hai? Pop do you know this?" My wife and me laughed and hugged her.

The spirit of innocence in a child is lovable but in a grown up ego it is not.

Another name of "If you really look into it, you will not find anyone there." is the query "Who Am I?" No one is found but that does not negate God/Brahman/Atman, which is:

Verily, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
08 July 2009, 01:45 PM
Namaste
When the khandas go at death so does this intelligence you speak of since its anicca



Namaste,

The individual intelligence, the awareness of individuality is anicca and goes. The Pragnya is avvyaya -- imperishable. Else, Gautama would not emerge from Shunya as Buddha the teacher.

Shunya, if not endowed with Pragnya of Self is just that which is also present in rectum, which issues farts only. Just because Buddha did not speak the unspeakable (Atman) does not mean that the unspeakable (atman) is Asat.

Your very posts prove "I assert (only because I exist)". "I" is the revelation of Atman -- the pure unbroken intelligence, which is Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed.

---------------

I am not saying that the paths are same. Obviously not. Your evidence that Buddha condemned Vedanta through a citation of 'validity of only Eight fold path' is invalid. First, it is not a critic of Veda. Second, nowhere Buddha says that eight fold path is not taught in Veda. Third, Eight Fold path is present in in its fullness in Veda/Vedanta.

Om Namah Shivaya

Ekanta
08 July 2009, 01:49 PM
Lets throw in Brahma Sutra...

Brahma Sutra Topic 4 (Sutras 18-27) Refutation of the Buddha Realists
II.2.18 (189) Even if the (two kinds of) aggregates proceed from their two causes, there would take place non-establishment (of the two aggregates).

II.2.19 (190) If it be said that (the formation of aggregates may be explained) through (nescience) standing in the relation of mutual causality, we say ‘no’; they merely are the efficient cause of the origin (of the immediately subsequent links and not of the aggregation).

II.2.20 (191) (Nor can there be a causal relation between nescience, etc.) because on the origination of the subsequent thing the preceding one ceases to be.

II.2.21 (192) If non-existence (of cause) be assumed, (while yet the effect takes place), there results contradiction of the admitted principle or proposition. Otherwise there would result simultaneity (of cause and effect).

II.2.22 (193) Conscious and unconscious destruction would be impossible on account of non-interruption.

II.2.23 (194) And on account of the objections presenting themselves in either case.

II.2.24 (195) The cause of Akasa (ether) also not being different (from the two other kinds of destruction it also cannot be a non-entity.)

II.2.25 (196) And on account of memory the things are not momentary.

II.2.26 (l97) (Existence or entity does) not (spring) from non-existence or non-entity, because it is not seen.

II.2.27 (198) And thus (if existence should spring from non-existence, there would result) the attainment of the goal by the indifferent and non-active people also.

With Sivanandas explanation:
According to the Buddhists, atoms and consciousness are both inanimate. There is no permanent intelligence which can bring about the aggregation or which can guide the atoms to unite into an external thing or to form a continuous mental phenomena. Hence the doctrine of this school of Buddhas is untenable.

Nescience (ignorance) etc., stand in a causal relation to each other merely. They cannot be made to account for the existence of the aggregates. According to the Buddhist theory, everything is momentary. A thing of the present moment vanishes in the next moment, when its successor manifests. At the time of the appearance of a subsequent thing, the previous thing already vanishes. Hence it is impossible for the previous thing to be the cause of the sub sequent thing. Consequently the theory is untenable.

The Buddhists maintain that existence originates from non -existence because they hold that the effect cannot man i fest without the destruction of the cause, the tree cannot appear until the seed is destroyed. We always perceive that the cause subsists in the effect as the thread subsists in the cloth. Hence the Buddhist view is in correct, unreasonable and in admissible.

Even the passing of cause into effect in a series of successive states like nescience, etc., cannot take place un less there is a coordinating intelligence. The Buddhists say that everything has only a momentary existence. Their school cannot bring about the simultaneous existence of two successive moments. If the cause exists till it passes into the stage of effect, the theory of momentary existence (Kshanikavada) will vanish.

According to the Buddhist view, salvation or freedom is attained when ignorance is destroyed. Ignorance is the false idea of permanency in things which are momentary.

The ignorance can be annihilated by the adoption of some means such as penance, knowledge, etc., (conscious destruction), or it may destroy itself (spontaneity). But both the alternatives are defective. Because this annihilation of ignorance cannot be attained by the adoption of penance or the like, because the means like every other thing is also momentary according to the Buddhist view and is therefore, not likely to produce such annihilation. Annihilation cannot take place of its own accord, for in that case all Buddhist in structions, the disciplines and methods of meditation for the attainment of salvation will be useless.

The Buddhists do not recognise the existence of Akasa (space). They regard Akasa as a non-entity. This is unreasonable. Akasa has the quality of sound. It is also a distinct entity like earth, water, etc. If Akasa be a non-entity, then the entire world would become destitute of space. Scriptural passages declare “Akasa sprang from Atman.” Hence Akasa is a real thing. It is a Vastu (existing object) and not non-existence.

If everything is momentary, the experiencer of something must also be momentary. But the experiencer is not momentary because people have the memory of past experiences. Memory can take place in a man who has previously experienced it. He is connected with at least two moments. This certainly refutes the theory of momentariness.

A non-entity has not been observed to produce entity. Therefore it does not stand to reason to suppose non-entity to be the cause. The world which is a reality is stated by the Buddhists to have arisen out of non-entity. This is absurd. A pot is never found to be produced without clay. If existence can come out of non-existence, then anything may come out of anything, because non-entity is one and the same in all cases. A jack tree may come out of a mango seed. If an existing thing can arise out of nothing, then an indifferent and lazy man may also attain salvation without efforts. Emancipation may be attained like a wind fall. Rice will grow even if the farmer does not cultivate his field.

Anicca
08 July 2009, 01:50 PM
Namaste



Another name of "If you really look into it, you will not find anyone there." is the query "Who Am I?" No one is found but that does not negate God/Brahman/Atman, which is:


The Buddhist training is in part set up to avoid questions such as "who am I" since this leads to bondage, to dukkha. In essence its and ignorant delusion chasing an ignorant delusion like a dog chained to a post


"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? Who am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'




"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.


The Buddhist path starts with "there is dukkha" thus avoiding the above questions that are a net of views and lead to dukkha and not away from it



"And what are the ideas fit for attention that he does attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of becoming does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of becoming is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance is abandoned. These are the ideas fit for attention that he does attend to. Through his not attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his attending to ideas fit for attention, unarisen fermentations do not arise in him, and arisen fermentations are abandoned.
"He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing.


The path isnt about inward searches for self or asking "who or what am I". The path is "there is dukkha", this is dukkha, this is the cause of dukkha, this is the quenching of dukkha, this developes that quenching

Hence sati of body, feelings etc. No "what am I" or "am i this" but seeing anicca, dukkha and anatta

metta

atanu
08 July 2009, 02:35 PM
Then is everything Oneness?"
"'Everything is Oneness' is the third form of cosmology, brahman."
"'Everything is Manyness' is the fourth form of cosmology, brahman. Avoiding these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. "Everything is oneness" i.e. monism, non-duality or not-two here we have Adviata Vedanta being dismissed as something the Buddha does not teach

Advaita does not teach "Everything is Oneness".

Can you explain what is "Ignorance" that gives rise to the fabrications? Can you explain what is consciousness here?



The "Brahman" in the text is reffering to any "person" who is reaching the goal, look at the above text and you see Brahman there. He isnt using the word in the upanishadic sense

Yes. Any person attaining Jnana is Brahman. As any person escaping 'the state of birth' attains birthless, unborn.


This is from the later, Vedantic influenced, Mahayana and Vajrayana schools

Probably. Surely they found your purports inadequate. They found OM complete.


Outside of Buddhadhamma again

Yes. Buddhadhamma as you know seems to be incomplete. So much remains outside it.


who said there isnt personality labelled atanu? The personality is real in Buddhadhamma but its anatta, not-self

and yes "you" are trying to insert things into buddhism, hence the constant re-quote of the same passages over and over (which i alread explained away)


Yes, personality labelled atanu is ego and ignorance, Asat. It cannot actually do anything. Yes. You try to explain away but the fact remains that a person attaining enlightenment is called Brahman in your scripture -- borrowing from Upanishads.


Only in the teachings of advaita vedanta. You are confused in reguards to Buddhism

That proves my point. Confusion begets confusion. I have asked of definition of atta (as you understand) in another thread. Hope you will kindly oblige.


lol i knew about this knowledge a long time ago now

So you thought that we do not know this knowledge that on searching "I" is not found in the body? Possibly you have not contemplated that the "I" without the attribute is all pervasive, so it is not found. To dig deeper beneath the Mahat "I" is beyond ego. Since, beyond "I" no effort is left.



I see opposite, an attempt to put a Vedanta metaphysics into the Buddhas teachings. Something that seems to be coming from craving

No that is not what i have attempted. I show that Buddha did not discover anything new (not to lower Him but to highlight his immortality. Scientists only claim new discoveries) What is born will pass away. Buddha re-stated the knowledge of impermanence of Jagat (Universe of perception) vis-a-vis the knowledge of Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed.


All i have done is show you that your claims about Buddhadhamma hold no weight in light of the Suttas and with how its been taught for centuries

Pooh. Centuries? Veda is timeless. And who are You to throw light? You contradict yourself in every sentence.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
08 July 2009, 03:00 PM
Namaste
The Buddhist training is in part set up to avoid questions such as "who am I" since this leads to bondage, to dukkha. In essence its and ignorant delusion chasing an ignorant delusion like a dog chained to a post

As I said earlier, ignorant will remain so without contemplation and enquiry.


The Buddhist path starts with "there is dukkha" thus avoiding the above questions that are a net of views and lead to dukkha and not away from it

No. There is Dukkha in desire of ego. If Dukkha was the truth then freedom/ananda would never be available. THat Dukkha is there is also an ignorant consciousness arisen from contact with the world. Hindus do not have such negative view. We say Dukkha is in ignorance and not in Truth.


The path isnt about inward searches for self or asking "who or what am I".

Your own citation said " If you really look into it, you will not find anyone there." What the sentence means? Does it not mean that on searching for I, it will not be found? I just rephrased it. Upanishads teach of Neti-Neti, which Buddhists follow. Upanishads also teach of "Who am I?" or "Whence this I?". We follow any one method without prejudice about the other.

It is not a net of views. I am extremely pained that you comment without knowing and without studying. "Who Am I" is a contemplation/meditation. It begins with no pre-conception and it leads to no concept as the answer to "Who Am I?" is never to be found.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
08 July 2009, 03:18 PM
Lets throw in Brahma Sutra...

Brahma Sutra Topic 4 (Sutras 18-27) Refutation of the Buddha Realists
II.2.26 (l97) (Existence or entity does) not (spring) from non-existence or non-entity, because it is not seen.

II.2.27 (198) And thus (if existence should spring from non-existence, there would result) the attainment of the goal by the indifferent and non-active people also.



Thank You. Though I know this will also be futile as certain premises are made by anicca a-priori and all his assertions stem from those a-priori premises, which are irreversible, since there is no scope of enquiry. He himself says that enquiry is banned for him. He has to abide blindly by what is given to him.

Sat does not spring from Asat. Buddha and His Bikkhus do not spring from non-existent. Else Buddha's teaching and His Bikhus are Asat, of no value. The teachings are also of dependent origination from aggregates and have no permanence.

Actually what appears to be Shunya in samadhi is the Being in Fullness, without a Second, thus no other is known in Turya.

If shunya was devoid of Self/Pragnya, then there was no need for "To purify the mind etc.---"

Om Namah shivaya

atanu
08 July 2009, 03:36 PM
Lets throw in Brahma Sutra...

With Sivanandas explanation:
According to the Buddhists, atoms and consciousness are both inanimate.

Namaste Ekanta,

I have requested anicca of a definition/meaning of this consciousness, which has a dependent rising. I remember from earlier post that this consciousness refers to the six types of awareness that rise from five senses and the mind.

Such sensual awareness is no doubt a product of contacts. But what about the knowledge gained by Buddha in shunya? Was there any contact in shunyata,wherein He seemed to have gained knowledge suitable to grant nibbana? And what ignorance made the consciousness rise and teach Bikkhus?

On the other hand, we know consciousness as Pra-Jnana, which is a pre-cursor to senses.

So, the basic definitions are out of sync, it seems.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
08 July 2009, 03:49 PM
The theory of momentary ness without any continuous intelligent link is invalidated by examining a man through stages of waking, dreaming, and sleeping. In sleep, there is no sense of "I am Atanu", yet I get up and know "I slept".

The thread of I is lost across deaths but Buddha himself recounted his other lives. So, sages can and do remember the thread.

I think Buddha was averse to theories and conceptualisation but later a lot of conceptualisation built up around what he did not speak about (any way this is also conceptual).

I request anicca to examine his own waking, dreaming, and sleeping stages, through study of Mandukya Upanishad to find how Pragnya weaves through all stages.

Om Namah Shivaya

Ekanta
08 July 2009, 03:54 PM
On the other hand... I must credit Buddhism as a religion, since it was the only religion which could make me interested in religion in the first place. I have absolutely no doubt in Buddha’s achievements. At about 15 years ago, the Bhagavad-Gita was poison to me. I got the Gita free form ISCKON and found it interesting, but it distracted my single pointedness in zen-meditation at that time. I seriously had to throw it in the garbage can since I couldn’t keep my hands of it (now interpret this right. Paper is paper and authentic experience is real worship). A few years later I began reading it again and didn’t have any problem with it. My point being that the neti-neti of Theravada or the belief in buddha-nature in mahayana are valid paths. We have to remember that even if the philosophy doesn’t incorporate all aspects but focus one as a path it can lead to authentic experience. I my case zen-meditation was non-dual worship of the formless buddha-nature through "sitting like a Buddha" (soto-zen). The Bhakti-aspect of Gita was dual, worship of an object [especially Bhakti Vedanta’s “Bhagavad-Gita as it is” translation with comments]. In the early stages of the spiritual path we must protect our path/ our concentration etc from other influences. When we grow we can see beyond that horizon. This I mostly write for... well anyone. (My wish is always that someone comes and corrects ME! That is the real gift you can give me.)

Peace!

atanu
09 July 2009, 01:04 AM
Namaste All,


In the early stages of the spiritual path we must protect our path/ our concentration etc from other influences.

Actually this thread has become like poison to me. I must admit it.

To Hindus, Atman/Brahman is the Prabhu/God/Sarvesvara/Mahesvara/Ishwara. And anicca calls Atman/Brahman a thingy. May be, he does it unknowingly but did Buddha, whom he claims to follow, teach so? He does it of his own mind. Let him go to a Muslim site and proclaim Allah as a thingy.

----------------
As per anicca, consciousness arises only after ignorance. (actually most probably he means sensual awareness but possibly he is untrained to distinguish between sensual awareness and the father of all senses). But then he says there is dukkha (sufferings) but no Dukhi (sufferer). He also says that there is no knower and no doer. I have tried to reconcile all these.

As per anicca, If there is no ignorance then consciousness does not arise at all -- it does not even exist. He also says that there is no knower. Then, how it is known and by whom that there is Dukkha? How the way out is known and taught?

In sleep there is no knower and no Dukha is known. It proves that Dukha is known to a knower only, since it is a mental perception (which as per anicca is fabrication and which i agree). To 'knower' (ego) anything that goes against wishes is Dukkha. Anything that is known is known to a knower.

But actual Seer and Knower of all that arises as thought is not the ego. The Seer is Turya who is always awake and allows no concepts. He is timelessly advaita. So, actually to the enlightened Seer there is no Dukha but only bliss.

Anicca seems to be confusing/mixing 'No Doer', 'No Dukhi' knowledge of the enlightened with his (and our) half baked knowledge.


Though it is shown repeatedly that his scripture holds that a) there indeed is an unborn that makes possible for the born to cross the bank. b) that the enlightened stands like a sun.

So, there is unborn that makes possible the path....... We call it Self (God), since this unborn is known in one's heart, within mind and not outside. There is also the born but enlightened sun like sage who guides (like Buddha). The guru is non dual, identical to the unborn. (Shri Krishna: Those know who know me as unborn mahesvara). There are no eternal attas but only pasus bound by their ignorance.

Unborn Aja Turya Atma's revelation is the Sun like enlightened sage, who teaches. Buddha, I believe, is such a sun.

-----------------
To say that there is no permanence but ever changing flux is to forget that the so called Shunya itself is the permanence. What appears as shunya to sensual perceptions is full. The blind application of the theory "There is nothing whatsoever except aggregates giving rise to fabrications, leads us to question: Where from the aggregates? Who knows and sees the aggregates? Anicca will say "Do not ask who?" That is worse than christianity. Stopping contemplation at the root. I am sure that Buddha did not teach this.

Moreover, citation says:

It teaches that in the whole empirical reality there is nowhere anything that persists; neither material nor mental substances exist independently by themselves; there is no original entity or primordial Being in whatsoever form it may be imagined, from which these substances might have developed. On the contrary, the manifold world of mental and material elements arises solely through the causal co-operation of the transitory factors of existence (dharma)

The above says that there is nothing that persists in empirical reality. It also says that all sprouting is from transitory factors of EXISTENCE.

First, Existence itself is SAT. Can anicca decalre "I do not exist?" Second, how it is known that nothing persists in empirical reality? To know that there is no permanence ever, however, a permanent continuous Seer would be required.

On the other hand, if all was fabrication, devoid of the one who fabricates or knows the aggregates fabricating, then Buddha is hot air gas and his teaching is also so -- fabrications.

Best wishes to anicca
Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
09 July 2009, 01:09 AM
The Bhakti-aspect of Gita was dual, worship of an object [especially Bhakti Vedanta’s “Bhagavad-Gita as it is” translation with comments].
Peace!

Namaste ekanta,

'Gita as it is' makes bhakti look like something it is not. Yoga requires effort whereas Bhakti is effortless. Just surrender. Also, Bhakti is converse of Vibhakti (division).

Hope it is helpful.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
09 July 2009, 01:57 AM
Namaste All,
First, Existence itself is SAT. Can anicca decalre "I do not exist?" Second, how it is known that nothing persists in empirical reality? To know that there is no permanence ever, however, a permanent continuous Seer would be required.

Om Namah Shivaya

The Jnani, kower of discontnuity of empirical existence, is the continuity through all discontinuities and such a Jnani is non-dual as Turya alone is such slumberless Jnani.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
09 July 2009, 05:59 AM
If no concept of ātman were to exist at all, then we would all be naturally free from saṃsāra. What this entails is that ātman is identified as existing as a concept - more specifically, as an afflictive misunderstanding; moreover, it is this specific affliction which is identified as being the root cause of all suffering.
So, when Buddhists claim that there is no ātman, they are not really saying that it does not exist, but that it exists solely as an affliction - an innate response to the world around us; and this deeply enmeshed affliction lies at the root of all misery.

Namaste All,

(For the sake of record)

The above itself is a false concept. It cannot be a basis of comparison, since atta, of Pali, means individual soul. It is true that dvaitins believe attas (individual souls) to be eternally real. Advaita (which is not post Buddha) never holds this true. Upanishads are pre- Buddha, which declare advaita Atman. Eko hi Atman dvittiya nastu. Upanishads declare that there is but one knower. Atman, which is the goal of Jnana in Vedanta is beyond time, unborn and advaita.

It is wishful thinking that "If concept of Atman were not to exist". The fact is every one says "I exist". Everyone says "me". By wishful thinking this fact is not going to change. The right knowledge is to recognize this truth and then examine the cause of Dukkha.

An examination of the nature of "I" reveals that "I" is not tainted or is not in contact with anything gross. "I" is not localized also. Everyone, on waking up sees the body and feels "I am this body". But in deep sleep, though the body is not there and there is no sense of "I", the person persists. Upanishad explains that in deep sleep the Pragnya that "I" is ghana (dense without any thought parting it). Thus, in absence of a second -- second color, second taste, second sound -- nothing is known. Same upanishad (Brihadaraynaka) also declares "This was undifferentiated then".

Gurus explain that Turya is without any object -- shunya. But this shunya is not the vaccuum of sensual experience, since Turya is father of Pragnya, which is father of all senses. The experience of Turya is amazement itself, since all notions are broken.

The Atman is "Not Two". It is the revealer of Pragnya, whose face (as thoughts) are all -- this Universe, all objects and all beings.

The Pragnya is not going to go away. And sprouting of "I" is not going to go away. And wrong association of the all pervading "I" with objects is not going to go away.

The problem of Dukkha is merely of association of "I" with temporal non-intelligent products such as the flesh. A Genearl Manager does not merely act as a General Manager but he believes it to be the truth.

That is the problem.
-----------------------------------

So, where are we differing?

The brand of Buddhism being talked here says "attas are non-existent". We say "Yes, the notion of eternal individual souls is an error that causes Dukkha".

But, the particular Brand of Buddhism seems to say that the empirical world has no part of the eternal, which is pure shunya. And it also seems to say that the eternal shunya has no material or efficient contribution towards the empirical world (even dvaitins say so but they believe in eternal souls).

We say No. The shunya itself (whatever it is) pervades the whole born universe. The so-called shunya is to be found in Universe as the thread is found in a cloth. The "I am" awareness of everyone is a revelation of the Pragnya of Atman and not mere ignorance. (In fact, with what Gautama meditates and on what?)

Ignorance is "I am this or I am that" notion.

Mandukya Upanishad beautifully explains how the three states of empirical existence (waking, dreaming, and slleping) are simply three dream states of advaita atman, which otherwise has no sense of inner or outer -- and thus in reality is as if shunya (without objects) and without limit.

The Pragnya is its prpoerty. The awareness is its property. Even the creation of ego (creation of a wave on sea) is its. Taking up doership, egos suffer.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
09 July 2009, 07:07 AM
Notwithstanding all that has been written, i, based on the teaching of Upanishads and Gita that the object free shunya Turya Atman-Brahman must be known, believe that Buddha is the highest being of Sanatana Dharma, same as Shri Krishna and other Gurus. Without experiencing the object less Turya, the Nibbana cannot be, as per Sanatana Dharma teachings in Upanishads and Gita.

One may call the object less Turya, wherefrom the Guru rises, by any name. It does not matter since names come after the true.

Om Namah Shivaya

Anicca
09 July 2009, 09:12 AM
Namaste



Actually this thread has become like poison to me. I must admit it.

To Hindus, Atman/Brahman is the Prabhu/God/Sarvesvara/Mahesvara/Ishwara. And anicca calls Atman/Brahman a thingy. May be, he does it unknowingly but did Buddha, whom he claims to follow, teach so? He does it of his own mind. Let him go to a Muslim site and proclaim Allah as a thingy.

I think its best that i end this discussion here, it seems im causing offence which is not what i want to do. I didnt want to put down other peoples beliefs or deny things. The only intent i had in this discussion was to show how Buddhism and Vedanta are different in how they are taught and what they teach and also that one cant say buddha taught Atman/Brahman in Buddhism



Notwithstanding all that has been written, i, based on the teaching of Upanishads and Gita that the object free shunya Turya Atman-Brahman must be known, believe that Buddha is the highest being of Sanatana Dharma, same as Shri Krishna and other Gurus. Without experiencing the object less Turya, the Nibbana cannot be, as per Sanatana Dharma teachings in Upanishads and Gita.

One may call the object less Turya, wherefrom the Guru rises, by any name. It does not matter since names come after the true

Thats fine if thats your belief or understanding, i cant make you change that. As i said above the reason i took part in this thread was to show how buddhism cant be called Vedanta or cant be said to be teaching Atman/Brahman (even if your right and the goal is the same)



metta

atanu
09 July 2009, 11:17 PM
Namaste
Thats fine if thats your belief or understanding, i cant make you change that. As i said above the reason i took part in this thread was to show how buddhism cant be called Vedanta or cant be said to be teaching Atman/Brahman (even if your right and the goal is the same)
metta

Namaste anicca,

Buddhism is not Vedanta. Vedanta means end of knowing.

Best wishes and you are always welcome to share Buddha and His teachings with us.
Om Namah Shivaya

devotee
10 July 2009, 05:50 AM
Namaste Atanu,


To Hindus, Atman/Brahman is the Prabhu/God/Sarvesvara/Mahesvara/Ishwara. And anicca calls Atman/Brahman a thingy. May be, he does it unknowingly but did Buddha, whom he claims to follow, teach so? He does it of his own mind. Let him go to a Muslim site and proclaim Allah as a thingy.

As per anicca, consciousness arises only after ignorance. (actually most probably he means sensual awareness but possibly he is untrained to distinguish between sensual awareness and the father of all senses). But then he says there is dukkha (sufferings) but no Dukhi (sufferer). He also says that there is no knower and no doer. I have tried to reconcile all these.

As per anicca, If there is no ignorance then consciousness does not arise at all -- it does not even exist. He also says that there is no knower. Then, how it is known and by whom that there is Dukkha? How the way out is known and taught?
Anicca seems to be confusing/mixing 'No Doer', 'No Dukhi' knowledge of the enlightened with his (and our) half baked knowledge.

To say that there is no permanence but ever changing flux is to forget that the so called Shunya itself is the permanence. What appears as shunya to sensual perceptions is full. The blind application of the theory "There is nothing whatsoever except aggregates giving rise to fabrications, leads us to question: Where from the aggregates? Who knows and sees the aggregates? Anicca will say "Do not ask who?" That is worse than christianity. Stopping contemplation at the root. I am sure that Buddha did not teach this.

First, Existence itself is SAT. Can anicca decalre "I do not exist?" Second, how it is known that nothing persists in empirical reality? To know that there is no permanence ever, however, a permanent continuous Seer would be required.

On the other hand, if all was fabrication, devoid of the one who fabricates or knows the aggregates fabricating, then Buddha is hot air gas and his teaching is also so -- fabrications.


You ask these difficult questions & a Buddhist's (not the enlightened ones but those who consider themselves experts of Buddhism & try to show it contradictory to Advaita Vedanta) narrow view of the reality is fully exposed.

Why is this so ? It is because Buddha's teachings were meant to be simple for the masses, which certainly Advaita Vedanta is not ( that is why it is always insisted to impart this knowledge to only those who deserve it). In fact, he refused many a times to answer questions on God/SELF etc. .... insisting that he was only interested to teach how to break the cycles of deaths & births. As far as I know, there is no authentic text avaiable where Buddha gave his opinion on SELF/GOD. However, his followers do the opposite. Instead of devoting their time to meditation & the Path they start comparing the Path with Advaita Vedanta & find that the Buddha's Path doesn't talk about anything to answer those difficult questions, like those asked above by you. So, they try to confuse the whole thing by repeating same thing in different words again & again to the point that you get frustrated.

Anicca & people who have so pressing urgency to show the uniqueness & superiority of Buddhism over Vedanta forget that in the debate on Buddhism Vs Advait Vedanta, it is Buddhism which was defeated by the Great Advaita Saint Shankaracharya ... and that spelt the death knell to Buddhism in India. The great land where Buddha & Buddhism were born & developed .... Buddhism faced almost a complete rout there, why ??

OM

Anicca
10 July 2009, 09:08 AM
Namaste


You ask these difficult questions & a Buddhist's (not the enlightened ones but those who consider themselves experts of Buddhism & try to show it contradictory to Advaita Vedanta) narrow view of the reality is fully exposed.

Funny how you assume there is no answer. I have an answer to them all but since this thread is turning into an unwholesome Buddhism V Vedanta debate i think its probably best to leave them



Why is this so ? It is because Buddha's teachings were meant to be simple for the masses, which certainly Advaita Vedanta is not ( that is why it is always insisted to impart this knowledge to only those who deserve it).

Ah i see so Buddhism is for thick headed masses and Vedanta only for those smart select few, of course:(

If you read the pali canon you will find the Buddha first decided not to teach because not many people would understand him and the teaching



As far as I know, there is no authentic text avaiable where Buddha gave his opinion on SELF/GOD.

Ive provided many quotes about the Buddhas view on those who take a view of Self and about the teaching of Voidness and anatta

As for God

The Buddha states (Anguttara-Nikaya X 29):



'As far as the suns and moons extend their courses and the regions of the sky shine in splendour, there is a thousandfold world system, in each single one of these there are a thousand suns, moons, Meru Mountains, four times a thousand continents and oceans, a thousand heavens of all stages of the realm of sense pleasure, a thousand Brahma worlds. As far as a thousandfold world system reaches in other words, the universe], the Great God is the highest being. But even the Great God is subject to coming-to-be and ceasing-to-be
Elsewhere the Buddha states:

Anguttara Nikaya 3.61: "Again, monks, I [the Buddha] approached those ascetic and brahmins and said to them: 'Is it true, as they say, that you venerable ones teach and hold the view that whatever a person experiences...all that is caused by God's creation?' When they affirmed it, I said to them: 'If that is so, venerable sirs, then it is due to God's creation that people kill, steal ...[and otherwise act badly]. But those who have recourse to God's creation as the decisive factor will lack the impulse and the effort doing this or not doing that. Since for them, really and truly, no (motive) obtains that this or that ought to be done or not be done...."'
This one shows Buddhas Atheism
"The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God." MN II 68.
Also
If God designs the life of the entire world -- the glory and the misery, the good and the evil acts, man is but an instrument of his will and God alone is responsible." - J V.238.
And lastly
Samyutta Nikaya III 144:
"Bhikkhus [monks, the Buddha said, holding a fleck of cow dung in his hand], if even if that much of permanent, everlasting, eternal selfhood/metaphysical being (attabhava), not inseparable from the idea of change, could be found, then this living the holy life could not be taught by me."



Also


<B>

"That Worshipful God, the Great God, the Omnipotent, the Omniscient, the Organizer, the Protection, the Creator, the Most Perfect Ruler, the Designer and Orderer, the Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be, He by Whom we were created, He is permanent, Constant, Eternal, Unchanging, and He will remain so for ever and ever."
The Buddha goes on in this discourse, using mythic language, to give a biting satirical re-telling of the creation myth of the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad making it quite clear that God is not quite what the absolute entity it imagines itself to be. It is not the creator, and we can see in this discourse by the Buddha and in other related ones that the idea of a single, absolute cause for the multiplicity of things, an infallible source of revealed knowledge that was different in kind from ordinary human knowledge, an unconditioned being that participates in any way in (even only as a witness to) the changes of human experience, and any kind of being that can interfere with the natural consequences of karma is rejected by the Buddha.</B>


As we can see the Buddha refutes any idead of God/Brahman
As for Self

Samyutta Nikaya III 144:
"Bhikkhus [monks, the Buddha said, holding a fleck of cow dung in his hand], if even if that much of permanent, everlasting, eternal selfhood/metaphysical being (attabhava), not inseparable from the idea of change, could be found, then this living the holy life could not be taught by me."
and
"Monks, where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality, then the view-position — 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity' — Isn't it utterly & completely a fool's teaching?"
"What else could it be, lord? It's utterly & completely a fool's teaching."
and
"But, lord, might there be agitation over what is internally not present?"
"There might, monk," the Blessed One said. "There is the case where someone has this view: 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity.' He hears a Tathagata or a Tathagata's disciple teaching the Dhamma for the elimination of all view-positions, determinations, biases, inclinations, & obsessions; for the stilling of all fabrications; for the relinquishing of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. The thought occurs to him, 'So it might be that I will be annihilated! So it might be that I will perish! So it might be that I will not exist!' He grieves & is tormented, weeps, beats his breast, & grows delirious. It's thus that there is agitation over what is internally not present."




However, his followers do the opposite. Instead of devoting their time to meditation & the Path they start comparing the Path with Advaita Vedanta
This thread was started in order to compare the two by a non-buddhist

find that the Buddha's Path doesn't talk about anything to answer those difficult questions, like those asked above by you. So, they try to confuse the whole thing by repeating same thing in different words again & again to the point that you get frustrated.
Because the Buddha said that some questions "who am I, what amI" etc are unwise and lead to suffering. However as i said there is an answer but since its going to take us down a negative root i think its best if we leave it

Anicca & people who have so pressing urgency to show the uniqueness & superiority of Buddhism over Vedanta forget that in the debate on Buddhism Vs Advait Vedanta, it is Buddhism which was defeated by the Great Advaita Saint Shankaracharya ... and that spelt the death knell to Buddhism in India. The great land where Buddha & Buddhism were born & developed .... Buddhism faced almost a complete rout there, why ??
Well there are many reasons why it died out, not just because of one man




Anyway this is my last post in this thread, thats the Buddhas and Buddhist view, you dont have to take it but that is how the Buddha and Buddhists teach Dhamma, no Atman and no Brahman (in buddhadhamma)
metta

atanu
10 July 2009, 09:33 AM
Namaste

Funny how you assume there is no answer. I have an answer to them all but since this thread is turning into an unwholesome Buddhism V Vedanta debate i think its probably best to leave them


Namaste anicca,

You may be feeling a bit dejected and bitter. But surely that will pass. I wish to record a last few lines, which you may accept for contemplation or reject right away. But I feel that a new sweetness will be engendered, if you consider to consider the following:

Many in this forum have cited Buddhist scripture, which says nibbana is shivam (pure goodness, pure beneficient, auspiciousness itself). Now, I accept that this essence of shivam may be missing from the transitory emipirical existence.

But shivam is indeed present as a fixed (sthanu) tattva called guru tattva, which stands as the sun. Guru is shivam, here in this world. It is wisdom, pure and unadulterated. It is what we call Prajnya (that which is at the root of awareness). Buddha is such sun. Krishna is such sun -- they are revelations of the sarvesvara tattva called Prajnya ghana -- wisdom undivided, to which we merge everyday in sleep.

If there was no Guru, it would not be possible to cross over to the other side. Guru is shivam, here and now.

Please consider. Best wishes.

Om Namah Shivaya

Anicca
10 July 2009, 09:36 AM
Namaste



You may be feeling a bit dejected and bitter. But surely that will pass

Not at all:) Its a joy to discuss Dhamma. Its also wholesome to debate since this increases learning


I decided to stop because i noticed that fellow memebers were (or seemed) to be getting offended at the denial of Atman/Brahman. This isnt something i wanted to do here


all the best

metta

atanu
10 July 2009, 09:38 AM
Namaste
all the best
metta

Same wishes for you. Please consider what is written in the last post. And please share Buddha and His teachings here. You are welcome.

Om Namah Shivaya

Spiritualseeker
10 July 2009, 12:28 PM
Namaste,

I feel that buddha nature, Atman, christ consciousness are all the same. I just cannot verify cuz i have not experienced it yet :D

Anicca
10 July 2009, 01:13 PM
Namaste,

I feel that buddha nature, Atman, christ consciousness are all the same. I just cannot verify cuz i have not experienced it yet :D



Just as a last post, Buddha nature was a post buddha poctrine put forth by the Mahayana schools. Its not found in the pali canon and is denied by Theravada

(just for some info:) )

metta

Spiritualseeker
10 July 2009, 02:14 PM
namaste,

Thank you I am aware of that but I think there is a deep truth in buddha nature. No matter if one sees mahayana as too innovated or not. It is a profound insight that many mystical paths have uncovered. I believe mahayana schools and vajrayana have produced many enlightened beings. I do not think that enlightenment is reserved only for THeravadin buddhist.

Namaste

Anicca
10 July 2009, 03:54 PM
namaste,

Thank you I am aware of that but I think there is a deep truth in buddha nature. No matter if one sees mahayana as too innovated or not. It is a profound insight that many mystical paths have uncovered. I believe mahayana schools and vajrayana have produced many enlightened beings. I do not think that enlightenment is reserved only for THeravadin buddhist.

Namaste


I dont think that either (i dont think many Theravadins do). Buddha said where ever there is the Noble Eight Fold Path there you will find Arahants and last time i checked Mahayana and Vajrayana had these:) , although the degree in which its practiced and emphasized does vary

My own point of view is that these doctrines are superfluous and can be distracting

(however if im wearing my orthodox Theravada hat, they are just slightly mistaken insights)

all the best

atanu
10 July 2009, 08:29 PM
All these posts are made with application of lesser or greater Buddhi. To deny husband of Buddhi -- the perfect wisdom, Buddha, is like axing one's own feet.

Many things are not told, so that wisdom may flower unbounded. Silence is pregnant with speech.

Om Namah Shivaya

devotee
11 July 2009, 11:23 PM
[quote]Ive provided many quotes about the Buddhas view on those who take a view of Self and about the teaching of Voidness and anatta

Same confusion ! Please know what SELF is & then discuss how it is different from Voidness & Anatta. Actually, you came with a mission to show the differences between the Advaita & Buddhism, so how can you reconcile with what we offer ? You should have come without any biases to understand the things correctly.


ON "All your quotes on God etc." :

By this itself it appears that Buddha had no different view on God than the Vedanta. As Mandukya Upanishad says, God is only third state of the Brahman .... arising on the screen of Turiya. If you read the Samkhya Shastra, then it is akin to atheism.

However, when someone has come with a single pointed mission to find out the diffferences, how can he be stopped in his mission ?

And for record, let me clarify here that I have been interested in Buddha's teachings since my childhood. I have been specially interested in Mahayana Buddhism & I have very high regard towards Buddha.

There are very minor differences in Buddhism, Jainism & Advaita Vedanta. However, if one is happy in finding differences & creating discord instead of bonhomie .... may God bless him.

OM

Spiritualseeker
12 July 2009, 07:05 AM
namaste,

well said devotee. I love the buddha I even have an image of him but I also got image of Lord Ganesha and plan on Getting Lord siva in Nataraja form. I believe the teachings are very much the same. Yes buddhist say that they dont believe in the "concept of God" as I heard from a tibetan lama but the tibetan lama also said that "we (meaning the buddhist) believe in the nature of GOD". Then he went on to explain emptiness and our true nature as UNBORN AND INDESTRUCTABLE BEYOND TIME AND SPACE. I believe (Though cant confirm yet) that one who studies under a hindu guru and meditates and realizes GOD through deep meditation and a buddhist who has a buddhist guide and meditates and becomes enlightened have both arrived at the same ocean of truth.

Call God christ consciousness, Siva, Vishnu, or enlightenment it is all the same to me. Our true nature is inseperable from that Timeless Truth the ever Exalted Omnipotent Power of Life in which all life Manifest from :)

OM NAMAH SIVAYA
-juan

Anicca
12 July 2009, 08:02 AM
Namaste



Same confusion ! Please know what SELF is & then discuss how it is different from Voidness & Anatta. Actually, you came with a mission to show the differences between the Advaita & Buddhism, so how can you reconcile with what we offer ? You should have come without any biases to understand the things correctly.

If you hold a view of Self in any way then you dont understand Buddhism



ON "All your quotes on God etc." :

By this itself it appears that Buddha had no different view on God than the Vedanta. As Mandukya Upanishad says, God is only third state of the Brahman .... arising on the screen of Turiya. If you read the Samkhya Shastra, then it is akin to atheism.

Really? so is these quotes in line with Vedanta, ones that deny there is any kind of ultimate being or reality and deny any kind of true Self



The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God." MN II 68.



"Bhikkhus [monks, the Buddha said, holding a fleck of cow dung in his hand], if even if that much of permanent, everlasting, eternal selfhood/metaphysical being (attabhava), not inseparable from the idea of change, could be found, then this living the holy life could not be taught by me."
"Monks, where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality, then the view-position — 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity' — Isn't it utterly & completely a fool's teaching?"



If you like it or not, the Buddha denied Atman/Brahman and any other idea of God, ultimate reality or divine source, be it Christian, Muslim etc etc


However, when someone has come with a single pointed mission to find out the diffferences, how can he be stopped in his mission ?

I had no intention to do this really, i just showed the error in thinking that Buddha took a Vedantic view of the world, he didnt


Spiritualseeker


well said devotee. I love the buddha I even have an image of him but I also got image of Lord Ganesha and plan on Getting Lord siva in Nataraja form

Thats cool:)



Yes buddhist say that they dont believe in the "concept of God" as I heard from a tibetan lama but the tibetan lama also said that "we (meaning the buddhist) believe in the nature of GOD". Then he went on to explain emptiness and our true nature as UNBORN AND INDESTRUCTABLE BEYOND TIME AND SPACE.

As you probably know, Tibetan Buddhist absorbed many elements of Indian spiritual thought into it, you ask this same question to a Theravadin and you wont get that answer at all


Metta both:)

Anicca
12 July 2009, 08:10 AM
Ignore this post

Anicca
12 July 2009, 08:45 AM
The Ultimate Reality in Buddhism

The founder of Buddhism, Siddhartha Gautama - the Buddha, lived in the sixth century BC. Two main forms of Buddhism are known today: the conservative branch, represented by the Theravada school, spread mainly in Sri Lanka and southeast Asia, and the liberal branch - Mahayana, spread mainly in China, Tibet, Korea and Japan.
The Theravada school, which claims to have guarded the unaltered message of its founder, teaches that there is neither a personal god, nor a spiritual or material substance that exists by itself as Ultimate Reality. The world as we know it does not have its origin in a primordial being such as Brahman. What we see is only a product of transitory factors of existence, which depend functionally upon each other.



There is grief but none suffering,
There is no doer though there is action.
There is quietude but none tranquil.
There is the path but none walks upon the path. (Buddhaghosa; Visuddhi Magga 16)



Mahayana Buddhism emerged later, between the 1st century BC and the 1st century AD, and was organized by Nagarjuna in the 2nd century AD. Although the texts of Mahayana Buddhism claim to be a recollection of early speeches of the Buddha, they contradict some conservative doctrines of the Theravada school. It is said that the Mahayana sutras were revealed many years after the master's death, because at that time the world was not yet able to understand them. According to their teaching, Ultimate Reality is also an ultimate truth, called the truth of emptiness. Emptiness is a quality attached to any physical, mental or doctrinal concept. It is the basis of our world, not as a substance, but as a truth. The doctrine of emptiness denies any kind of substantial ultimate reality and affirms that the world is to be seen as a web of interdependent and baseless phenomena.




Im aware that the world is seen as maya and so not really seen as coming from the source of Brahman but the general thrust is that there is no higher true Self etc behind everything or inside everything its also important to remember that the Buddha never said the world was an illusion


In essence there is no inner core of any kind in Theravada



Buddha taught that, for us, there are only the five aggregates. We are a compound of five aggregates, and after we analyze and observe them one by one with the deep insight of meditation, we will realize that there remains nothing: no soul, no self, apart from the aggregates. The combination of the five aggregates is what we call a person, a being, a man, or a woman. There is nothing apart from the five aggregates – corporeality, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness – which are interacting and dependent upon each other. No director, no doer, no experiencer, and no essence can be found. Atta/Atman is merely an idea which as no corresponding reality whatsoever


Sayadaw U Silananda


Metta

devotee
12 July 2009, 10:58 PM
If you hold a view of Self in any way then you dont understand Buddhism
...... Really? so is these quotes in line with Vedanta, ones that deny there is any kind of ultimate being or reality and deny any kind of true Self

My dear friend, I think this whole discussion is waste of time because you keep on repeating the same thing again & again without listening to what is stated from the other side.

Forget about whether Buddhism & Vedanta are same or otherwise.

First of all, "SELF" is not a thing & also it is not nothing. It is beyond all concepts you hold. That is why it can only be "described" by negation i.e. "Neti-Neti" (Not this, Not this). This SELF is the waking World, the dreaming world, God & the untainted screen on which all the three states appear to arise & vanish.


The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God." MN II 68.

=====> Though you have attributed this statement to Buddha but I doubt its vericity. The Supreme God is as good a reality as "you" are & it is as good unreal as "you" are.



"Bhikkhus [monks, the Buddha said, holding a fleck of cow dung in his hand], if even if that much of permanent, everlasting, eternal selfhood/metaphysical being (attabhava), not inseparable from the idea of change, could be found, then this living the holy life could not be taught by me."

I don't understand the purpose behind this cut-paste being done again & again. What does it say ? It doesn't say anything against what I am trying to make you understand. "There is no eternal selfhood", agreed. However, don't you think there is "something" (used due to unavailability of words) which gives rise to the World & the end of this world ? You are talking about the 5 aggregates. OK. But how come the 5 aggregates come into being ? Do you believe that the whole universe is governed by some strict laws ? What/who ensures that these laws are observed by every particle in this universe without fail ?



[COLOR=#000000]"Monks, where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality, then the view-position — 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity' — Isn't it utterly & completely a fool's teaching?"

This negation is perfectly in line with Advaita Vedanta. Buddha is talking about the "self", the "Jiva". "self" & SELF are two completely different things. There is simply no comparison.


If you like it or not, the Buddha denied Atman/Brahman and any other idea of God, ultimate reality or divine source, be it Christian, Muslim etc etc.

That is OK. I never expected that you could understand Advaita Vedanta so easily. Please remember that there is Truth in Christian & Muslim beliefs also. All the faiths can be explained by understanding Vedanta correctly but it is not the other way round.


I had no intention to do this really, i just showed the error in thinking that Buddha took a Vedantic view of the world, he didnt.

You didn't show the error but showed that you have an erroneous view as most of the Buddhists have. You have a view which makes you look fanatic. You are not ready to accept even Mahayana Buddhism & Vajrayana Buddhism. Why are you so much attached to the name i.e. Shakyamuni Buddha ? How are the other Buddhas anyway inferior to Shakyamuni Buddha ? Are you not clinging to a name & form ? Does it show that you understand Buddhism correctly ?

My dear friend, thinking of this type is the reason behind genocides in the name of religions. Try to find out what unites us .... not what apparently divides us all. Buddha or no-Buddha, no-self or SELF, God or no-God .... we are not really different .... the laws that binds you binds me as well .... our origin, end & the cause which apparently creates us & destroys us is also the same. The Truth for you & for me cannot be different.

OM

atanu
13 July 2009, 01:17 AM
Namaste

I must thank anicca for reminding us again and again the true nature as being unconnected with any objects -- physical or conceptual. Thanks for that.

But then he rubbishes Buddha himself and his teachings. Beware Buddhists.


THE SPEAKING TREE
Touching The Earth: A Yogic Practice

Thich Nhat Hanh


In Buddhism, there is a practice called Touching the Earth that can help us realise our wish to generate the energies of love, compassion, joy and equanimity. During the practice, we touch the Earth deeply six times, surrendering ourselves to the Earth and to our own true nature . We touch the Earth with our forehead, legs and hands, so that our mind and body form a perfect whole, allowing us to transcend our small self. We surrender our pride, notions, fears, resentments and even hopes, and enter the world of things as they are . Touching the Earth is an effective yogic practice. We return to our own source of wisdom and are no longer separate from Mother Earth.

I was taught this meditation as a novice monk: The one who bows and the one who is bowed to are the same. Both are without separate self. When we look deeply into a flower, we can see the sun, clouds, seeds, nutrients in the soil and many other things. We understand that the flower cannot exist as a separate, independent self. It is made entirely of what we call non-flower elements . The one who bows and the one who is bowed to are of the same nature. I am made of non-me elements. The Buddha is made of non-Buddha elements. Nothing can exist by itself alone. Everything has to inter-be with everything else in the cosmos...

The place where we touch the Earth is like the jewelled net of Indra. In every intersection of Indras net is a jewel that reflects all the other jewels in the net. Looking at any one of these jewels, we see all the other jewels. Looking into a flower, we see the entire universe. All Buddhas in the 10 directions appear before our eyes and also within us. We join our palms and bow in the 10 directions east, west, south, north, north-east , north-west , south-east , south-west , above and below and also an eleventh direction: within. Bowing our heads, we respectfully bow to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha in the 11 directions.

When you touch the Earth in this spirit, isolation and alienation vanish, and your sense of a separate self will be replaced by a great feeling of oneness with all beings throughout space and time, those who have already manifested and those who have not yet manifested and connects you to the nature of awakening that is within you. The closer you can lie against the Earth, melting into the Earth, the better. You become nothing in order to become everything. After you have been practising touching the Earth for two or three months, you will feel deeply refreshed, strong and healthy. You will love life and be able to smile, because the energies of hatred and ill will in you will have greatly diminished.

There are six Earth-touchings . In the first, we look deeply within. In the second, we see the connection between ourselves and other living beings, including those who live around us. By the fifth Earth-touching , we are truly able to feel love for the people we have disliked. All hatred and anger will have disappeared , and we only want the person we hated to enjoy happiness and dwell in peace. We are able to reach that point because, first of all, we are able to love ourselves . Touching the Earth and reciting the six accompanying meditations generates in us deep love and acceptance. When we are able to love the person who has made us miserable, we realise what a miracle love is.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
13 July 2009, 01:44 AM
The Theravada school, which claims to have guarded the unaltered message of its founder, teaches that there is neither a personal god, nor a spiritual or material substance that exists by itself as Ultimate Reality.Metta


Is the comprehension like a a fleck of cow dung only? What exists by itself and what is dependently originated?


"Bhikkhus [monks, the Buddha said, holding a fleck of cow dung in his hand], if even if that much of permanent, everlasting, eternal selfhood/metaphysical being (attabhava), not inseparable (separable) from the idea of change, could be found, then this living the holy life could not be taught by me."

You are the idea of change. You are not a reality. Sorry for being harsh. A speck of cow dung has greater reality than the idea of change that every one is.

And the unchangeable does not exist as a fleck of cow dung, separate from you, which is the mere idea of change. But the unchageable is that which records the everchanging you. It is the very you, NOT SEPARATE. So, your sutta proves you wrong. You fail to read all clauses. Nothing separate from you can be found -- ever. Agreed.


If God designs the life of the entire world -- the glory and the misery, the good and the evil acts, man is but an instrument of his will and God alone is responsible." - J V.238.

Many times it has been said that these were Buddha's rejoinders to some Brahmins of his times. If you look closely then you will find that Buddha is countering the irresponsible views which make God responsible for everything.

There are several layers of understanding in Hinduism, as in Buddhism. As pointed out by Devotee, Samkhya does not posit a God at all. But, Veda does teach of Ishwara, Lord, non-different from the Brahman, and insurer that fruit of karma is just -- it is called the Law.

If you think you exist (as is proven by your assertions) then why should not Lord exist? Only for pure Buddha, Lord does not exist. For us Lord exists as Buddha or as Krishna or as Jesus.

But they are non different from the unborn. As Shri Krishna teaches "Those know me who know me as unborn Mahesvara".


Verily, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible; Ud. (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#Ud.) VIII, 3. Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
13 July 2009, 01:46 AM
Buddhists beware

Spiritualseeker
13 July 2009, 06:27 AM
namaste,

thanks for sharing that with us atanu especially the article by Thich Nhat Hanh. I have a audio book in which Thich Nhat Hanh explains this process. So it appears that the buddhist view of no self is similar to the atman. Atman is unborn indestructable beyond time and space that life that manifest all life this is much similar to what thich nhat hanh describes in his works. Even so much so that one of the gathas (spiritual poems or recitation) thich nhat hanh says to recite while bathing is (Unborn Indestructable, beyond time and space the transmitter and received are all one in the dharmadhatu). Its all similar its all truth.

Om Namah Sivaya
Om gam Ganapataye Namaha
OM
-juan

Anicca
13 July 2009, 07:39 AM
Namaste



My dear friend, I think this whole discussion is waste of time because you keep on repeating the same thing again & again without listening to what is stated from the other side.

Because thats the Theravadin Buddhist teaching, i keep repeating the point that the aggregates are void of a self or anything belonging to a self. There is no owner or inner core, set being etc inside them or outside of them. And by Self i mean self of any kind




The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God." MN II 68.
=====> Though you have attributed this statement to Buddha but I doubt its vericity. The Supreme God is as good a reality as "you" are & it is as good unreal as "you" are.


So you have read something the Buddha said, not liked what it means and so assumed that the Buddha couldnt have said it, since it doesnt say what you want it to say




I don't understand the purpose behind this cut-paste being done again & again. What does it say ? It doesn't say anything against what I am trying to make you understand. "There is no eternal selfhood", agreed. However, don't you think there is "something" (used due to unavailability of words) which gives rise to the World & the end of this world ? You are talking about the 5 aggregates. OK. But how come the 5 aggregates come into being ? Do you believe that the whole universe is governed by some strict laws ? What/who ensures that these laws are observed by every particle in this universe without fail ?

The passage was quoted to show how the Buddha denied any kind of Self or Atman inside or outside of the aggregates



However, don't you think there is "something" (used due to unavailability of words) which gives rise to the World & the end of this world?

No, its a superfluous metaphysical view that has nothing to do with following the NEFP. As i said Buddhism doesnt posit the view that world is part of, created by or has something ultimate reality/being behind it




You are talking about the 5 aggregates. OK. But how come the 5 aggregates come into being?


"Monk, the four great existents (earth, water, fire, & wind) are the cause, the four great existents the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of form. Contact is the cause, contact the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of feeling. Contact is the cause, contact the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of perception. Contact is the cause, contact the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of fabrications. Name-&-form is the cause, name-&-form the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of consciousness."


Through natural cause and conditions, nothing more




Do you believe that the whole universe is governed by some strict laws ? What/who ensures that these laws are observed by every particle in this universe without fail

Many laws, one being kamma. And not these arent governed by some being they just are, on their own



This negation is perfectly in line with Advaita Vedanta. Buddha is talking about the "self", the "Jiva". "self" & SELF are two completely different things. There is simply no comparison.

The Buddha negated ANY kind of Self on all levels




If you like it or not, the Buddha denied Atman/Brahman and any other idea of God, ultimate reality or divine source, be it Christian, Muslim etc etc.
That is OK. I never expected that you could understand Advaita Vedanta so easily. Please remember that there is Truth in Christian & Muslim beliefs also. All the faiths can be explained by understanding Vedanta correctly but it is not the other way round.

Then whats the point in saying that Buddha taught Vedanta or Buddha taught about Atman etc?



You didn't show the error but showed that you have an erroneous view as most of the Buddhists have. You have a view which makes you look fanatic. You are not ready to accept even Mahayana Buddhism & Vajrayana Buddhism.

Im not being "fanatical" im simply not agreeing with the views put forward here and im also attempting to show the Theravada POV

As for Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism, i accept them on some level but see them as having strayed from the Buddhas noble teachings in some doctrines and practices, however as i said they still have the NEFP there

However accepting the Mahayana and Vajrayana texts as having more authority over the Pali Canon is quite foolish



Why are you so much attached to the name i.e. Shakyamuni Buddha ? How are the other Buddhas anyway inferior to Shakyamuni Buddha ? Are you not clinging to a name & form ? Does it show that you understand Buddhism correctly?

How am i supposedly clinging to Shakyamuni Buddha? Arent you clinging to your Atman by ignoring the Buddhist teachings and lines of texts that deny it and imputting it into a set of teachings that has no place for it?



My dear friend, thinking of this type is the reason behind genocides in the name of religions.

There is a difference, first of all i have no hatred towards you or Hinduism:) , this is just a friendly debate as far as i can tell. Also thoese that perpetrate genocides in the name of religion do so because they cannot stand the teachings of other religions that contradict their own, they cant stand the fact that other people think differently from them. I have no problem with this, i dont mind if someone is a Christian, a Muslism, a hindu, wiccan or materialist. To a Buddhist (Theravada at least) they are all ignorant delusions but thats no reason to hate or want to persecute them, and no reason that there cant be friendly debate in whats similar

What i am doing here however is showing how Buddhism doesnt contain Vedantic teachings, negates any kind of Self (ego or Atman) and Gods (Yaweh, Brahman) and so is different from Vedanta and not one in the same. Im also, as i said earlier, providing the Theravada take on Buddhadhamma. No doubt if you discuss this with a follower of Zen or Vajrayana the answers may have been different



Try to find out what unites us .... not what apparently divides us all. Buddha or no-Buddha, no-self or SELF, God or no-God .... we are not really different

No because there is no "we" or "I" to be different, there are just empty khandas:D


metta

Anicca
13 July 2009, 08:00 AM
Ignore this post, for some reason it didnt post correctly

Anicca
13 July 2009, 08:11 AM
Namaste


Is the comprehension like a a fleck of cow dung only? What exists by itself and what is dependently originated?

Dukkha is D.O.



You are the idea of change. You are not a reality. Sorry for being harsh. A speck of cow dung has greater reality than the idea of change that every one is.

The only bit i understood was "you are not a reality" which i agree with, there are only empty khandas here, void of a self


And the unchangeable does not exist as a fleck of cow dung, separate from you, which is the mere idea of change. But the unchageable is that which records the everchanging you. It is the very you, NOT SEPARATE. So, your sutta proves you wrong. You fail to read all clauses. Nothing separate from you can be found -- ever. Agreed.

You are twisting the text, the Buddha is denying that any kind of Atman exists in reality

You say that Atman is independent, yet earlier you said that it "knows". Well What does it know? How does it know? How can it without changing? Knowing is a function of the khandhas. If it knows then it is part of a khanda and it is therefore part of conditionality which makes Atman Anicca, a cause of Dukkha and so Anatta

Staying with Atman

You have already told us that your "self" is transcendent of the khandhas, of what we can know, experience, or how we act, and that your self is not acted upon nor can it act upon, but I can ask those questions again, and maybe get a clearer answer.

So, tell us the nature of this truly true self.

1) Can it act upon the senses?

2) Can the senses act upon it?

3) Does it change?

4) Is it conditioned?

5) Does it condition?

6) Does it feel?

7) If it doesn't feel, what relationship does it have with feeling?

8) Does it know?

9) Is it conscious?

10) If it is conscious, of what is it conscious?

11) If it knows, what does it know?

12) If it does not change, how can it be aware or know or act?

13) If it cannot be aware, know and act, what is the point of it?

14) Where is it?

15) Why did not the Buddha directly teach it, if it exists?

With the Lotus and mud, there is an interdependent relationship.

If the atman is something other than the khandhas and is unchanging, how does it relate to what changes without changing? If it changes, if it sees, etc, then it really is no different from the khandhas. Monks, whatever contemplatives or priests who assume in various ways when assuming a self, all assume the five clinging-aggregates, or a certain one of them. SN III 46




Many times it has been said that these were Buddha's rejoinders to some Brahmins of his times. If you look closely then you will find that Buddha is countering the irresponsible views which make God responsible for everything.

Not all the quotes i provided would apply to Vedanta, that one would be more in line with Calvinist views



If you think you exist (as is proven by your assertions) then why should not Lord exist? Only for pure Buddha, Lord does not exist. For us Lord exists as Buddha or as Krishna or as Jesus.

To think I exists is an ignorant delusion that comes from clinging



Verily, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible; Ud. (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm#Ud.) VIII, 3.

Quoting that again i see:)

In Pali the Udana 80 line in question reads:

"Atthi [There is] ajaata.m [unborn], abhuuta.m [unproduced], akata.m, [unmade], asankhata.m [unconditioned]."

What the most common way this line is translated fails to get across is that the four “un/not” words are in Pali adjectives. The noun is unstated. There is what? There is what that is ajaata.m, etc? The common translation turns these adjectives into nouns -- "the unborn," "the unconditioned."

As mysterious as Udana 80 sounds, context gives a look at what the text is about. The immediate context, the sutta opens:

Thus have I heard. At one time the Lord was staying near Savatthi in the Jeta Wood at Anathapindika's monastery. On that occasion the Lord was instructing, rousing, inspiring, and gladdening the bhikkhus with a Dhamma talk connected with Nibbana, and those bhikkhus, being receptive and attentive and concentrating the whole mind, were intent on listening to Dhamma. Then, on realizing its significance, the Lord uttered on that occasion this inspired utterance: There is, bhikkhus, ajaata....

What we see right off the top is that the subject is nibbana. There is what? Nibbana. The four adjective modify, describe nibbana. So in the forms we have them above or in variations these four words are used to describe or characterize nibbana or are synonyms of nibbana.

The most straightforward definition the Buddha gives of Nibbana is:

That which is the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion is nibbana. -- S.N. IV 251 and IV 321

And we see:

That which is the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion is asankhata. -- S.N. IV 359 and S.N. 362

Clearly nibbana and asankhata are equivalent terms, synonyms. Nibbana is asankhata, “unconditioned,” because there is no further conditioning - sankhata - by hatred, greed and ignorance. The prefix "a" in asankhata is just like the English (Latin/Greek) prefix a as in, for example, asexual, without sexual characteristics, free of sexual characteristics. (And before a vowel, just as in English the Pali/Sanskrit privative a becomes an as in anatta/anatama.)

The privative a in Sanskrit/Pali needs not be, as unfortunately it so often is, limited to being translated as "un," "not," or "non." Asankhata, unconditioned, can be translated as free from conditions (of hatred, greed, and ignorance), without conditions, or, conditionlessness.

One of things that is often said is that nibbana is "the Unborn." Let us look at that usage where ajaata and nibbana are clearly synonytms:

Then the group of five monks, being thus exhorted, thus instructed by me [the Buddha], being liable to birth because of self, having known the perils in what is liable to birth, seeking the unborn [jaata.m], the uttermost security from the bonds -- nibbana -- won the unborn, the uttermost security from the bonds -- nibbana...." -- from the PTS translation of the Majjhima Nikaya I 173

What is the "unborn?" What does it mean? Try this:

”Then the group of five monks, being thus exhorted, thus instructed by me [the Buddha], being liable to birth because of self, having known the perils in what is liable to birth, seeking freedom from birth, the uttermost security from the bonds -- nibbana -- won freedom from birth, the uttermost security from the bonds -- nibbana...."

(see: http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php...ndpost&p=407524 (http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php...ndpost&p=407524) )

There is no philological reason that the four words in question must be translated as we generally see them translated: unborn, unconditioned, etc.

As was said above the line in Udana is a sentence without a noun but with a string of adjectives, which are essentially synonyms, or at least words with significant over lapping meanings that clearly define nibbana.

We might translate the "un" line so:

"There is [nibbana], free from birth, free from becoming, free from making, free from conditioning."

Translating ajaata.m etc, by "freedom from birth," etc. supplies the
implied noun via the privative a as in asankhata.

We do not see in the Buddha's own commentary any reference to a Nibbana that has "never been born… has always been”, but we do see that "being freed of this" is a state of ease -- the "the conditions appeased (sankharupasamo)," a variation of asankhata, nibbana -- is reached. If the Buddha had wanted to teach a deathless, unborn “it,” we would have seen a very different sort of expression of the Dhamma.

That which is born, become, arisen, made, conditioned,
And thus unstable, put together of decay and death,
The seat of disease, brittle,
Caused and craving food,
That is not fit to find pleasure in.

Being freed of this, calmed beyond conjecture, stable,
Freed from birth, freed from arising, freed from sorrow,
Freed from passions, the elements of suffering stopped,
The conditioning[of greed, hatred and delusion]appeased,
This is ease [B].

So, I hope that explains it to some degree.

Now you are seen, Builder of the House. You will not build this house again. All your rafters are broken, your ridge-pole destroyed; the mind goes free from the compound; it experiences craving’s destruction.

or the mind goes free from constructing; it experiences craving’s destruction; or the mind goes free from putting together. Dhp 154




One important passage to bear in mind from the Theravada monk
Ven. Buddhaghosa

'Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found.
The deed is, but no doer of the deed is there.
Nibbána is, but not the man that enters it.
The path is, but no traveller on it is seen.'


metta:)

atanu
13 July 2009, 09:37 AM
The only bit i understood was "you are not a reality" which i agree with, there are only empty khandas here, void of a self
Namaste anicca,
Is the meaning of khanda clear? Shiva-Atman is called akhanda.

You are twisting the text, the Buddha is denying that any kind of Atman exists in reality
On the contrary you have closed your eyes towards the clauses in all of your citations. The following citation of yours is repeated below for all to see.

"Bhikkhus [monks, the Buddha said, holding a fleck of cow dung in his hand], if even if that much of permanent, everlasting, eternal selfhood/metaphysical being (attabhava), not inseparable (separable) from the idea of change, could be found, then this living the holy life could not be taught by me."
For ease of comprehension, I have inserted 'separable' in red fonts adjacent to 'not inseparable'.It is a clear cut clause that the Self (or whatever) is not to be found separate from the idea of change, which you and me as dream realities are.


You say that Atman is independent, yet earlier you said that it "knows". Well What does it know?
Whatever Buddha has taught. Isn't it clear?


So, tell us the nature of this truly true self.
Annicca, I asked you long back as to what you comprehend by Atman and atta. Please oblige by clarifying.

Quoting that again i see:)
And you are ignoring that again and again. Everyone can see that.

Atthi [There is] ajaata.m [unborn], abhuuta.m [unproduced], akata.m, [unmade], asankhata.m [unconditioned

what the most common way this line is translated fails to get across is that the four “un/not” words are in Pali adjectives. The noun is unstated. There is what? There is what that is ajaata.m, etc? The common translation turns these adjectives into nouns -- "the unborn," "the unconditioned."
----There is, bhikkhus, ajaata....
That which is the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion is nibbana. -- S.N. IV 251 and IV 321
That which is the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion is asankhata. -- S.N. IV 359 and S.N. 362

We all agree to all this. There is nothing new. All this is taught in the Upanishads and Gita. But, heartening is that you seem to agree that "Atthi [There is] ajaata.m [unborn], abhuuta.m [unproduced], akata.m, [unmade], asankhata.m [unconditioned]". Buddha's Nibbana and Upanishads Moksha have nothing whatsoever different, except that Buddhsist teachings, like those of Christians and Muslims, are in the realm of Smriti and not Shruti.

The unborn, unproduced, unmade, unconditioned is the true akhanda Self, as it is to be NOT FOUND SEPARATE from the idea of change (the ego).


"Bhikkhus [monks, the Buddha said, holding a fleck of cow dung in his hand], if even if that much of permanent, everlasting, eternal selfhood/metaphysical being (attabhava), not inseparable (separable) from the idea of change, could be found, then this living the holy life could not be taught by me."
If that was separate then Buddha could not have taught, since there would have been no Prajnya.



Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
13 July 2009, 09:48 AM
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=29702&postcount=125

Is anicca some spokesperson or someone?

atanu
13 July 2009, 10:05 AM
"Atthi [There is] ajaata.m [unborn], abhuuta.m [unproduced], akata.m, [unmade], asankhata.m [unconditioned]".
Buddha's Nibbana and Upanishads Moksha have nothing whatsoever different, except that Buddhsist teachings, like those of Christians and Muslims, are in the realm of Smriti and not Shruti. The unborn, unproduced, unmade, unconditioned is the true akhanda Self, as it is to be NOT FOUND SEPARATE from the idea of change (the ego).

"Bhikkhus [monks, the Buddha said, holding a fleck of cow dung in his hand], if even if that much of permanent, everlasting, eternal selfhood/metaphysical being (attabhava), not inseparable (separable) from the idea of change, could be found, then this living the holy life could not be taught by me."
If that was separate then Buddha could not have taught, since then Buddha would be abuddha, devoid of Prajnya (very simple).

Om Namah Shivaya
------------------------
Note: Anicca, take a good advice. Please stop being like a mere transistor radio or a parrot but apply a bit of Prajnya that is inside of you, to just soak in the two points made above. If you are bloated with ego sense, then only you will persist with your naive line.

The unborn is not to be found separate and had it been separate then even Buddha could not have taught for lack of Prajnya -wisdom and intelligence.The very power of comprehension is due to the akhand Self, on which all forms are bobbing up and down, Realised Gurus are fixed in the Prajnya.

Om

atanu
13 July 2009, 10:11 AM
Emphasis


"Atthi [There is] ajaata.m [unborn], abhuuta.m [unproduced], akata.m, [unmade], asankhata.m [unconditioned]".
Buddha's Nibbana and Upanishads Moksha have nothing whatsoever different, except that Buddhsist teachings, like those of Christians and Muslims, are in the realm of Smriti and not Shruti. The unborn, unproduced, unmade, unconditioned is the true akhanda Self, as it is to be NOT FOUND SEPARATE from the idea of change (the ego).

"Bhikkhus [monks, the Buddha said, holding a fleck of cow dung in his hand], if even if that much of permanent, everlasting, eternal selfhood/metaphysical being (attabhava), not inseparable (separable) from the idea of change, could be found, then this living the holy life could not be taught by me."
If that was separate then Buddha could not have taught, since then Buddha would be abuddha, devoid of Prajnya (very simple).

Om Namah Shivaya
------------------------
Note: Anicca, take a good advice. Please stop being like a mere transistor radio or a parrot but apply a bit of Prajnya that is inside of you, to just soak in the two points made above. If you are bloated with ego sense, then only you will persist with your naive line.

The unborn is not to be found separate and had it been separate then even Buddha could not have taught for lack of Prajnya -wisdom and intelligence.The very power of comprehension is due to the akhand Self, on which all forms are bobbing up and down, Realised Gurus are fixed in the Prajnya.

Om

atanu
13 July 2009, 10:17 AM
The unborn, unproduced, unmade, unconditioned is the true akhanda Self, as it is to be NOT FOUND SEPARATE from the idea of change (the ego). If that was separate then Buddha would be just a speck of cow dung.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
13 July 2009, 10:24 AM
Namaste
The Buddha goes on in this discourse, using mythic language, to give a biting satirical re-telling of the creation myth of the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad


Anicca,

You are an upstart who actually comments without understanding anything. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad's creation schemes are all to show how the Creater God is not above DEATH. Brihadaraynaka points to the indescribable by Net-Neti and not by products of creation or by creator.

(It is very unfortunate as to how nothing of what has been already written is read and opinions are parroted again and again).

Om

devotee
13 July 2009, 10:36 AM
There is a difference, first of all i have no hatred towards you or Hinduism , this is just a friendly debate as far as i can tell. ..........
To a Buddhist (Theravada at least) they are all ignorant delusions

Your labelling them as "ignorant delusions" shows your camourflaged hatred or if you say it to "others", it would create hatred.


No because there is no "we" or "I" to be different, there are just empty khandas

Let me try to understand you :

So, there is no "you" & there is no "me". It is khanda discussing with khanda. What is this khanda ? If this (khanda) is really empty how does it appear so solid ? How can one khanda which is empty has individuality ? How is it able to think ? Can emptiness think, feel or debate with another emptiness ? Has emptiness consciousness or is it devoid of consciousness ?

If "you" don't exist & also there is nothing to continue after your death (as Buddhism denies any "self" or SELF etc.), why should "you" or anyone try to attain Nibbana ?

Please answer the above & let me understand your views correctly.

OM

Ekanta
13 July 2009, 10:47 AM
A Zen koan for you all:

"Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.
Desiring to show his attainment, he said: “The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no realisation, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received.”

Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.

“If nothing exists,” inquired Dokuon, “where did this anger come from?"

Anicca
13 July 2009, 05:44 PM
ignore this, messed up for some reason again

Anicca
13 July 2009, 06:05 PM
Namaste

I only have time for a quick post so Atanu i will answer yours tommorw since they will take a bit more time:)


Devotee


Your labelling them as "ignorant delusions" shows your camourflaged hatred or if you say it to "others", it would create hatred.

Hatred is an ignorant delusion, a fire that leads to dukkha. The standard Theravada (and i think mahayana as well) view is that belief in a creator or all powerful God, reality, soul, Atman etc etc is an ignorant delusion. Same as materialism, annhilationism etc


So, there is no "you" & there is no "me". It is khanda discussing with khanda. What is this khanda?

Yes, khanda discussing via khanda. General, natural conditional interplay. If your asking which khanda is it, generally they all work together at different times co-dependently however for a simple answer it would be the Saṅkhāra aggregate which covers thoughts, opinions etc


If this (khanda) is really empty how does it appear so solid?

khandas, the khandas are Void of a self or anything belonging to a self. There is only the perception of "me" and "I" because of ignorance and clinging

A basic example would be the body, the body is not-self. It has no owner and no "director". If the body were self then you should be able to command it at will "may my body be ...." but this cant happen, the body goes about life being affected by natural causes and conditions, you cant say "I will now make my body young" why not? because it has no owner or controller. The same applies for the other khandas, if they were self or had self behind them we could make them do as we wish but in fact we cannot, can you choose what thought pops into the mind? Can you choose the feelings that rise and fall, the perceptions that come and go? or do they come and go by themselves, without any agent in them or behind them? If the khandas (consciousness included) were self or had a self behind them then you could say "let my .... be thus" but you cannot do so because they are Void. Really think about it and you will see the truth of Anatta and Voidness

As for the sense of "me", "I" or "Self" i will stick to the body again and give basic example. If there is clinging to the body the sense "I am the body" arises, if there is no clinging there is no "I am". "I" and "I am" is just an ignorant result of clinging to that which is anicca, a cause of dukkha (because of clinging to that which changes) and so anatta



How is it able to think?

Thought is just thought, there is no self in or behind it


Can emptiness think, feel or debate with another emptiness?

Emptiness isnt a thing but a truth about all dhammas


Has emptiness consciousness or is it devoid of consciousness?

Well as i said Voidness (i prefer this translation) is not a thing, as for consciousness it is void of a self in or behind it, it just is



If "you" don't exist & also there is nothing to continue after your death (as Buddhism denies any "self" or SELF etc.), why should "you" or anyone try to attain Nibbana?

Well there is no "my death" just as there is no "my birth" or "my life" or "my mother", these are for clinging not for non-clinging. Death is for those who cling, now in answer to rebirth first, here is a teaching by Ajahn Buddhadasa in relation to this (rebirth is the 2nd paragraph but the first section would, i feel, be appropiate for you as well)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ajahn Buddhadasa

The second question is: If there is no self, then who acts? Who produces all these physical, verbal, and mental kammas (actions) and receives the result of those actions (kamma-fruit)? Who experiences happiness and dukkha? The "who" is "nobody." There isn't a need for anybody. In fact, we need not use the word "who" at all. The mind can feel, be aware, and think. It has its needs and can make the body act or the mouth speak accordingly. The mind thinks and as a result of that thinking there is an action: a physical, verbal or mental action (kamma). The mind that thinks is not-self, the body that acts is not self, the mouth that speaks is not self, so that action is not self. The action really happens, but it is not self. Then there's a reaction that happens as kamma-fruit. If it affects anything, just that thing is the receiver of the kamma-fruit. But really, if we speak correctly and straight-forwardly, there is nobody who receives the fruit of kamma. Although a reaction occurs, it happens to the next thing. It is a process of one thing or event conditioning the next.
If we look carefully, we see that there is one mind that thinks, that has the intention behind the action, but the reaction is experienced by a different mind. From one moment to the next it is a completely different mind. It is never the same mind, let alone a self or a "who." ("Who" implies self.) This citta is the maker of the kamma; the fruit of kamma happens to that (next) citta. It isn't the same citta anymore. Still, without any attā, the citta can make kamma, it can act. And the citta which isn't attā can experience the fruit of kamma. Whether happiness or dukkha is experienced, there is just mind experiencing it. One doesn't need an attā, there is only experience. There is only foolishness or intelligence. Take it as happy, it's happiness (&#246;sukha&#242;); take it as dukkha, it's dukkha. The mind alone feels &#246;sukha&#242; and dukkha, it doesn't need an attā. Thus we say that "nobody" makes kamma. If we speak in line with Buddhist principles, "nobody makes kamma." Although there is the acting of kamma, there is nobody who makes it, or receives its fruit, or is the happy one or the miserable one. There's merely citta together with body; that's all that's needed for experience. And all of it is not-self. [28]



Now we come to the third question which they will ask: When there is no attā, then what is reborn? What or who is reborn? Forgive us for being forced to use crude language, but this question is absurd and crazy.4 In Buddhism, there is no point in asking such a thing. There is no place for it in Buddhism. If you ask what will be reborn next, that's the craziest, most insane question. If right here, right now, there is no soul, person, self, or attā, how could there be some "who" or "someone" that goes and gets reborn? So there is no way one can ask "who will be reborn?"Therefore, the rebirth of the same person does not occur. But the birth of different things is happening all the time. It happens often and continuously, but there is no rebirth. There is no such thing, in reality, as rebirth or reincarnation. That there is one person, one "I" or "you," getting reborn is what reincarnation is all about. If all is anattā, there is nothing to get reborn. There is birth, birth, birth, of course. This is obvious. There is birth happening all the time, but it is never the same person being born a second time. Every birth new. So there is birth, endlessly, constantly, but we will not call it "rebirth" or "reincarnation." [29]
While we have the chance, let's spill all the beans– there isn't much time left – there's no "person" or "being" (satva). What we call a person is merely a momentary grouping that does not last. It does not have any independent reality and is merely a stream or process of cause and effect, which is called the "dependent origination of `no person.'" Buddhism teaches dependent origination – this process of causes and effects, of things continuously arising out of causes, the causes being dependent on previous causes, the whole flow unfolding on and on. Thus, Buddhism is the teaching of "no man," the teaching of "no person." There's no person to live or to die or to be reborn. Now, there's no person. It's merely the grouping of body and mind, or of the five khandhas, or whatever you want to call it. But this grouping which temporarily appears according to causes and conditions is not a person. Would you please understand well that it is no person who makes kammas, who receives fruits of kammas, who is happy, who is dukkha, who dies, who gets reborn. These lives don't exist like that. There is no birth or incarnation of the same person. [30]



We can conclude by saying that if you understand anattā correctly and truly, then you will discover for yourself that there is no rebirth and no reincarnation. The matter is finished.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[The Buddha:]
View the world, Mogharaja,
as empty —
always mindful
to have removed any view
about self.

This way one is above & beyond death.
This is how one views the world
so as not to be seen
by Death's king.



As for nibbana, if you set out wanting nibbana or think "I will attain or I will reach/enter nibbana" if will never come about

remember these few passages, they sum up the whole Buddhist path in a few lines

'Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found.
The deed is, but no doer of the deed is there.
Nibb&#225;na is, but not the man that enters it.
The path is, but no traveller on it is seen.'


Voidness my friend

As for confusion of using the term "I" or "me" or "friend" here in relation to anatta and Voidness please remember this teaching


The Awakened One, best of speakers,
Spoke two kinds of truths:
The conventional and the ultimate.
A third truth does not obtain.

Therein:
The speech wherewith the world converses is true
On account of its being agreed upon by the world
The speech which describes what is ultimate is also true,
Through characterizing dhammas as they really are.

Therefore, being skilled in common usage,
False speech does not arise in the Teacher,
Who is Lord of the World,
When he speaks according to conventions.

(Mn. i. 95)

"I" or "me" or "You" etc are conventional speech but not true reality

metta

devotee
13 July 2009, 07:05 PM
Hatred is an ignorant delusion, a fire that leads to dukkha. The standard Theravada (and i think mahayana as well) view is that belief in a creator or all powerful God, reality, soul, Atman etc etc is an ignorant delusion. Same as materialism, annhilationism etc

Please try to understand that your lebelling anyone as "deluded" is not different from what extremists of other religions say & create hatred. Please be careful in using such terms.


Yes, khanda discussing via khanda. General, natural conditional interplay. If your asking which khanda is it, generally they all work together at different times co-dependently however for a simple answer it would be the Saṅkhāra aggregate which covers thoughts, opinions etc.

The question was "What Khanda is ?" --- does it has any independent existence ? If not, what acts behind the existence or apparent existence of these khandas ?



khandas, the khandas are Void of a self or anything belonging to a self. There is only the perception of "me" and "I" because of ignorance and clinging ...A basic example would be the body, the body is not-self. It has no owner and no "director". If the body were self then you should be able to command it at will "may my body be ...." but this cant happen, the body goes about life being affected by natural causes and conditions, you cant say "I will now make my body young" why not? because it has no owner or controller. The same applies for the other khandas, if they were self or had self behind them we could make them do as we wish but in fact we cannot, can you choose what thought pops into the mind? Can you choose the feelings that rise and fall, the perceptions that come and go? or do they come and go by themselves, without any agent in them or behind them? If the khandas (consciousness included) were self or had a self behind them then you could say "let my .... be thus" but you cannot do so because they are Void. Really think about it and you will see the truth of Anatta and Voidness

As for the sense of "me", "I" or "Self" i will stick to the body again and give basic example. If there is clinging to the body the sense "I am the body" arises, if there is no clinging there is no "I am". "I" and "I am" is just an ignorant result of clinging to that which is anicca, a cause of dukkha (because of clinging to that which changes) and so anatta

I am not saying whether there is a self attached to a khanda or not. What I am asking is what a khanda is ? Why the aggregate of this khanda appear so solid & a "thing" when it is void ?


Thought is just thought, there is no self in or behind it

If there is no actor behind a thought, then why your thought & my thoughts are not the same ? Also, why these thoughts be logically sequential at all ? Why is it not simply random ?


Emptiness isnt a thing but a truth about all dhammas

OK. But what is it ? Is this emptiness capable of doing anything or not ? How does Dukkha come into picture at all ?


Well as i said Voidness (i prefer this translation) is not a thing, as for consciousness it is void of a self in or behind it, it just is

It is not logical. If everything is just is, how does it act logically ? Does consciousness has any independent existence ? If not, how does it come into being at all ?

-------------------

Thanks for your long post & quotes but my questions are not answered. Apart from the above, I had asked : Why should anyone try to attain Nibbana ?

You have hinted with your quote that it would help the next birth (except that there is no continuity in the form of 'self' or whatever). However, if we see the world at the time of Buddha & the time today, I don't think this Nibbana thing has helped this world in any significant way. By this time, since attainemnet of Nibbana by Shakyamuni Buddha this world would have been a better place to live. It doesn't appear to be so. If I am not going to suffer for my Kammas & I am not going to benefit (because there is no "I") why should I not indulge in satisfying my sensual desires by any moral or immoral means ? Even if I kill/rape someone for something/sexual gratification, I am not going to be punished, so why not do it ? Why should I not try to enjoy this world by hook or by crook, as this life has no after-effect (on me)?

OM

Ekanta
13 July 2009, 07:12 PM
Why are you still discussing Anicca if there is no one to discuss with?

Anicca
13 July 2009, 07:48 PM
Why are you still discussing Anicca if there is no one to discuss with?


Very Zen:Cool:


:)

Spiritualseeker
13 July 2009, 08:07 PM
Namaste,

I finnally received "my" book "Lord Siva and His Worship"

on pg22 and 25 it discusses the nature or attributes of Siva. I find it to be interesting because it is very similar to buddhist thought.

Here it is:

"Non Dual, Indivisible, nondoer, non-enjoyer, Unattached, without qualities, I am Siva (auspiciousness), I am Siva of the form of knowledge and bliss.

Unmanifested, endless, immortal, bliss, Imovvable, without impurities, imperishable, inexhaustible, I am Siva, I am Siva of the form of knowledge and bliss.

Soundless, touchless, smell-less, formless, Without Prana, without mind, without senses, unseen, I am Siva, I am Siva of the form of knowledge and bliss.

Truth, auspiciousness, good, beautiful, resplendent, existence-knowledge-bliss, all-full, pure happiness, peaceful. I am Siva, I am Siva of the form of knowledge and bliss.

All-pervading like ether, consciousness alone, full of That, I am Siva, I am Siva of the form of knowledge and bliss.

Pure, stainless, immovable, beyond the reach of mind and speech, imperishable, steady, I am Siva, I am siva of the form of knowledge and bliss.
Eternal without attributes, supreme bliss, Without form, Hrim and Om (Pranava), rock seated Self. I am Siva, I am Siva of form of knwoledge and bliss.
Truth, knowledge endless, bliss, existence-knowledge-bliss, self luminous I am siva I am siva of form and knowledge and bliss.
Immortality, alone, changless, self Pure, perfect, illumined existence-knowledge bliss. I am siva, I am Siva of the form of knowledge and bliss. Without defects, pure spotless, eternal, formless without qualities, super consciousness I am Siva, I am siva of the form of knowledge and bliss.

Self, Surprem self, consciousness, Full of light, bliss, that which is indicated by Tat-Tvan-Asi Thou art That I am siva, I am siva of the form of knowledge and bliss.

I am He, I am Siva, I am Brahman, Pure existence knowledge bliss, all full self, I am siva I am Siva of the form of knowledge and bliss."


I think it is all the same..... what do you all think?

-juan

Anicca
13 July 2009, 08:12 PM
Namaste


The question was "What Khanda is ?" --- does it has any independent existence ? If not, what acts behind the existence or apparent existence of these khandas ?


No khandas dont have independent existence, they are part of conditionality hence why there is change. Nothing acts behind the existence of the khandas, there is only natural conditionality



I am not saying whether there is a self attached to a khanda or not. What I am asking is what a khanda is ? Why the aggregate of this khanda appear so solid & a "thing" when it is void ?

I think your misunderstanding Voidness, Voidness doesnt mean form, for example, isnt there. Voidness means its empty of a self or pertaining to a self



If there is no actor behind a thought, then why your thought & my thoughts are not the same ? Also, why these thoughts be logically sequential at all ? Why is it not simply random ?

Because conditionality is different on different khandas, age being the most basic to point out. So you think thoughts arent random? Try closing your eyes and sitting back and observing the flow, try not thinking and see. As for logical thought, this is still a part of conditionality working in conjuction with other khandas such as perception as well as, in the unawakened, clinging and "I".


Conditionality doesnt have to mean complete chaos


OK. But what is it ? Is this emptiness capable of doing anything or not ? How does Dukkha come into picture at all ?

Well as i said emptiness isnt a "thing" its just a fact of existence. Dukkha arises when there is ignorance which, following through the chain of D.O. leads into clinging and onto dukkha

A basic formulation would be clinging to that which is impermanent and subject to change and decay



It is not logical. If everything is just is, how does it act logically ? Does consciousness has any independent existence ? If not, how does it come into being at all ?

"I" or "I am" is illogical friend, think about it in this way. When a baby is born does it have "I"? No its just a heap of khandas, its not till there is clinging (because of ignorance) does the sense of "me" arises

As i said earlier, when there is clinging to something there is "I" or "I am" or "mine", if there is no clinging these do not arrise. "I" is an afflictive delusion


Does consciousness has any independent existence ? If not, how does it come into being at all ?

If it were independent it wouldnt change, but it doesn. Consciousness comes to be via contact and external forms

In various ways we are told, that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause there is no arising of consciousness. Bhikkhus, it is good, you know the Teaching preached by me. In various ways I have preached that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet, this bhikkhu S&#224;ti son of a fisherman, grasping this wrong view blames me and destroys himself, and accumulates much demerit. It will be for his undoing and unpleas&#224;ntness for a long time.

Bhikkhus, founded on whatever, consciousness arises, it is reckoned on that. On account of eye and forms arises consciousness, it's reckoned eye consciousness. On account of ear and sounds arises consciousness, it's reckoned ear consciousness. On account of nose and smells arises consciousness, it's reckoned nose consciousness. On account of tongue and tastes arises consciousness, it's reckoned tongue consciousness. On account of body and touches arises consciousness, it's reckoned body consciousness. On account of mind and ideas arises consciousness, it's reckoned mind consciousness. Bhikkhus, just as based on whatever fire burns, it is reckoned by that. Fire ablaze with sticks is stick fire. Ablaze with twigs is twig fire. Ablaze with grass is grass fire. Ablaze with cow dung is cow dung fire. Ablaze with grain thrash is grain thrash fire. Ablaze with dirt is dirt fire. In the same manner consciousness on account is eye and forms is eye consciousness. Consciousness on account of ear and sounds is ear consciousness. Consciousness on account of nose and smells is nose conscioussness. Consciousness on account of tongue and tastes is taste consciousness. Consciousness on account of body and touches is body consciousness. Consciousness
on account of mind and ideas is mind consciousness.






Why should anyone try to attain Nibbana ?


Dont you see you have fallen back into the delusion of "me"

To begin the path one does start with "I am suffering" but as one grows in Dhamma there is the understanding that the very reason that there is dukkha is because there is "I" (through clinging)




However, if we see the world at the time of Buddha & the time today, I don't think this Nibbana thing has helped this world in any significant way. By this time, since attainemnet of Nibbana by Shakyamuni Buddha this world would have been a better place to live. It doesn't appear to be so.

The more "people" who walk the path, the less dukkha there is. The drawback is that the Buddhadhamma goes "against the stream" of the world, its something that most "people" find hard to understand or accept (or are even interested in)




If I am not going to suffer for my Kammas & I am not going to benefit (because there is no "I") why should I not indulge in satisfying my sensual desires by any moral or immoral means ? Even if I kill/rape someone for something/sexual gratification, I am not going to be punished, so why not do it ? Why should I not try to enjoy this world by hook or by crook, as this life has no after-effect (on me)?


Dont you see? I wont suffer so I want to enjoy. Approach it from wisdom friend, dont go from "I" .... so "I" can do this because "I" .... since this is still being stuck in delusion

When one understands anatta and Voidness then there is no want to indulge, no thinking of "oh well i can just kill this" etc since this still all comes from the false illusion of "I", something which has been left behind in one who understands

The Buddha seen all things as empty, he didnt see a self anywhere yet "he" didnt go around killing etc. Anatta and Voidness lead to perfect morality and wisdom, not nihilistic and hedonistc wants


See it as Dukkha, origin, quenching, path

Another way of looking at it is this, there is no "person" here now but there is still dukkha


metta

Anicca
13 July 2009, 08:36 PM
Namaste,

I finnally received "my" book "Lord Siva and His Worship"

on pg22 and 25 it discusses the nature or attributes of Siva. I find it to be interesting because it is very similar to buddhist thought.

Here it is:

"Non Dual, Indivisible, nondoer, non-enjoyer, Unattached, without qualities, I am Siva (auspiciousness), I am Siva of the form of knowledge and bliss.

Unmanifested, endless, immortal, bliss, Imovvable, without impurities, imperishable, inexhaustible, I am Siva, I am Siva of the form of knowledge and bliss.

Soundless, touchless, smell-less, formless, Without Prana, without mind, without senses, unseen, I am Siva, I am Siva of the form of knowledge and bliss.

Truth, auspiciousness, good, beautiful, resplendent, existence-knowledge-bliss, all-full, pure happiness, peaceful. I am Siva, I am Siva of the form of knowledge and bliss.

All-pervading like ether, consciousness alone, full of That, I am Siva, I am Siva of the form of knowledge and bliss.

Pure, stainless, immovable, beyond the reach of mind and speech, imperishable, steady, I am Siva, I am siva of the form of knowledge and bliss.
Eternal without attributes, supreme bliss, Without form, Hrim and Om (Pranava), rock seated Self. I am Siva, I am Siva of form of knwoledge and bliss.
Truth, knowledge endless, bliss, existence-knowledge-bliss, self luminous I am siva I am siva of form and knowledge and bliss.
Immortality, alone, changless, self Pure, perfect, illumined existence-knowledge bliss. I am siva, I am Siva of the form of knowledge and bliss. Without defects, pure spotless, eternal, formless without qualities, super consciousness I am Siva, I am siva of the form of knowledge and bliss.

Self, Surprem self, consciousness, Full of light, bliss, that which is indicated by Tat-Tvan-Asi Thou art That I am siva, I am siva of the form of knowledge and bliss.

I am He, I am Siva, I am Brahman, Pure existence knowledge bliss, all full self, I am siva I am Siva of the form of knowledge and bliss."


I think it is all the same..... what do you all think?

-juan


Hey friend

A Theravadin approaching this text wouldnt agree with the bits i highlighted

Thanks for sharing the text though, its an interesting read

metta

Spiritualseeker
13 July 2009, 08:41 PM
Namaste,

what about mahayana and vajrayana? The truth is formless beyond time and space indestructable. ultimate reality to buddhist, Lord Siva to Hindus

http://vamsikarra.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/lord-shiva.jpg

atanu
13 July 2009, 11:43 PM
NamasteThe Buddha goes on in this discourse, using mythic language, to give a biting satirical re-telling of the creation myth of the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad ----



This, in fact, is the biting satire on the level of understanding that can go no lower. I have not read/heard any worthy teacher to satirise any scripture.

This thread is based on one premise only: To show that Buddha taught some new things, which were not taught in Vedanta. Not even Koran or Bible attempt to trash the older existing scripture. Only the ways and understanding of men are questioned in order to reform -- often as per requirements of localised peculiarities.

I understand that anicca lacks the basic ingredients of spiritual knowledge.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
14 July 2009, 12:30 AM
If it were independent it wouldnt change, but it doesn. Consciousness comes to be via contact and external forms

In various ways we are told, that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause there is no arising of consciousness. Bhikkhus, it is good, you know the Teaching preached by me. In various ways I have preached that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet, this bhikkhu S&#224;ti son of a fisherman, grasping this wrong view blames me and destroys himself, and accumulates much demerit. It will be for his undoing and unpleas&#224;ntness for a long time.

Bhikkhus, founded on whatever, consciousness arises, it is reckoned on that. On account of eye and forms arises consciousness, it's reckoned eye consciousness.


I am sorry that I have to intrude. This is going in rounds and will go in rounds. What anicca is talking about is awareness (of six sensual types). And what we are talking is the Pra-Jnaya. Anicca is bent upon to not see that there is no common ground in what he is refuting. On one hand he is denying that which is born. In the same breath he is refuting sanatana dharma's position based on what is born.

He is not himself clear about the flaws in his reasoning.


Namaste"I" or "I am" is illogical friend, think about it in this way. When a baby is born does it have "I"? No its just a heap of khandas, its not till there is clinging (because of ignorance) does the sense of "me" arises

Again. Whether a child asserts "I" or not is immaterial. A man also does not assert so while asleep. That does not invalidate a man or a child's existence.

The body has five layers of clothing, beneath which the true exists.

The unborn, unproduced, unmade, unconditioned is the true akhanda Self, as it is to be NOT FOUND SEPARATE from the idea of change (the ego). If that was separate then Buddha would be just a speck of cow dung.


Om Namah Shivaya

devotee
14 July 2009, 03:40 AM
No khandas don't have independent existence, they are part of conditionality hence why there is change. Nothing acts behind the existence of the khandas, there is only natural conditionality

See, as Atanu has pointed out, it is not going anywhere. You are not giving the pin-pointed answer. Now, the question arises, "If Khandas are part of conditionality, what is conditionality & what is conditioned ?" If you say that there is only "conditionality" & nothing which is conditioned then how can it be helped ? I hope you understand what I want to say.



I think your misunderstanding Voidness, Voidness doesnt mean form, for example, isnt there. Voidness means its empty of a self or pertaining to a self

Forget about "self" or even remote referencing to it. I have not said a thing about "self", so let the "self" stay where it should. If there is no "form", shall we say that it is void ? How do you take the assistance of "self" to explain the words chosen by you when you whemently deny it ? If you have to take the shelter of "self", then please define "self" first.


Because conditionality is different on different khandas, age being the most basic to point out.

Wait, you just stated above that "Khandas are part of conditionality", right ? When Khandas are part of conditionality, how are they different for different khandas ? Does conditionality has any independent existence ?


As for logical thought, this is still a part of conditionality working in conjuction with other khandas such as perception as well as, in the unawakened, clinging and "I".

First explain how do you see conditionality independent of anything which is being conditioned. You have used "perception" --- how can perception take birth if there is no who perceives ? Do the "conditionality", the "Khandas", "perception" arise in vacuum without any source ? Do you think it is logical ?


Conditionality doesnt have to mean complete chaos

Why ? What will ensure order here ? There must be something to be aware of teh chaotic situation to bring in the order back ! As there is nothing which is the source of anything, & there is nothing which monitors anything, so things must happen only randomly.


Well as i said emptiness isnt a "thing" its just a fact of existence. Dukkha arises when there is ignorance which, following through the chain of D.O. leads into clinging and onto dukkha.

OK. What is the fact of existence ? What is "emptiness" ? Please define it in your own words & if you want to take help of any new word please define that first.

Can you explain your understanding of D.O. ? How can everything be dependent when nothing has its independent existence ? If something has a dependent origin then it must be dependent on something. You cannot say that X & Y have no existence of their own but X's existence is dependent on existence of Y & Y's existence is dependent on existence of X ! This is completely illogical. When both don't exist then where is the question of birth of the other ?


A basic formulation would be clinging to that which is impermanent and subject to change and decay

What is "clinging" by your definition ? To my understanding, "clinging" means something clings to something else. However, if there is nothing in the first place to cling & there is nothing to cling on, how clinging comes into being ? How can Dukkha arise & to whom ? If there is nothing, then what is going to change & what is decaying ?


"I" or "I am" is illogical friend, think about it in this way. When a baby is born does it have "I"? No its just a heap of khandas, its not till there is clinging (because of ignorance) does the sense of "me" arises

There is "I" even in a baby which is just born because it differentiates itself from the world. In fact, I can prove that even a piece of stone has "I" in it. If you are interested then let me know ( or just have a look at Newton's Law of Gravitation).


As i said earlier, when there is clinging to something there is "I" or "I am" or "mine", if there is no clinging these do not arrise. "I" is an afflictive delusion[quote]

How can "clinging" arise if there is no "I" ... what can cling on what ? Or "clinging" something coming from nowhere which strikes a baby out of the blue to start the delusion of "I" ?

[quote]If it were independent it wouldnt change, but it doesn. Consciousness comes to be via contact and external forms. [quote]

How can you say that if it were independent, it won't change ? The essence won't change of anything but the form & expression may always change. In fact, anything can change only when it exists. The child changes to a man, a man to an old man & old man to a dead body .... but there is something which is changing. You can't say that there is nothing & that nothing is changing !

[quote]Dont you see you have fallen back into the delusion of "me"

That is what I am asking you. If "me" is an delusion, why make any effort to make this non-existent "I" enlightened ? How does it matter whether I make an effort or not ? Or do you think there is no one to make any effort in the first place ? If there is no one to make any effort, who is talking of this Dhamma & who is listening & why ? Is it all happening randomly without any actor anywhere ? If that is so, how does it matter whatever is happening ? Who is bothered about Dukkha & why ?


To begin the path one does start with "I am suffering" but as one grows in Dhamma there is the understanding that the very reason that there is dukkha is because there is "I" (through clinging)

But why there is "I" at all ? Please don't say that it is because of "clinging". If it is because of clinging, then who is clinging to what ?


The more "people" who walk the path, the less dukkha there is. The drawback is that the Buddhadhamma goes "against the stream" of the world, its something that most "people" find hard to understand or accept (or are even interested in)

I don't think it is the truth. You have seen Tibet problem & still seeing ... seen World Wars & dropping of Atomic Bombs ... Taliban problem etc. etc. .... The problems & Dukkha in the world is increasing, it is not decreasing.

So, if I sum up, Buddhism doesn't help the individual as there is actually no "I" & there is no after life in continuation. And it also doesn't help the world, as we have seen that even after a lapse of more than 3500 years of Buddha, the Dukkha is continuously increasing & not decreasing. So, isn't it a useless path ?

I want to enjoy. Approach it from wisdom friend, dont go from "I" .... so "I" can do this because "I" .... since this is still being stuck in delusion

When one understands anatta and Voidness then there is no want to indulge, no thinking of "oh well i can just kill this" etc since this still all comes from the false illusion of "I", something which has been left behind in one who understands

Wisdom or otherwise .. that is the hard fact. Anicca is self-less or thinks he is like that but what about the world around ? The world wants to enjoy & is not interested in "I"-less existence. When this world comes to understand that whatever he does is not goling to affect him anyway, what will keep him on the right path ?


The Buddha seen all things as empty, he didnt see a self anywhere yet "he" didnt go around killing etc. Anatta and Voidness lead to perfect morality and wisdom, not nihilistic and hedonistc wants

The world is not Buddha. I am not Buddha. I am clinging to "I". I want to enjoy & the others too. How many Buddhists are there in the world ? & how many are not clinging to their "I" ? And if that is the case in Buddhists, what happens to the whole world ? Is this doctrine not encouraging them to commit crime without any fear ?


Another way of looking at it is this, there is no "person" here now but there is still dukkha

So, the perception of Dukkha is only in Vacuum, it doesn't really exist because there is no one suffering. Why worry about this non-existent Dukkha ?

OM

devotee
14 July 2009, 03:51 AM
Dear Anicca,

Apart from my above post, I would like to ask these questions too to clear my understanding :

You have stated dependent existence of "I", clinging, Dukkha, Khandas, perception etc. saying that each is dependent on the others. OK. What comes first ? Somewhere you say that clinging is due to "I". But how "I" is born in the first place ? or does this "I" has independent existence ?

Can you explain how the chain works, pin-pointing the starting point ? Please start from emptiness, if possible.

OM

atanu
14 July 2009, 06:15 AM
Can you explain how the chain works, pin-pointing the starting point ? Please start from emptiness, if possible.

OM

:D
Lemme start. Thanks to ZN for the link. I am doing the inauguration here.

Yoga Vashista

Canto 3.005: The Primal Self

RAMA
5.1 Lord, tiger among munis, tell me about the mind's confusion:
this mind which is only Maya Illusion—where does it come from?

2 First, tell me briefly how this all began; and what follows; and then
whatever else remains to be explained, best of the eloquent!


VASISHTHA
3 At the time of the last Doomsday, all that remained of what had been
entered into nonExistence. Finally, only Peace remained.
4 What remains there is a sun that does not set, unborn, divine,
unaltering: what always does all—Ishwara, the Supreme Self,
5.5 about which words fail; which is understood by the Free; and of which
words like 'Self' are definitions—conceptions, not equivalents;
6 who is the Primal Person of the Sankhya school; which is Brahman
for the Vedantis; and which is pure Vijnana Understanding
for the Vijnana school; and which is one, untouched by anything;
7 what Sunyavadis call the Shunya Void; and what makes the sun shine;
he is ever the speaker, thinker, enjoyer, seer, doer;
8 not being present yet within the world; embodied yet apart:
this is the radiance of Chit Consciousness, brilliant as the sun!
9 from which Vishnu and all the gods shine like sunbeams; and all the worlds,
in all their number, are mere bubbbles bursting in that solar sea;
5.10 into which everything perceived returns, like rivers to the sea:
which is the meaning of "the Self", that infinitely luminous flame.

Om Namah Shivaya

Anicca
14 July 2009, 08:55 AM
went wrong again

Anicca
14 July 2009, 09:05 AM
Namaste


See, as Atanu has pointed out, it is not going anywhere. You are not giving the pin-pointed answer. Now, the question arises, "If Khandas are part of conditionality, what is conditionality & what is conditioned ?" If you say that there is only "conditionality" & nothing which is conditioned then how can it be helped ? I hope you understand what I want to say.

I think so, Condtionality is just conditionality, i dont really know how else to say it. dhammas exist because of co-dependency on other dhammas.
basic formulation is this

When this is, that is.
From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
When this isn't, that isn't.
From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that


The mind is conditioned, this is the main dhamma that Buddhists work with, the conditioning of the mind (remember though mind is empty)
If there is ignorance then it cant be helped, the path however is to follow the Buddhas teaching which helps end ignorance, thus breaking the chain of D.O. which leads to nibbana


Here is how there is the co-depently arisen chain to nibbana
suffering (dukkha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha))
faith (saddhā (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddha))
joy (pāmojja, pāmujja)
rapture (pīti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piti))
tranquillity (passaddhi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passaddhi))
happiness (sukha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukha))
concentration (samādhi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samadhi_(Buddhism)))
knowledge and vision of things as they are (yathābhūta-&#241;ana-dassana)
disenchantment with worldly life (nibbidā)
dispassion (virāga)
freedom, release, emancipation (vimutti, a synonym for nibbana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibbana)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat&#37;C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da%20/%20cite_note-14))
knowledge of destruction of the cankers (āsava-khaye-&#241;ana)



Forget about "self" or even remote referencing to it. I have not said a thing about "self", so let the "self" stay where it should. If there is no "form", shall we say that it is void ? How do you take the assistance of "self" to explain the words chosen by you when you whemently deny it ? If you have to take the shelter of "self", then please define "self" first.

Well i mention self because thats what Voidness means, it doesnt mean that the body doesnt exist. You questions seem to be "if there is voidness why is there body" which doesnt make sense since voidness is about the voidness of self not the absence of the body

As for "How do you take the assistance of "self" to explain the words chosen by you when you whemently deny it ?"

As i have said there is no agent there is just khandas at work, some of this conversation is also the result of past kamma. The mind functions perfectly well without putting a self behind it all, just like gravity does



Wait, you just stated above that "Khandas are part of conditionality", right ? When Khandas are part of conditionality, how are they different for different khandas ? Does conditionality has any independent existence ?


Yes they are. They are different because of different conditions. Lets take the body again, if there is a body in country where there is a fammine and there is a body in New York, the one in the fammine is going to be different from the one in New York because of the different conditions they are in and the different effects of conditionality

Your last questions is contradictory, your cant have something independent in conditionality thats the whole point. Its something relies on others things for existence its not independent but co-dependent and so is anicca, dukkha and anatta


First explain how do you see conditionality independent of anything which is being conditioned. You have used "perception" --- how can perception take birth if there is no who perceives ? Do the "conditionality", the "Khandas", "perception" arise in vacuum without any source ?


Conditionality and conditioned are pretty much the same thing. Perception takes birth when there is contact, there is vision of blood and there is birth of the perception of red

The last bit doesnt really make any sense, i said there is a source for the khandas, co-dependent origination



Why ? What will ensure order here ? There must be something to be aware of teh chaotic situation to bring in the order back ! As there is nothing which is the source of anything, & there is nothing which monitors anything, so things must happen only randomly.


Lets look at the natural world, that is all interdependent and co-dependent origination yet there isnt just chaos there is some order without there being an agent. Look at evolution thats a great example, interdependent co-origination yet not chaos otherwise life wouldnt have evolved to the human level. Your reasoning is flawed here



OK. What is the fact of existence ? What is "emptiness" ? Please define it in your own words & if you want to take help of any new word please define that first.

Voidness is the truth that all dhammas are empty of a self or anything that belongs or can be claimed as Self



Can you explain your understanding of D.O. ? How can everything be dependent when nothing has its independent existence ? If something has a dependent origin then it must be dependent on something. You cannot say that X & Y have no existence of their own but X's existence is dependent on existence of Y & Y's existence is dependent on existence of X ! This is completely illogical. When both don't exist then where is the question of birth of the other ?


Dependent origination can be a misleading translation (although its the most common) a better one is co-dependent origination

In essence its the truth that "things" come into existence because of the existence of other "things" and rely on those "things" for support

e.g. A human existence is dependent on lots of other things such as food, air, water etc. If we take on of the supporting factors away such as air then the human dies because it depends on that dhamma for existence. However humans arent dependent on just air there are lots of different things, food, water, sunlight, gravity etc so a human is co-dependtly arises dhamma that relies on other dhammas for existence, hence its anicca (since anything dependent is subject to change) dukkha and anatta



What is "clinging" by your definition ? To my understanding, "clinging" means something clings to something else. However, if there is nothing in the first place to cling & there is nothing to cling on, how clinging comes into being ? How can Dukkha arise & to whom ? If there is nothing, then what is going to change & what is decaying ?

clinging is just a dhamma of the mind that arises co-depently

To understand the rest im going to have to explain paticcasamuppāda


General outline

In essence, this general principle corresponds to what is known in Pali as idappaccayata, the principle of conditionality.


A. Imasmim sati idam hoti:
Imasuppada idam upajjati:
When there is this, that is.
With the arising of this, that arises.


B. Imasmim asati idam na hoti:
Imassa nirodha idam nirujjhati:
When this is not, neither is that.
With the cessation of this, that ceases. [S.II.28,65]



Avijja-paccaya sankhara
With Ignorance as condition, there are Volitional Impulses.


Sankhara-paccaya vi&#241;&#241;anam
With Volitional Impulses as condition,Consciousness.



Vi&#241;&#241;ana-paccaya namarupam
With Consciousness as condition, Body and Mind.


Namarupa-paccaya salayatanam
With Body and Mind as condition, the Six Sense Bases.


Salayatana-paccaya phasso
With the Six Sense Bases as condition, (sense) Contact.


Phassa-paccaya vedana
With Contact as condition, Feeling.


Vedana-paccaya tanha
With Feeling as condition, Craving.


Tanha-paccaya upadanam
With Craving as condition, Clinging.


Upadana-paccaya bhavo
With Clinging as condition, Becoming.


Bhava-paccaya jati
With Becoming as condition, Birth.


Jati-paccaya jaramaranam
With Birth as condition, Aging and Death,


Soka-parideva-dukkha-domanassupayasa sambhavan'ti
Sorrow, Lamentation, Pain, Grief and Despair.
Evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayo hoti
Thus is the arising of this whole mass of suffering.


Let us take a simple example of how the principle of Dependent Origination operates in everyday life. Suppose there are two school chums, named 'John' and 'Ian.' Whenever they meet at school they smile and say "Hello" to each other. One day John sees Ian, and approaches him with a friendly greeting ready, only to be answered with silence and a sour expression. John is peeved by this, and stops talking to Ian. In this case, the chain of reactions might proceed in the following way:

1. Ignorance (avijja): John is ignorant of the true reason for Ian's grim face and sullenness. He fails to reflect on the matter wisely and to ascertain the real reasons for Ian's behavior, which may have nothing at all to do with his feelings for John.

2. Volitional Impulses (sankhara): As a result, John proceeds to think and formulate theories in his mind, conditioned by his temperament, and these give rise to doubt, anger, and resentment, once again dependent on his particular temperament.

3. Consciousness (vi&#241;&#241;ana): Under the influence of these defilements, John broods. He takes note of and interprets Ian's behavior and actions in accordance with those previous impressions; the more he thinks about it, the surer he gets; Ian's every gesture seems offensive.

4. Body and mind (namarupa): John's feelings, thoughts, moods, facial expressions and gestures, that is, the body and mind together, begin to take on the overall features of an angry or offended person, primed to function in accordance with that consciousness.
5. Sense bases (salayatana): John's sense organs are primed to receive information that is related to and conditioned by the body-mind organism's state of anger or hurt.

6. Contact (phassa): The impingement on the sense organs will be of the activities or attributes of Ian which seem particularly relative to the case, such as frowning expressions, unfriendly gestures, and so on.

7. Feeling (vedana): Feelings, conditioned by sense contact, are of the unpleasant kind.

8. Craving (tanha): Vibhavatanha, craving for non-being, arises, the dislike or aversion for that offensive image, the desire for it to go away or to be destroyed.

9. Clinging (upadana): Clinging and obsessive thinking in relation to Ian's behavior follows. Ian's behavior is interpreted as a direct challenge; he is seen as a disputant, and the whole situation demands some kind of remedial action.

10. Becoming (bhava): John's subsequent behavior falls under the influence of clinging and his actions become those of an antagonist.

11. Birth (jati): As the feeling of enmity becomes more distinct, it is assumed as an identity. The distinction between 'me' and 'him' becomes more distinct, and there is a self which is obliged to somehow respond to the situation.

12. Aging and death (jaramarana): This 'self,' or condition of enmity, exists and flourishes dependent on certain conditions, such as the desire to appear tough, to preserve honor and pride, and to be the victor, which all have their respective opposites, such as feelings of worthlessness, inferiority, and failure. As soon as that self arises, it is confronted with the absence of any guarantee of victory. Even if he does attain the victory he desires, there is no guarantee that John will be able to preserve his supremacy for any length of time. He may not, in fact, be the 'tough victor' he wants to be, but rather the loser, the weakling, the one who loses face. These possibilities of suffering play with John's moods and produce stress, insecurity, and worry. They in turn feed ignorance, thus beginning a new round of the cycle. Such negative states are like festering wounds which have not been treated, and so continue to release their 'poisoning' effect on John's consciousness, influencing all of his behavior, and causing problems both for himself and for others. In John's case, he may feel unhappy for the whole of that day, speaking gruffly to whoever he comes into contact with, and so increasing the likelihood of more unpleasant incidents.


In this case, if John were to practice correctly he would be advised to start off on the right foot. Seeing his friend's sullenness, he could use his intelligence (yoniso-manasikara: considering in accordance with causes and conditions) and reflect that Ian may have some problem on his mind -- he may have been scolded by his mother, he may be in need of money, or he may simply be depressed. If John reflected in this way no incident would arise, his mind would be untroubled, and he might even be moved toward compassionate action and understanding.


Once the negative chain of events has been set in motion, however, it can still be cut off with mindfulness at any point. For instance, if it had continued on up to sense contact, where Ian's actions were perceived in a negative way, John could still set up mindfulness right there: instead of falling under the power of craving for non-being, he could instead consider the facts of the situation and thereby gain a fresh understanding of Ian's behavior. He could then reflect wisely in regard to both his own and his friend's actions, so that his mind would no longer be weighed down by negative emotional reactions, but instead respond in a clearer and more positive way. Such reflection, in addition to causing no problems for himself, could also serve to encourage the arising of compassion.
Before leaving this example, it might be useful to reiterate some salient points:
In real life, the complete cycles or chains of events, such as that mentioned in this example, take place very rapidly. A student finding out that he has failed an exam, someone receiving bad news, such as the death of a loved one, or a man who sees his wife with a lover, for example, may all feel intense sorrow or shock, even going weak at the knees, screaming or fainting. The more intense the attachment and clinging, the more intense the reaction will be.
It should be stressed once again that the inter-determination within this chain of events does not necessarily have to be in sequential order, just as chalk, a blackboard, and writing are all indispensable determinants for the white letters on a blackboard's surface, but do not have to appear in sequential order.


The teaching of Dependent Origination attempts to clarify the workings of nature, to analyze the unfolding of events as they actually occur, so that the causes can be more easily identified and corrected. As for the details of how that correction can be effectuated, they are not the concern of the teaching of Dependent Origination, but are rather the domain of magga (the Path), or the Middle Way.
In any case, the examples given here are very simplified and may seem somewhat superficial. They are not sufficiently detailed to convey the full subtlety of the principle of Dependent Origination, especially such sections as ignorance as a determinant for volitional impulses, and sorrow, lamentation and despair conditioning the further turning of the cycle. Looking at our example, it may appear that the cycle only arises occasionally, that ignorance is a sporadic phenomena, and that the ordinary person may spend large periods of his or her life without the arising of ignorance at all. In fact, for the unenlightened being, ignorance of varying degrees is behind every thought, action and word. The most basic level of this ignorance is simply the perception that there is a self which is thinking, speaking and acting. If this is not borne in mind, the true relevance of the teaching to everyday life may be overlooked. For this reason some of the more profound aspects of this chain of events will now be examined in more detail.

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books3/Payutto_Bhikkhu_Dependent_Origination.htm (http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books3/Payutto_Bhikkhu_Dependent_Origination.htm)

Id recommend reading the whole thing since you will get a better idea


all conditioned dhammas will change and decay on "their" own, if there is clinging there will always be "I" are the re-arising of dukkha over and over again without end



There is "I" even in a baby which is just born because it differentiates itself from the world. In fact, I can prove that even a piece of stone has "I" in it. If you are interested then let me know ( or just have a look at Newton's Law of Gravitation)


No a babies mind is naturally empty of Self and "I" and "me" at first, its not till clinging dependtly co-arrisen does "me" and "self" and "mine" arises. As for a rock, it has no "I" its an empty physical dhamma



How can "clinging" arise if there is no "I" ... what can cling on what ? Or "clinging" something coming from nowhere which strikes a baby out of the blue to start the delusion of "I" ?


If there is ignorace then eventually the dhamma of clinging will arise via dependent co-origination. Clinging then, as the name says, cling to something, lets say body again. Then the dhamma of "I" will arises. Cling to the body and there is "I am the body", no clinging and there is no-identification, no "I" or "Self"

Clinging doesnt come from nowhere, your forgetting interdependnt co-origination (dont worry the Buddha said its hard for people to grasp)
Ignorance in the baby will lead to clinging when there is contact and so birth of "I"



How can you say that if it were independent, it won't change ? The essence won't change of anything but the form & expression may always change. In fact, anything can change only when it exists. The child changes to a man, a man to an old man & old man to a dead body .... but there is something which is changing. You can't say that there is nothing & that nothing is changing !


I dont say there is nothing, there are khandas that change and decay, whats empty is "Self" since this arises because of clinging. Your falling back into the view that if there is no Self then khandas cant exist, which is a wrong understanding. There is nothing that passes through from child to man only dhammas changing and decaying in line with conditionality
read the Buddhadasa article again



That is what I am asking you. If "me" is an delusion, why make any effort to make this non-existent "I" enlightened ? How does it matter whether I make an effort or not ? Or do you think there is no one to make any effort in the first place ? If there is no one to make any effort, who is talking of this Dhamma & who is listening & why ? Is it all happening randomly without any actor anywhere ? If that is so, how does it matter whatever is happening ? Who is bothered about Dukkha & why ?


You dont make "I" or "me" or "Self" enlightened, nibbana is there but no man enters it

The rest of your questions are coming from "I" again, you have fallen back into the net my friend. Buddha said the Dhamma is hard to understand


"Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. 3 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html%20/%20n-3) But this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, conditionality & dependent co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach the Dhamma and others would not understand me, that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me.




But why there is "I" at all ? Please don't say that it is because of "clinging". If it is because of clinging, then who is clinging to what ?


We do not say "who clings" rather its because of craving that clinging is there



I don't think it is the truth. You have seen Tibet problem & still seeing ... seen World Wars & dropping of Atomic Bombs ... Taliban problem etc. etc. .... The problems & Dukkha in the world is increasing, it is not decreasing.


Because "beings" are immersed in craving, they delight in attachment and delight in "Self". Those who walk the path leave behind craving and attachment, there is the ending of all "I" making and "my" making
Please understand that "I" and "self" are dukkha. When there is no "I" and "Self" there can be no selfishness, no hatred, no greed or delusion. No evil or unwholesomeness



Wisdom or otherwise .. that is the hard fact. Anicca is self-less or thinks he is like that but what about the world around ? The world wants to enjoy & is not interested in "I"-less existence. When this world comes to understand that whatever he does is not goling to affect him anyway, what will keep him on the right path ?


you have summed up the reason why you dont understand Dhamma and why the world has Dukkha with one sentence

"The world wants to enjoy & is not interested in "I"-less existence"


Remember what the buddha said while under the Bodhi Tree 2,500 years ago


"Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. 3 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html%20/%20n-3) But this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, conditionality & dependent co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach the Dhamma and others would not understand me, that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me.

Read what you said in relation to the above passage



When this world comes to understand that whatever he does is not goling to affect him anyway, what will keep him on the right path ?

There is no him to affect, no him to feel pain, to despair, to age or to die. This is the path, the ending of craving and clinging, the ending cessation of all I making and Self

When there is no "I" and "Self" then there is no selfishness, hate or anger only peace


I want to enjoy & the others too

Then there is dukkha friend without end. Also cant you see the craving and clining at work here friend, "I want"


How many Buddhists are there in the world ? & how many are not clinging to their "I" ?

The sentence is slightly wrong, there is no "Their I" since that implies there is an "I" that owns and "I". As for how many Buddhists are there who are not clinging, i do not know.


Is this doctrine not encouraging them to commit crime without any fear ?

Crime is immersed in craving and clinging, in ignorance and in "Self". If there is no "I" or "Self" then there is no craving, no clinging, no hate or anger or ignorance only, as i said many times here, peace



So, the perception of Dukkha is only in Vacuum, it doesn't really exist because there is no one suffering. Why worry about this non-existent Dukkha ?

Who said dukkha doesnt exist?


metta

atanu
14 July 2009, 09:24 AM
Namaste

you have summed up the reason why you dont understand Dhamma and why the world has Dukkha with one sentence

"The world wants to enjoy & is not interested in "I"-less existence"

Does the world convey to anyone that it is interested to enjoy and thus is not interested in "I" ness? Or is this a surmise of the perceiver?

Om

atanu
14 July 2009, 09:51 AM
"Atthi [There is] ajaata.m [unborn], abhuuta.m [unproduced], akata.m, [unmade], asankhata.m [unconditioned]".


"Bhikkhus [monks, the Buddha said, holding a fleck of cow dung in his hand], if even if that much of permanent, everlasting, eternal selfhood/metaphysical being (attabhava), not inseparable (separable) from the idea of change, could be found, then this living the holy life could not be taught by me."
Whatever is known of Universe by direct perception or by report is nothing but Brahman/Self/theTrue, whose many forms are the ideas of change (Universe and Ego). The true is called by different names because the names are after that but the True is un-nameable.

The Self, which is Ajata, akhanda, and unconditioned, is not to be found separable from the idea of change (the Universe and the Ego), not even a small bit as a piece of cow dung.

If a separate Self was found, then Buddha could not teach, Anicca could not preach, and we could not oppose.

The ray of torch leads to the torch. The manifested Prajnya, as teachings of the enlightened, is the light that leads to the unborn, which is not a bit separate from the idea of change that the Universe is and that the ego is.

Om Namah Shivaya

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
14 July 2009, 09:58 AM
Crime is immersed in craving and clinging, in ignorance and in "Self". If there is no "I" or "Self" then there is no craving, no clinging, no hate or anger or ignorance only, as i said many times here, peace
metta

I think anicca needs a warning or a ban.

He has been told that Self is God/Ishwara whom we worship. He ignores that and attributes crime to Self. Is he a christian or a buddhist? He brings in the ego self as if the teaching of Vedanta is to attain the ego self -- immersed in prakriti. Though he has been repeatedly told of the distinction he continues undeterred.

Enough is enough. He has purported that Buddha ridiculed Briadarayanaka. He purports that Buddha ridiculed Veda and Vedanta. Though he has failed to back up his evil purports, he has not taken back his poison. Now he purports Crime is Self, which is goal of attainment of Sanatana dharmis.

Om Namah Shivaya

devotee
14 July 2009, 12:30 PM
dhammas exist because of co-dependency on other dhammas.

Dear, isn't it contradictory ? How many Dhammas are there ? If Dhammas are have co-dependent existence, from where they come from to start with ?



When this is, that is.
From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
When this isn't, that isn't.
From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that

"When 'this' is" ... so, there has to be some "this" to start with, right ? How does this "this" take birth to begin with ?


The mind is conditioned, this is the main dhamma that Buddhists work with, the conditioning of the mind (remember though mind is empty)

Now, again you brought a new element, 'mind' ? How can we start with "mind" ? Mind can arise after arising of so many other 'things' ? I am asking one simple thing, 'what is the first thing which starts this chain of existence' ? If you say, it is ignorance, then again the same problem will be there ... in absence of other Khandas how can ignorance exist & where ?


Here is how there is the co-depently arisen chain to nibbana
suffering .....

The question was "how does the chain start to begin with "?



Well i mention self because thats what Voidness means, it doesnt mean that the body doesnt exist.

So, SELF means Voidness or absence of voidness ? But you said that SELF didn't exist ? How do you equate Self with voidness or absence of it. Can you quote Buddha on this ? Actually, the Self & Voidness have completely different meaning, as I know. So, let me be sure about that from Buddha.

You say that the body exists. What do you mean by existence ? Will the body exist if mind is not there ? If the body exists, why do you say that there is no "I" ? There are different bodies & each body has a different mind which can differentiate itself with the other bodies around. So, how come "i" & "you" remain non-existent even when there are different bodies & minds ?


You questions seem to be "if there is voidness why is there body" which doesnt make sense since voidness is about the voidness of self not the absence of the body

This calls for Buddha's clarification on Voidness & Self. I am unaware if Self has been equated with voidness anywhere. What is your definition of Self ?


As for "How do you take the assistance of "self" to explain the words chosen by you when you whemently deny it ?"

As i have said there is no agent there is just khandas at work, some of this conversation is also the result of past kamma. The mind functions perfectly well without putting a self behind it all, just like gravity does

That means that Khandas can work independently ? But the basic question is unanswered, "How does the chain start to begin with" ?


Yes they are. They are different because of different conditions. Lets take the body again, if there is a body in country where there is a fammine and there is a body in New York, the one in the fammine is going to be different from the one in New York because of the different conditions they are in and the different effects of conditionality

What are body, famine, different countries ? Do they have independent existence ? Where from they come ? How does the chain start ? If a country has to come into being, what chain reaction is needed ?


Your last questions is contradictory, your cant have something independent in conditionality thats the whole point. Its something relies on others things for existence its not independent but co-dependent and so is anicca, dukkha and anatta

The question is perfectly ok. I gave you a mathematical entity to ponder over. You have something called "X" & you say that it is dependent on existence of "Y" & vice -versa. So, if their existence has to be there they must either appear from nowhere simulaneously to begin with or at least one must come from nowhere to begin with, which is an impossibility. Nothing can come out of nothing !


Conditionality and conditioned are pretty much the same thing. Perception takes birth when there is contact, there is vision of blood and there is birth of the perception of red

You said, that there is no actor or agent. There must be individuality first for any perception .... there must be something which can perceive. If there is no actor, or agent or perceiver then the perception & conditionality ... where do these take birth ?


The last bit doesnt really make any sense, i said there is a source for the khandas, co-dependent origination

From where do they come ? If there is no source, can we say that the khandas appear from nowhere ? Is it logical ?



Lets look at the natural world, that is all interdependent and co-dependent origination yet there isnt just chaos there is some order without there being an agent. Look at evolution thats a great example, interdependent co-origination yet not chaos otherwise life wouldnt have evolved to the human level. Your reasoning is flawed here

Not my reasoning, as I see it. That was your theory that there was no independent actor behind all these, including the consciousness. So, the problem is coming because of your theory. How can you expect things to work in a logical manner without consciousness & actor which plans, executes & monitors ?


Voidness is the truth that all dhammas are empty of a self or anything that belongs or can be claimed as Self

What is Self ? The question is not what it is not, the question is what it is.



clinging is just a dhamma of the mind that arises co-depently

The mind has to arise to begin with. What begins the chain in the first place ? What started this Dukkha, this ignorance, these khandas etc. etc. did they come out of nowhere ?


all conditioned dhammas will change and decay on "their" own, if there is clinging there will always be "I" are the re-arising of dukkha over and over again without end

What starts the chain, 'I" or the "clinging" ? What comes from nowhere ?


No a babies mind is naturally empty of Self and "I" and "me" at first, its not till clinging dependtly co-arrisen does "me" and "self" and "mine" arises. As for a rock, it has no "I" its an empty physical dhamma

That is what you think. Any scientific proof ?



If there is ignorace then eventually the dhamma of clinging will arise via dependent co-origination. Clinging then, as the name says, cling to something, lets say body again. Then the dhamma of "I" will arises. Cling to the body and there is "I am the body", no clinging and there is no-identification, no "I" or "Self"

This appears to be a good paragraph. Is "clinging" real or unreal ? Does it exist or not ? As long as "clinging" is there there must be "I", right ? If "I" is there then the false perception of "self" must be there ?


Clinging doesnt come from nowhere, your forgetting interdependnt co-origination (dont worry the Buddha said its hard for people to grasp)
Ignorance in the baby will lead to clinging when there is contact and so birth of "I"

You answer the question, dear. Don't worry about my understanding or whatever. The egg is because the hen is & the hen is because the egg is ... that is for primary level students. How did both of them come into being ... for that you must know the theory of evolution. I am asking you that.


I dont say there is nothing, there are khandas that change and decay, whats empty is "Self" since this arises because of clinging. Your falling back into the view that if there is no Self then khandas cant exist, which is a wrong understanding. There is nothing that passes through from child to man only dhammas changing and decaying in line with conditionality
read the Buddhadasa article again

If everything has co-dependent existence, then as I said earlier, something must come out from nowhere to start with. How can something come out of nothing ?


You dont make "I" or "me" or "Self" enlightened, nibbana is there but no man enters it

So, what is the use of Nibbana ?


The rest of your questions are coming from "I" again, you have fallen back into the net my friend. Buddha said the Dhamma is hard to understand

Please concentrate on my questions. If you start with a notion that I can't understand, then how can it be assumed that you have understood it correctly ? You are not able to make me understand your own theory. So, the flaw may most probably lie either with your theory or your understanding.


Because "beings" are immersed in craving, they delight in attachment and delight in "Self". Those who walk the path leave behind craving and attachment

What is this "being" & how is it different from the notion of "self" ? Who are "those" ? When "I" doesn't exist how can "those" come into being ?



there is the ending of all "I" making and "my" making
Please understand that "I" and "self" are dukkha. When there is no "I" and "Self" there can be no selfishness, no hatred, no greed or delusion. No evil or unwholesomeness

You said, "I doesn't exist". If "I" doesn't exist, how can it end ? If Dukkha is same as "I"/Self then then you are accepting the existence of "I"/Self too as in the last post you said, "Who said, Dukkha doesn't exist ?".


you have summed up the reason why you dont understand Dhamma and why the world has Dukkha with one sentence

"The world wants to enjoy & is not interested in "I"-less existence"

How can you accept this sentence ? You said there was no actor & no agent so how can there be "world" which wants to enjoy ?



Remember what the buddha said while under the Bodhi Tree 2,500 years ago



"Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. 3 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html%20/%20n-3) But this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, conditionality & dependent co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach the Dhamma and others would not understand me, that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me.

This resonates well with my understanding of Buddhism & Vedanta. However, I am not able to fit in what you say.


Crime is immersed in craving and clinging, in ignorance and in "Self". If there is no "I" or "Self" then there is no craving, no clinging, no hate or anger or ignorance only, as i said many times here, peace

When there is no "I" then ..... But you kept on saying that there was no "I" to start with. How come this "I" came into being now ?


Who said dukkha doesnt exist?

You said, "self" doesn't exist & also said that "self" is the Dukkha.

OM

devotee
14 July 2009, 12:40 PM
Now after reading all this, what do others think ?

In Buddhism,
i) there is no God. So, you can't have anyone to support you,, when you need any support.
ii) Whatever you do doesn't affect you, as there is no "you" in the first place & there is no continuity in the next birth. So, why stick to doing good only ?
iii) There is no one who gets Nibbana because there is no you. You are not affected by Nibbana. It just happens. You can't make it happen because you are not the actor & anyway you never existed in the first place. So, making any effort is anyway worthless. I don't know why anyone should follow the Eight fold noble path.
iv) The world has hardly been peaceful because of so many Nibbanas taking place on this earth in last a few thousands of years. In fact, the Christians', the Muslims' & the Hindus' charity works have done much more to make this world a better place.

..... So, is Buddhism really worthwhile ?

OM

atanu
14 July 2009, 01:52 PM
Crime is immersed in craving and clinging, in ignorance and in "Self". If there is no "I" or "Self" then there is no craving, no clinging, no hate or anger or ignorance only, as i said many times here, peace
metta

Self realisation is about renounciation and not clinging. The ego self, "I-Me-Mine", clings.

I cannot understand why after 4-5 pages of clarification, anicca still associates 'clinging' to 'Self', which is selfless since it is the SELF of ALL. There cannot be any clinging.

Isha Upanishad says:


6. He who perceives all beings in the Self alone, and the Self in all beings, does not entertain any hatred on account of that perception.
7. When a man realises that all beings are but the Self, what delusion is there, what grief, to that perceiver of oneness?
8. That (Self) is all-pervading, radiant, bodiless, soreless, without sinews, pure, untainted by sin, the all-seer, the lord of the mind, transcendent and self-existent. That (Self) did allot in proper order to the eternal Prajapatis known as samvalsara (year) their duties.


-----------------------------


By not distinguishing the ignorance born self (I-Me-Mine) and Self, which is Self of all, and the One without a second, which sages call by different names, anicca is showing disrespect to the fundamentals of sanatana dharma. Repeatedly he attributes the ills of self (clinging, dukkha, and crime) to Self -- the goal of Vedanta teachings.


All discussion is futile if he does not define terms and appreciate the distinction between ego self and Self.


Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
14 July 2009, 02:21 PM
You said, "self" doesn't exist & also said that "self" is the Dukkha.

OM

Namaste devotee,

IMO, anicca cannot acknowledge contradictions. What logical debate can take place?

He is mixing up 'Dukkha' of ignorant stage with 'No Dukhi' of nibbana stage.
He is mixing up 'ego self', which clings with 'Self', which being Self of all and Eko, cannot have any clinging or preference.
He is mixing up 'absence of an atta separable from the idea of change' with 'absence of atta'
Finally, he implies that Buddhha ridiculed Vedas, Brihadaraynaka Upanishad, and goal of Sanatana dharma -- the attainment of Self; going to the extent of equating Crime to Self.Om

Anicca
14 July 2009, 04:37 PM
I think anicca needs a warning or a ban.

He has been told that Self is God/Ishwara whom we worship. He ignores that and attributes crime to Self. Is he a christian or a buddhist? He brings in the ego self as if the teaching of Vedanta is to attain the ego self -- immersed in prakriti. Though he has been repeatedly told of the distinction he continues undeterred.

Enough is enough. He has purported that Buddha ridiculed Briadarayanaka. He purports that Buddha ridiculed Veda and Vedanta. Though he has failed to back up his evil purports, he has not taken back his poison. Now he purports Crime is Self, which is goal of attainment of Sanatana dharmis.

Om Namah Shivaya



I think its best that we stop here

Devotee i will answer this one question


Dear, isn't it contradictory ? How many Dhammas are there ? If Dhammas are have co-dependent existence, from where they come from to start with ?

There is no begining in Buddhism

if you want me to answer the rest via P.M. let me know (that goes for anyone else as well)


metta

devotee
15 July 2009, 01:15 AM
Namaste Atanu,



IMO, anicca cannot acknowledge contradictions. What logical debate can take place?

He is mixing up 'Dukkha' of ignorant stage with 'No Dukhi' of nibbana stage.
He is mixing up 'ego self', which clings with 'Self', which being Self of all and Eko, cannot have any clinging or preference.
He is mixing up 'absence of an atta separable from the idea of change' with 'absence of atta'
Finally, he implies that Buddhha ridiculed Vedas, Brihadaraynaka Upanishad, and goal of Sanatana dharma -- the attainment of Self; going to the extent of equating Crime to Self.Om

Here you hit the nail on its head ! :)

That is where people like Anicca make mistake. If you read Anicca's posts :

i) There is a talk of 'clinging' without acknowledging that there has to be even a phantom "ego self" who can do this clinging. Though there is a talk of "being" but denial of "ego self".
ii) There is a talk of Nibbana without anything which attains Nibbana.
iii) "You must follow the Eight-fold Noble path" ... without acknowledging that there must be a "You" before this sentence can be meaningful.
iv) It is true that :
The "self" really doesn't exist. There is no actor & no agent. There is no "I" or "You" etc.

However, that is on "realisation" (or Nibbana) & not after intellectual understanding of a theory or just reading some scriptures. Until the realisation is there, the "ego self" is as solid & real as the rock. The "ego self" doesn't vanish just by repeating that "it doesn't exist".

=====> The above problem arises out of self-phobia & denying the self before attaining Nibbana.

v) The biggest problem is the D.O. which doesn't answer how the things come into being at all. What is the source of the things ? Arising/existence of X is due to existence of Y & arising/existence of Y is due to existence of X. That is OK, but wherefrom they originate ? Does X originate from Y or part of Y converts into X .... what is the material source of X & Y ? Then they talk of Nature, Dhamma etc. !! Keep on bringing a new agent to explain the earlier one & keep on going in circles !!

If we say that there is no material source of either X or Y then it would mean they are born out of nothing !!

====> This problem comes due to denial of any source of things which is the SELF.

OM

atanu
15 July 2009, 06:04 AM
Namaste Atanu,

Here you hit the nail on its head ! :)

That is where people like Anicca make mistake. If you read Anicca's posts :

i) There is a talk of 'clinging' without acknowledging that there has to be even a phantom "ego self" who can do this clinging. Though there is a talk of "being" but denial of "ego self".
ii) There is a talk of Nibbana without anything which attains Nibbana.
iii) "You must follow the Eight-fold Noble path" ... without acknowledging that there must be a "You" before this sentence can be meaningful.
iv) It is true that :
The "self" really doesn't exist. There is no actor & no agent. There is no "I" or "You" etc.

However, that is on "realisation" (or Nibbana) & not after intellectual understanding of a theory or just reading some scriptures. Until the realisation is there, the "ego self" is as solid & real as the rock. The "ego self" doesn't vanish just by repeating that "it doesn't exist".

=====> The above problem arises out of self-phobia & denying the self before attaining Nibbana.

v) The biggest problem is the D.O. which doesn't answer how the things come into being at all. What is the source of the things ? Arising/existence of X is due to existence of Y & arising/existence of Y is due to existence of X. That is OK, but wherefrom they originate ? Does X originate from Y or part of Y converts into X .... what is the material source of X & Y ? Then they talk of Nature, Dhamma etc. !! Keep on bringing a new agent to explain the earlier one & keep on going in circles !!

If we say that there is no material source of either X or Y then it would mean they are born out of nothing !!

====> This problem comes due to denial of any source of things which is the SELF.

OM

Namaste Devotee,

A nice post. Let me clarify a few things as per my understanding.

Actually, Theravadin's view is very close to ajAtivAda. Brahman, the Sat cannot have even a little motive to create. So, the Supreme consciousness is not truly a source of created entities. This can be explained, only if creation is understood as mere illusion, or as a mere mental dreaming process. Buddha adds that such is arisen out of ignorance and advaitavAda dittos that. Other Hindus do not accept this ignorance thing at all. But we know that Aitareya Upanishad calls the three states of existence as three dream states. So, call it dream or call it ignorance, the truth is that there is no fixed reality of the empirical world. On this TheravAda and AdvitaVAda concur (of course on account of use of marginally different terminology and because of mind-set, anicca may not agree to this concurrence).

The non-existence of ephemeral Universe as a reality (sat) is supported by the dictum that Sat (true) cannot become/give rise to the Asat (untrue), except by way of magic, by an illusive process.

In Mandukya karika, Gaudapada, argues brilliantly that there is no origination of objects as such, ignorance of whose existence is without beginning -- so on that point also TheravAda and ajAtivAda concur. The objects, arisen of ignorance have no origin as ignorance itself is anivarchaniya.

Gaudapada points out an ommission (or rather a non mentioning) of the fact by Buddha that the enlightened is Vishnu -- all pervading. IMO, all round looped arguments take place on this aspect alone.

TheravAdin insists on a lack of core entity. But we see that Buddhist text teaches existence of the enlightened as the sun. Buddhist scripture also teaches existence of an unborn, unmade reality, which makes nibbana possible. Buddhism also teaches that the atta cannot be found non-inseparable from the 'idea of change'. There, I feel, is the crux. Buddha has denied an atta separate from the 'idea of change' but Buddha has not denied existence of an atta.

The 'firebrand' example of Gaudapada is the Unborn, unmade. And the idea of change is the firebrand seen in motion as a ring of fire. The firebrand is true. The ring of fire is not born but is merely an appearance of the firebrand in motion. The firebrand has not changed and neither has the ring of fire taken a birth.

The Universe, is similarly, an idea of change. The Prajnya in motion (some call spanda) is the Universe.

I wish that anicca took more time to explore the similarities rather than doggedly point out non-existence of self/Self, which (to me) amounted to insult of the highest sages of Hinduism, who have given us the goal of attaining the Self, denouncing the ego self. I had suggested earlier that let anicca go to a Muslim site, denigrate Allah and suffer. I do not think that any true Buddhist can be so insensitive to the sensibilities of others, since the Gautama was pure anathema to pain and insensitivity. He was sensitivity personified.

No enlightened being will rubbish the scripture -- the word. And Buddha could not have rubbished the 'Self', taught in Upanishads. Most plausible is the case that He exposed the wrong notions of Brahmins of his times. Buddha says:"I have gained this knowledge --". etc. It would be foolish to say that Buddha, whose teaching Theravadins pursue and preach, was non-existent/is non-existent. What value a son of a barren mother? Son of a barren mother is an impossibilty. Similarly, following the teachings of a non-existent Buddha is meaningless.


Buddha denounces the 'cause effect' formalism as invalid link between the unborn and the born. It is dittoed by advaitavAda. And this seems to be leading to Dvaita (and Madhavacharya bases his Dvaita on this non-bridgable absolute difference). But for us, the Seer (Self) who is the essence of pure undivided Prajnya, in three dream states of existence and beyond (Turya), is the one link -- the Turyatita. Buddha himself is such a link and is non-different from Krishna.

Though advaita, similar to Theravada, rubbishes the causal link between the True (Unborn-Sat) and Ephemeral (Untrue-Asat), but Advaita teaches that the very perception of the ephemeral is dependent on the existence of the TRUE. Else, the ephemera would not arise and would not be perceived. From that sense the Asat is a product of the Sat. Dvaita is a product of the advaita.

Om

Ekanta
15 July 2009, 08:59 AM
But for us, the Seer (Self) who is the essence of pure undivided Prajnya, in three dream states of existence and beyond (Turya), is the one link -- the Turyatita.
Om

Let ask here. Turyatita... "beyond 4th". Is not really something beyond turya but the totality of all 4? I just wonder how this word "Turyatita" is used. Is this the correct meaning? Turyatita is not only unmanifest, but all also manifestation? How is the word actually used?

Anicca
15 July 2009, 09:48 AM
Namaste



Buddha has denied an atta separate from the 'idea of change' but Buddha has not denied existence of an atta


this finds no support in the pali canon or Theravada Tradition


It seem you just keep ignoring the bits you dont like an grasping at straws to find you Atman/Atta in Buddhism

You cant just pick and choose bits thats agree with your view and ignore the rest (the bulk in this case) since you are just choosing to see what you want to see instead of trying to understand



Buddhist scripture also teaches existence of an unborn, unmade reality, which makes nibbana possible.

This has been explained to you, either you didnt understand or ignored it



So, the Supreme consciousness is not truly a source of created entities. This can be explained, only if creation is understood as mere illusion, or as a mere mental dreaming process.

The world isnt illusionary in Buddhis, the Buddha never said it was




I wish that anicca took more time to explore the similarities rather than doggedly point out non-existence of self/Self, which (to me) amounted to insult of the highest sages of Hinduism, who have given us the goal of attaining the Self, denouncing the ego self.

I have listened to you, your arguments find no basis in Theravada or the Pali Canon. Also because i dont agree you have got offened (as if having a different view point is somehow attacking you)

The Buddha, reguardless of personal opinion here and if you like it or not, denied the non-existence of any kind of self/Self. If you like it or not thats up to you. Im not telling you to believe it and im not even trying to argue with you if its true or not, you seem to fail to see that this has been about what Buddhism teaches and everytime i put the buddhist teaching forward you either twist the text to suite your self or you assume that im somehow attacking you although its perfectly fine to trash 2,500 years of Buddhism and Buddhist monks/nuns by saying they got it wrong or have been teaching it wrong and all of a sudden atanu now knows more than the sangha itself



And Buddha could not have rubbished the 'Self', taught in Upanishads

Dont you see this is your own personal opinion, which is fine, but is not the Buddhist teaching



Similarly, following the teachings of a non-existent Buddha is meaningless.

This is annihilationism, a wrong view



Buddha himself is such a link and is non-different from Krishna.

As long as you understand that this is your own opinion and isnt backed by tradition and pali canon thats fine


Devotee

[/quote]i) There is a talk of 'clinging' without acknowledging that there has to be even a phantom "ego self" who can do this clinging. Though there is a talk of "being" but denial of "ego self".[/quote]

Didnt i say "I" arises through clinging and this is a "phantom" self since its not a reality, saying there is no "I" arising is foolish since there is, the point is that its not a set thing, its the result of clinging and is anicca, dukkha and anatta


ii) There is a talk of Nibbana without anything which attains Nibbana.

There is no Self in it no, however the mind realizes it. One of the phrases when there is nibbana (in the suttas) is "It is liberated". (notice it says "It" and not Self or me or I, and the word It means the mind)



iii) "You must follow the Eight-fold Noble path" ... without acknowledging that there must be a "You" before this sentence can be meaningful.

You begin with "there is a me that suffers" but as one progress's you understand that the reason dukkha is there is because of the false concept of "me" or "I" or "Self"


iv) It is true that :
The "self" really doesn't exist. There is no actor & no agent. There is no "I" or "You" etc.

In Buddhism yes thats the teaching (reguardless of if you agree or like it thats how its taught)


However, that is on "realisation" (or Nibbana) & not after intellectual understanding of a theory or just reading some scriptures. Until the realisation is there, the "ego self" is as solid & real as the rock. The "ego self" doesn't vanish just by repeating that "it doesn't exist".

Of course not, there is be practice to realize anatta and Voidness of the Self




v) The biggest problem is the D.O. which doesn't answer how the things come into being at all. What is the source of the things ? Arising/existence of X is due to existence of Y & arising/existence of Y is due to existence of X. That is OK, but wherefrom they originate ? Does X originate from Y or part of Y converts into X .... what is the material source of X & Y ? Then they talk of Nature, Dhamma etc. !! Keep on bringing a new agent to explain the earlier one & keep on going in circles !!

Ive alredy told you and posted an article for you to read (i take it you didnt bother). Everything arises because of co-dependence on other things, there is no begining in Buddhism, no source etc just an endless string of cause and effect (not a causes b causes c etc but dependent co-arising which is different) without begining

By saying x originate from y your looking at it from straight cause and effect not interdependent co-arising, that things arises and are sustained for a time by multiple dhammas, not one causes two causes three etc. Read the link i posted

Anicca
15 July 2009, 10:25 AM
Namaste



"Bhikkhus [monks, the Buddha said, holding a fleck of cow dung in his hand], if even if that much of permanent, everlasting, eternal selfhood/metaphysical being (attabhava), not inseparable from the idea of change, could be found, then this living the holy life could not be taught by me."


The Buddha here is saying that one cannot find a Self or being that is not seperate from change, hence there is no permanent Self

"if a tiny speck of a permanent, everlasting, eternal selfhood/being, that is seperate from change, could be found, then i could not teach"

If there was such a thing he couldnt teach the Holy life since it wouldnt make any sense, as its about anicca and anatta/Voidness. If there was a Self then anicca and anatta/Voidness wouldnt be completely valid

Also look at the word "could be found" not "has been found", he is saying "if there was such a thing" as in hypothetical, not actual

If we bring this in line with the teaching of Dependent Co-arising we can see the Buddha is teaching that Self is the result of clinging, is impermanent and a cause of dukkha. Therefore there is no real true Self, only the Sense of Self that arises and ceases


Just to make a point, this is the Buddhist teaching accross all schools, agee or disagree thats up to you but dont twist texts and please dont claim that the Buddhist sangha has got everything wrong

metta

atanu
15 July 2009, 11:18 AM
Let ask here. Turyatita... "beyond 4th". Is not really something beyond turya but the totality of all 4? I just wonder how this word "Turyatita" is used. Is this the correct meaning? Turyatita is not only unmanifest, but all also manifestation? How is the word actually used?

Namaste Ekanta,

Shri Ramana Maharshi says, as long as Turya is known as a state out of four, it is Turya. When the Turya is known as the sole truth, it is Turyatita. Shri Yajvan once provided nearly same understanding from Kashmir Shaiva school.

As far as Mandukya is concerned, there is nothing apart from or nothing beyond Turya. But experience of Turya may be momentary for some or settled for some. Those sages who are settled are termed as Turyatita, but they do not exceed Turya.

Om

Ekanta
15 July 2009, 11:47 AM
Thx! I was reading about Turiyatita some time ago and thought: "What the... another level again?" It was kind of hard to neglect sinde it was an upanishad. I had my suspicion it would be as you wrote.
(now u guys go back to buddha stuff)

atanu
15 July 2009, 11:53 AM
Namaste

he Buddha here is saying that one cannot find a Self or being that is not seperate from change, hence there is no permanent Self

"if a tiny speck of a permanent, everlasting, eternal selfhood/being, that is seperate from change, could be found, then i could not teach"

That is pali/your view, which I do not comprehend and do not agree to.

A firebrand when rotated appears as a circle of fire, though such a fire circle is just an 'idea of a change' and not the real firebrand. You have conveniently removed the clause 'idea of a change'.

A gold bangle is an idea of a shape. But Gold remains the true material, irrespective of shape it acquires from time time. Time itself is a shape of Prajnya.

Then, most crucial, you are not able to explain as to why Buddha would not be able to teach, if the self were to be found seaparate from the 'idea of a change', which is Gautama's body and the Universe and all Bikkhus.

Who could teach and who could assimilate if the atta were to be separate? Who could understand anything and implement the understanding, if the atta were separate?

Gautama taught because He was established in truth called Prajnya, which was not apart from Him. If there was such a thing apart from Gautama, then Gautama couldnt teach the Holy life since then Gautama would be anicca and anatta.

The Prajnya is self evident. It does not require any extraneous proof.

Then, more crucial than the most, there is indeed an unborn, unmade, in absence of which Nibbana would not be possible. That is the settled statement that there is an unborn, which sages call Self because it is at the heart of all 'ideas of change'.

Also look at the word "could be found in separation from the idea of change" not "has not been found".

If we bring this in line with the teaching of Dependent Co-arising we can see the Buddha is teaching that anicca's views are due to clinging to concepts.

For the last time, I am saying that Self is not a self that clings. Self is the unborn HEART of the idea of change called Universe. It is the Unborn, which is also taught by Buddha. Self has no ego sense since it is devoid of a second.

Your views are your views. Most Buddhists do acknowledge of Buddha nature, as was shown by the cited prose of a revered Buddhist.

The truth is one. It does not get altered by pre-disposition of ego selves, which cling. I wonder what makes an emptiness, which is devoid of atta react again and again?

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
15 July 2009, 12:09 PM
In case the wise words of a sage were ignored.

Touching The Earth: A Yogic Practice

Thich Nhat Hanh

In Buddhism, there is a practice called Touching the Earth that can help us realise our wish to generate the energies of love, compassion, joy and equanimity. During the practice, we touch the Earth deeply six times, surrendering ourselves to the Earth and to our own true nature . We touch the Earth with our forehead, legs and hands, so that our mind and body form a perfect whole, allowing us to transcend our small self. We surrender our pride, notions, fears, resentments and even hopes, and enter the world of things as they are . Touching the Earth is an effective yogic practice. We return to our own source of wisdom and are no longer separate from Mother Earth.

I was taught this meditation as a novice monk: The one who bows and the one who is bowed to are the same. Both are without separate self. When we look deeply into a flower, we can see the sun, clouds, seeds, nutrients in the soil and many other things. We understand that the flower cannot exist as a separate, independent self. It is made entirely of what we call non-flower elements . The one who bows and the one who is bowed to are of the same nature. I am made of non-me elements. The Buddha is made of non-Buddha elements. Nothing can exist by itself alone. Everything has to inter-be with everything else in the cosmos...

The place where we touch the Earth is like the jewelled net of Indra. In every intersection of Indras net is a jewel that reflects all the other jewels in the net. Looking at any one of these jewels, we see all the other jewels. Looking into a flower, we see the entire universe. All Buddhas in the 10 directions appear before our eyes and also within us. We join our palms and bow in the 10 directions east, west, south, north, north-east , north-west , south-east , south-west , above and below and also an eleventh direction: within. Bowing our heads, we respectfully bow to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha in the 11 directions.

When you touch the Earth in this spirit, isolation and alienation vanish, and your sense of a separate self will be replaced by a great feeling of oneness with all beings throughout space and time, those who have already manifested and those who have not yet manifested and connects you to the nature of awakening that is within you. The closer you can lie against the Earth, melting into the Earth, the better. You become nothing in order to become everything. After you have been practising touching the Earth for two or three months, you will feel deeply refreshed, strong and healthy. You will love life and be able to smile, because the energies of hatred and ill will in you will have greatly diminished.

There are six Earth-touchings . In the first, we look deeply within. In the second, we see the connection between ourselves and other living beings, including those who live around us. By the fifth Earth-touching , we are truly able to feel love for the people we have disliked. All hatred and anger will have disappeared , and we only want the person we hated to enjoy happiness and dwell in peace. We are able to reach that point because, first of all, we are able to love ourselves . Touching the Earth and reciting the six accompanying meditations generates in us deep love and acceptance. When we are able to love the person who has made us miserable, we realise what a miracle love is.

Om Namah Shivaya
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"----surrendering ourselves to the Earth and toour own true nature ---". We touch the Earth with our forehead, legs and hands, so that our mind and body form a perfect whole, allowing us to transcend our small self. We surrender our pride, notions, fears, resentments and even hopes, and enter the world of things as they are . Touching the Earth is an effective yogic practice. We return to our own source of wisdom and are no longer separate from Mother Earth.

I was taught this meditation as a novice monk: The one who bows and the one who is bowed to are the same. Both are without separate self.

When you touch the Earth in this spirit, isolation and alienation vanish, and your sense of a separate self will be replaced by a great feeling of oneness with all beings throughout space and time,

-----------------

Sages seek to find the greatest commonality running through all ego selves and all phenomenon. That is called Brahman-Atman-Self in Veda. That is love.

No one has a separate self, which is the illusion. Thich Nhat Hanh's teaching does not irritate since he teaches of a common ground. WE have no difference to above Buddhist. Not a bit of difference.

But you preach of separate anattas because you are yet to transcend it. You see separateness and not the connecting ONENESS -- Prajnya.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
15 July 2009, 12:21 PM
"----surrendering ourselves to the Earth and to our own true nature ---". We touch the Earth with our forehead, legs and hands, so that our mind and body form a perfect whole, allowing us to transcend our small self. We surrender our pride, notions, fears, resentments and even hopes, and enter the world of things as they are . Touching the Earth is an effective yogic practice. We return to our own source of wisdom and are no longer separate from Mother Earth.

I was taught this meditation as a novice monk: The one who bows and the one who is bowed to are the same. Both are without separate self.

When you touch the Earth in this spirit, isolation and alienation vanish, and your sense of a separate self will be replaced by a great feeling of oneness with all beings throughout space and time,

Vedanta teaches of non-existent separate selves but a non-dual all pervading source of wisdom, which is heart of all, which is our true nature defined as Sat-Chit-Ananda.

Namah.

Anicca
15 July 2009, 02:17 PM
Namaste



That is pali/your view, which I do not comprehend and do not agree to.


Yes thats the Theravada/my teaching/view, you dont have to agree with it, im not telling you to to agree (all i have been doing is saying what the Theravada/suttas say)



Most Buddhists do acknowledge of Buddha nature, as was shown by the cited prose of a revered Buddhist.

The Venerable you have been posting above is not a Theravadin he is a follower of Mahayana (nothing wrong with that). The Buddha-nature doctrine is Mahayana, a post-Buddha teaching (that isnt in the Suttas)

I must however point out that not all Mahayanaists take the same tact


"The assumption that a God is the cause (of the world, etc.) is based on the false belief in the eternal Self (atman, i.e. permanent spiritual substance, essence or personality); but that belief has to be abandoned, if one has clearly understood that everything is impermanent and subject to suffering." - Abhidharmakosha 5, 8 vol IV, p 19:

I just quoted that in case you thought all Mahayanaists take a view of Self and all Theravadins dont

As a Theravadin i dont accept or adhere to it so quoting such things has no impact on me. However you are right most Buddhists do accept it since most Buddhists belong to Mahayana, Theravada has slightly less numbers


As for the rest of your post, Theravada nor i can accept any of it as Buddhadhamma. To me your misunderstanding what the Buddha/Suttas say and are verging on slandering the Buddha (at the least the Sangha). However its your own opinion and view on things, your entitled to that


At the very least we can see how Buddha wasnt a Hindu and why Buddhism was classed as Nastika since the teachings of his, and his followers through the ages, that i have put forward are so opposed by followers of Hinduism and are denied (and taken offence at, although this need not happen) I think its best if we just agree to disagree here, since i think anything else will just be repeat again and again

metta

atanu
16 July 2009, 12:22 AM
Namaste

The Venerable you have been posting above is not a Theravadin he is a follower of Mahayana (nothing wrong with that). The Buddha-nature doctrine is Mahayana, a post-Buddha teaching (that isnt in the Suttas)

Well. Ego does not bend but breaks. Earlier you said the following:


Just to make a point, this is the Buddhist teaching accross all schools, agee or disagree thats up to you but dont twist texts

So, I showed you a Buddhist sages view.

And surely you are odd. Buddha did not want to abide merely by Veda. He wanted his own experience. Since actual Veda (which means knowing) is one's own experience. But you say "-----that isnt in the Suttas -----". Where is freedom from pre-conceptions?

Is a sage's experience lesser than your understanding of the sutta? (But actually the non-separateness of atta is there in the suttas; you do not recognise it owing to pre-conceptions.)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, you know not a bit about Atma. You equate clinging to "I-ness" as atma.


Atma has no hands, no legs. no mind and no thoughts that it can grasp and cling.
Atma is not khanda. It is indivisible whole, akhanda, so it cannot cling to anything particular.
Atma is beyond desire. It has no desire to cling.
What clings is the mind with its thought and ignorance. Not the atta, which is as is. It is the mind that earns the karma.

When Buddha says that if a bit of atta was found separate from 'the idea of change' and Nhat Hanh says of "Both are without separate self-----" and "oneness", they both mean that the Self is not divisible.

That there are many selves is the ignorance.

If a small piece of atta was found elsewhere, then that would render a total disconnect in awareness and Buddha and Bikkhus would not be able to communicate. The communication and intelligence channel/network woulkd not work, similar as a small break in telephone line would cause communication breakdown. And similar to a small breach in a railway line that would cause destruction.

There is no break in the Atma, which is the source of wisdom (Prajnya) of all. Just as the sage quoted reminds "We return to our own source of wisdom-------".

Because of presence of atma, one says mistakenly "I am this body". Because of presence of Atma, the same person realises the mistake.
-------------------------------------------------
Let me re-tell an incident.

My daughter was about three year old when I heard her arguing with her boyfriend. The boy claimed that the sun was 'pilA (yellow)' . My daughter vehemently opposed "Sun is yellow". This sun is 'pilA' against 'no, the sun is yellow' went on for 7-10 minutes. Finally, my daughter won, when her boy friend said "Yes, Yes, The sun is yellow. Be happy."

Another story is (in case you have missed the dirty story)

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=29666&postcount=35 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=29666&postcount=35)

Non-understanding of cultural and language differences and the practices lead to many kinds of differences.

But all these differences (and their resolution) would not be possible if the source of Wisdom was not imperishable.
------------------------------
When your sutta says: "The enlightened stands like a sun, defeating the forces of mara"

What does it mean? The enlightened is immortal. So, the enlightened and the root, which is unborn, unmade, akhanda both are imperishable. These are not in a state of disconnect.

-----------------------------
I request that a pause button be pressed and a manana may be done on what all have been written.

Atanu presses the PAUSE button.


Om Namah Shivaya

devotee
16 July 2009, 12:26 AM
Dear Anicca,

I can understand your position. What you speak is what the Buddhism say, at least "your" understanding of Buddhism.

Actually, believe me, you don't understand the difference between "self" & 'Self'. Buddha denied self & also God. However, Self has everything in it within its all four quarters. Please be sensitive while using "self" & "SELF". All your posts are basically talking about "self" which actually has no existence in Turiya, i.e. the fourth state which is quite similar to Buddha-state.

Why I am writing this ? I just wanted you to understand why Atanu felt offended by your indiscriminate use of term "Self" where actually "self should have been used.

If you feel comfortable in keeping a position that Buddhism & Vedanta are all completely different things, there is nothing to discuss & there is no point in discussing. However, if you want to understand where they meet, please look at these what Vedanta says:

i) The "self" or the "ego self" is there in two states of Self i.e. in the Waking & the dreaming states. This "self" has no place in the third state & the fourth states. These states are the dream states where the reality is wrongly perceived.
ii) Realisation that "self" doesn't exist is in the fourth state. However, it has to be "realised" & not just understood intellectually. Here also is the realisation that there is no agent & there is no actor.
iii) The third state is the deep sleep state or the God-state ... the state of undivided consciousness which is the origin of all beings & also the final end, it is all-knowing, the nourisher, the God of all beings etc. However, this again is the sleeping state i.e. the reality is not revealed.
iv) In the fourth state which can be described only by negation is the screen where all these three states appear & dissolve back into it.

So, in fourth state, there is no "self" & there is also no God. However, as long as the seeker is within the first two states, all the three states are as real or unreal as he himself is.

The Buddhism doesn't give a complete picture of things as above. [That is why it is difficult to answer the questions like "who attains Nibbana etc". Though,as mentioned by you, there are many theories which can try to explain things ... but if you analyse them critically, it tries to silence the questioner (by saying that it is because you are falling in the trap of "I" etc.) than to answer him. If you say in the beigining that "I, You don't exist, there is no actor etc. ... Buddha itself won't exist & neither you & me". ]

So, if you want to say that it is different from Vedanta, yes, it can be said that it is. However, if we want to see the similarity, that also is there.

Dear friend, Advait Vedanta, Buddhism & Jainism are more or less similar born in the same land & in the similar environment, though there have been disputes among followers of all these three faiths & it has also resulted in bitterness in the past. My advice is, that the enlightenment in any path can't be actually different ... the final Truth can't be different. Let's find out what binds us together & not harp on what separates us. There is no dearth of people who enjoy finding the differences & sowing the seeds of bitterness & hatred ... there is urgent need of people who can do the work of connecting people & spread the message of love.

Love & peace ...

OM

atanu
16 July 2009, 11:05 PM
And anicca said that Buddha did not teach Neti Neti?


Please do not translate consciousness used in these translations as Pragnya. Consciousness is here the six kinds of sensual awareness related to five senses and mind.


Gaddula Sutta: The Leash (2)
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
&#169; 1998–2009 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/l&#37;20F_termsOfUse)
At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "Monks, from an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, although beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on.
"It's just as when a dog is tied by a leash to a post or stake: If it walks, it walks right around that post or stake. If it stands, it stands right next to that post or stake. If it sits, it sits right next to that post or stake. If it lies down, it lies down right next to that post or stake.
"In the same way, an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person regards form as: 'This is mine, this is my self, this is what I am.' He regards feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as: 'This is mine, this is my self, this is what I am.' If he walks, he walks right around these five clinging-aggregates. If he stands, he stands right next to these five clinging-aggregates. If he sits, he sits right next to these five clinging-aggregates. If he lies down, he lies down right next to these five clinging-aggregates. Thus one should reflect on one's mind with every moment: 'For a long time has this mind been defiled by passion, aversion, & delusion.' From the defilement of the mind are beings defiled. From the purification of the mind are beings purified.

"Monks, have you ever seen a moving contraption?"
"Yes, lord."

"That moving contraption was created by the mind. And this mind is even more variegated than a moving contraption. Thus one should reflect on one's mind with every moment: 'For a long time has this mind been defiled by passion, aversion, & delusion.' From the defilement of the mind are beings defiled. From the purification of the mind are beings purified.
"Monks, I can imagine no one group of beings more variegated than that of common animals. Common animals are created by mind. And the mind is even more variegated than common animals. Thus one should reflect on one's mind with every moment: 'For a long time has this mind been defiled by passion, aversion, & delusion.' From the defilement of the mind are beings defiled. From the purification of the mind are beings purified.
"It's just as when — there being dye, lac, yellow orpiment, indigo, or crimson — a dyer or painter would paint the picture of a woman or a man, complete in all its parts, on a well-polished panel or wall, or on a piece of cloth; in the same way, an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, when creating, creates nothing but form... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness.

"Now what do you think, monks — Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"No, lord."
"...Is feeling constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...
"...Is perception constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...
"...Are fabrications constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...
"What do you think, monks — Is consciousness constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"No, lord."
"Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
"Any feeling whatsoever...
"Any perception whatsoever...
"Any fabrications whatsoever...
"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

Nadi Sutta: The River
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
&#169; 1997–2009 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/l%20F_termsOfUse)
At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said, "Monks, suppose there were a river, flowing down from the mountains, going far, its current swift, carrying everything with it, and — holding on to both banks — kasa grasses, kusa grasses, reeds, birana grasses, & trees were growing. Then a man swept away by the current would grab hold of the kasa grasses, but they would tear away, and so from that cause he would come to disaster. He would grab hold of the kusa grasses... the reeds... the birana grasses... the trees, but they would tear away, and so from that cause he would come to disaster.
"In the same way, there is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. That form tears away from him, and so from that cause he would come to disaster.
"He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. That feeling tears away from him, and so from that cause he would come to disaster.
"He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in perception. That perception tears away from him, and so from that cause he would come to disaster.
"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self as in fabrications. Those fabrications tear away from him, and so from that cause he would come to disaster.
"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. That consciousness tears away from him, and so from that cause he would come to disaster.
"What do you think, monks — Is form constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."
"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"
"Stressful, lord."
"And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"No, lord."
"...Is feeling constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."...
"...Is perception constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."...
"...Are fabrications constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."...
"What do you think, monks — Is consciousness constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."
"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"
"Stressful, lord."
"And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"No, lord."
"Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
"Any feeling whatsoever...
"Any perception whatsoever...
"Any fabrications whatsoever...
"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

atanu
16 July 2009, 11:15 PM
Buddha on self:


Muccalinda Sutta: About Muccalinda
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:
Blissful is solitude for one who's content, who has heard the Dhamma, who sees. Blissful is non-affliction with regard for the world, restraint for living beings. Blissful is dispassion with regard for the world, the overcoming of sensuality. But the subduing of the conceit "I am" — That is truly the ultimate bliss.

Tittha sutta

Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:
People are intent on the idea of "made by me" and attached to the idea of "made by another." Some do not realize this, nor do they see it as a thorn. But to one who sees, having extracted this thorn, [the thought] "I am doing," doesn't occur; "Another is doing," doesn't occur. This human race is possessed by conceit bound by conceit, tied down by conceit. Speaking hurtfully because of their views they don't go beyond transmigration — the wandering on.

Ananda Sutta: To Ananda

(On Self, No Self, and Not-self)
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
(http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/l%20F_termsOfUse)
Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"
When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.
"Then is there no self?"
A second time, the Blessed One was silent.
Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.

Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?"
"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"

"No, lord."

"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"

atanu
16 July 2009, 11:22 PM
Buddha has not taught non-existent Self. Buddha has taught that all objects of sensual perception, including the Universe, are devoid of self. All phenomena are not-self

A teacher, while preaching, cannot say "I am asat, I do not exist." At the same time Buddha teaches "But the subduing of the conceit "I am" — That is truly the ultimate bliss. "

Om Namah Shivaya

TatTvamAsi
17 July 2009, 07:48 PM
Still at it I see.

Buddha WAS A HINDU! There is no doubt about it whatsoever. Just because the term "Hindu" wasn't commonly used back then doesn't mean he was not part of the predominant tradition of India at that time--> SANATANA DHARMA (aka Hinduism).

Btw, you are totally confused with the terms. Pali is to Sanskrit as Ebonics is to English. Stop using them interchangeably.

So stop confusing yourself with "atta" and "Atman"; the two are dissimilar. The "atta" you talk about is the "AHAMKARA" or ego, which is indeed unreal and impermanent.

Buddha never decried the Vedas; that is some putrid garbage put forth by Buddhists who want to have a self-identity apart from Hinduism. They know very well that without Hinduism, there is NO Buddhism. Without Hinduism, there is NO Buddha!

At the end of the day, you're still a christian by nature and that is why you are having a hell of a time understanding Vedanta. Your self-identity depends on Buddhism being separate from Vedanta which is just fantasy. The paths may be different, but the philosophy and consequently the goals are absolutely the SAME! Just because you converted from thumping a bible to thumping the "suttas", doesn't mean your temperament and capacity to understand have improved.

Buddhism is repackaged Hinduism for the orientals. That is all.





At the very least we can see how Buddha wasnt a Hindu and why Buddhism was classed as Nastika since the teachings of his, and his followers through the ages, that i have put forward are so opposed by followers of Hinduism and are denied (and taken offence at, although this need not happen) I think its best if we just agree to disagree here, since i think anything else will just be repeat again and again

Spiritualseeker
17 July 2009, 07:57 PM
Namaste,

That was a bit harsh but I think i understand what you mean. But i still wonder why did Buddhism leave india? Perhaps it was just buddhist wanting to have an identity.... or perhaps it was really separate from hinduism. It seems like buddha was following the yogic disciplines which would make him a follower of hinduism (sanatana dharma)...

Sherab
17 July 2009, 08:32 PM
Namaste,

That was a bit harsh but I think i understand what you mean. But i still wonder why did Buddhism leave india? Perhaps it was just buddhist wanting to have an identity.... or perhaps it was really separate from hinduism. It seems like buddha was following the yogic disciplines which would make him a follower of hinduism (sanatana dharma)...

Well, actually, part of it was that. In fact, in tantric buddhism, we use our japa mala in the left hand, and with the index finger and thumb.

Also, i was very interested that the original post knew about amrita kundalini - it is deity used to empower the vase for abisheka, strictly as part of tantric sadhana for one who has completed the "approach" aspect of the third outer tantra - "yoga tantra".

Spiritualseeker
17 July 2009, 08:57 PM
Namaste,

one thing that got me interested in hinduism is my affection for buddhism in which they still accept the deities but not the same as in hinduism. For an example they do not think Brahma created the universe, instead buddhist think that brahma is delusional in thinking he created the universe. Buddhist do say Siva will eventually become enlightened. But it seems like Siva is already enlightened hehe but all this is is a belief system. Just bundles of thought. God or Buddha nature is deeper than that.

atanu
17 July 2009, 09:58 PM
Namaste,
one thing that got me interested in hinduism is my affection for buddhism in which they still accept the deities but not the same as in hinduism. For an example they do not think Brahma created the universe, instead buddhist think that brahma is delusional in thinking he created the universe. Buddhist do say Siva will eventually become enlightened. But it seems like Siva is already enlightened hehe but all this is is a belief system. Just bundles of thought. God or Buddha nature is deeper than that.

Namaste Spiritual,

The whole of Satapatha Brahmana deals with how the creation is mental sacrifice. How it is desire, equated with death, that gets a form. All scriptures, including Gita, teach that the momentary forgetfulness of one's nature and indulgence in desire is death. This is not unique teaching of Buddhism. Buddha very strongly teaches of renunciation and monkhood. But not all can be monks in a society. So, Hinduism teaches to worship God with ones desire. Hinduism teaches to do all karma as worship and renunciate ego and renunciate the fruits. So, gradually the knowledge comes. But Hinduism also teaches of sannyasa and a stage 'beyond sannyasa' called 'beyond asrama', to which teachers such as Buddha and Krishna belong. Krishna says: "I do not need to do anything. But I do so that all do their alloted tasks". The atiAsramis are not bound -- they exist just to alleviate non-existent dukkha. They constitute the Purushottama.

Beneath the desire, however, is Atman, which is beyond identity, beyond inner and outer, beyond cognition by the senses, indivisible, karma less, without beginning etc.

The Atman is surely not depicted as a person. But the being (purusha-person before usha) would not exist, and create and dwell in waking, dreaming, and sleeping phases in absence of the Atman, which is indescribable, comprehended by Neti-Neti, by discarding through intelligent deep contemplation all phenomenon as not Atman. Siva will become enlightened is true. Shiva is already enlightened is also true. However, in Turya, there is no one seeking enlightenenment and no one getting enlightened.

Buddha's teaching is pure, just the essentials. But what is the use of telling a person dwelling in this world "Become a monk"? Or "You are not you"? What I mean to say is that the path is suddenly not "Neti-Neti", there is a huge work to do before that. To even get an idea about the subtle, one's own mental pictures have to dissolve. Instead of me trying hard, I will redirect attention to an old post.

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=29474&postcount=57

----------------------------------

I will also point out as to how mysterious the Atman is. During this long discussion, two great Upadeshas came up in the morning Newspaper, one by a leading present day Hindu teacher and another by a leading Buddhist teacher (both have been referred here). Reading both together show that the goal is common -- to get rid of Dukkha, which is a product of false conceit that "I am a doer" and a false notion that "I am this self and satay is that self". The Body and the Mind do not have the Self, but there is in mind a notion that "This is mine. I have done this good. They have done these bad." And this is how world goes on. In core, there is no difference.

I agree with TTA that some new entrants show more zeal for their newly accepted path. I have related that how some devotees of Ramana attribute discovery of "Who Am I?" technique to Him. Buddha as Tathagata surely gave birth to a new path or He brought to light the truth of Self as distinct from all forms and names, which are entirely devoid of self.

But this is known in Sataptha Brahmana, Brihadaraynaka Upanishad and all other Upanishads. Buddha did uproot the deep rooted notion of Dvaitins of 'eternal individual separate selves'. But when Gaudapada and Shankara showed (or rather re-revealed) this knowledge from Upanishads, Buddha's need in India was diminished.

But His need in other parts of the Universe has not diminished surely. I will also request to contemplate on the following post:

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=29182&postcount=3

---------------------------------

See, the knowledge of indivisible spirit as the substratum of all phenomenon as the Sat is the Unique contribution of Vedas -- beyond which no other knowledge can go. Further, Veda says: "The Truth (Sat) is One, sages call it by different names". Now again nothing can ever go beyond this. The knowledge is all inclusive for all times and beyond time.

Who can even imagine, without being told by Veda, that the soul of Zn and soul of atanu are Not Two? Can anyone ever get this knowledge solely through sensual experience? So, Buddha re-iterates, the Universe of phenomenon is devoid of atta. But He also teaches that atta is not to be found separate from the idea of change. He teaches that the undying eternal is unborn and unmade. He also teaches that the enlightened stands immortal like sun. Nothing of this is outside the knowledge of Vedanta.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
17 July 2009, 10:36 PM
Still at it I see.
Your self-identity depends on Buddhism being separate from Vedanta which is just fantasy.

Namaste TTA,

Ya. This is the crux. Whereas Buddha's teaching is to obliterate the self-identity. This is the irony -- which is not altogether inapplicable for Hindus, including me, also -- to be impartial.

Om Namah Shivaya

Spiritualseeker
18 July 2009, 06:18 AM
Namaste,

well said Atanu. It is like I thought before when i was reading some zen gathas (phrases or poems for mindfulness) it states "Unborn and indestructable, beyond time and space, the transmitter and received are all one in the dharmadhatu". This is precisely what the Atman is. I just dont understand why buddhist have to say its something else. its almost as if they equate atman with ego.

Sherab
18 July 2009, 07:45 AM
Namaste,

well said Atanu. It is like I thought before when i was reading some zen gathas (phrases or poems for mindfulness) it states "Unborn and indestructable, beyond time and space, the transmitter and received are all one in the dharmadhatu". This is precisely what the Atman is. I just dont understand why buddhist have to say its something else. its almost as if they equate atman with ego.

I think it is because any type of self =ignorance, which is the root of suffering. They say nothing exists, and nothing does not exist, and try to get past all views by the way of "two truths" absolute - emptiness, and relative, which is that things appear due to causes and conditions. I think if they saw emptiness a brahman, they would get the big picture... especially if the believe in the alaya, or storage of karma within the mind, which can be seen as atman.

In any case...

Spiritualseeker
18 July 2009, 08:14 PM
Namaste,

from the book "Merging with Siva"



Parasiva, Life's Ultimate Goal

Never have there been so many people living on the planet wondering, "What is the real goal, the final purpose, of life?" However, man is blinded by his ignorance and his concern with the externalities of the world. He is caught, enthralled, bound by karma. The ultimate realizations available are beyond his understanding and remain to him obscure, even intellectually. Man's ultimate quest, the final evolutionary frontier, is within man himself. It is the Truth spoken by Vedic rishis as the Self within man, attainable through control of the mind and purification.


It is karma that keeps us from knowing of and reaching life's final goal, yet it is wrong to even call it a goal. It is what is known by the knower to have always existed. It is not a matter of becoming the Self, but of realizing that you never were not the Self. And what is that Self? It is Parasiva. It is God. It is That which is beyond the mind, beyond thought, feeling and emotion, beyond time, form and space. That is what all men are seeking, looking for, longing for. When karma is controlled through yoga and dharma well performed, and the energies are transmuted to their ultimate state, the Vedic Truth of life discovered by the rishis so long ago becomes obvious.
That goal is to realize God Siva in His absolute, or transcendent, state, which when realized is your own ultimate state -- timeless, formless, spaceless Truth. That Truth lies beyond the thinking mind, beyond the feeling nature, beyond action or any movement of the vrittis, the waves of the mind. Being, seeing, this Truth then gives the correct perspective, brings the external realities into perspective. They then are seen as truly unrealities, yet not discarded as such.
This intimate experience must be experienced while in the physical body. One comes back and back again into flesh simply to realize Parasiva. Nothing more. Yet, the Self, or Parasiva, is an experience only after it has been experienced. Yet, it is not an experience at all, but the only possible nonexperience, which registers in its aftermath upon the mind of man. Prior to that, it is a goal. After realization, one thing is lost, the desire for the Self.


This seems very buddhist to me. I am thinking maybe you are right Atanu. Buddha was a hindu. Now I know he disagreed with caste system and other things of that nature. but it seemed like he was rewording the Devonic truths or vedanic truths the truths of Siva. The truth of Parasiva. The Truth of God. The truth of Eternal Being.

http://yoga108.org/images/blog/2007/360.jpg

Spiritualseeker
19 July 2009, 07:35 PM
Namaste,

I was also thinking perhaps the buddhist in particular nichiren and others who revere the Lotus sutra chant Nam Myōhō Renge Kyō, this seems very similar to AUM in meaning. Here is a video discussing the meaning of Nam Myoho Renge Kyo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdrIKXPjs0Y

What do you think revered Atanu?

With love
-juan

Spiritualseeker
20 July 2009, 06:44 AM
Namaste,

Some more similarities that I think Atanu was talking about with Hinduism and buddhism.



So long as this "oneself" is identified by the observer, not with the Atman, but with anAtman, advaitins would say that there is a difference between the observed ("the universe" which, by the way, is wrongly perceived) and the observer (the "oneself" which is wrongly identified). At this stage, there is still ignorance about the true nature of external things and oneself.



However, it is pointed out that to even talk of creation, one has to assume avidyA, and one has to admit of mAyA, as the power of ISvara. Under this view, mAyA is accorded a measure of reality with respect to the observed universe, and is similar in many respects to the notion of prakRti in sAm.khya. Still, it is denied that this mAyA has an independent existence or reality of its own.




The notion that mAyA has no reality in itself, and that brahman is the only real, allows the sRshTi-dRshTi vAdin to "graduate", so to speak, to ajAtivAda, the view that no creation really occured ever. Although one initially starts looking for brahman as the ontological basis of the perceived universe, advaita also recognizes that this search for origins is ultimately futile, as far as moksha is concerned.




The identity propounded by the upanishads (between the Atman and brahman) opens up an even more fascinating inner world that is not seen by the eye, not heard by the ear and not felt by touch. It is this inner search that allows the sAdhaka to acquire the jnAna to deny mAyA any reality whatsover. At this stage, brahman, which was previously understood to be with attributes, is understood in its essence to be really nirguNa. This essential nature of brahman is described as "svarUpa-lakshaNa" - a description that captures the real nature of brahman. When brahman is apprehended as the nirguNa, without any attributes, mAyA completely disappears. The universe too, consequently has to disappear. This is the most difficult thing for anybody to understand and accept, because the senses constantly seem to remind one of the presence of the universe. But then, the unitary understanding of the Atman as identical to brahman occurs only at the turIya (the fourth) state, not in the jAgrat (waking), svapna (dream) and sushupti (deep sleep) states. As the mANDUkya upanishad reminds us, the turIya is adRshTam (unseeable), avyavahAryam (non-relational), agrAhyam (ungraspable), alakshaNam (without any attributes), acintyam (unthinkable), avyapadeSyam (cannot be indicated as an object), ekAtma-pratyaya-sAram (the essence of cognition of the One Atman), prapancopaSamam (that into which the entire universe is resolved), SAntam (peaceful), Sivam (auspicious), advaitam (non-dual).


Source: http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/creation.html

OM

Anicca
22 July 2009, 04:08 PM
Wow there have been a lot of posts since i last logged on lol



Only going to be a quick reply for the moment just about to go to bed, will answer rest tomorow (some good posts have been made)


First one

Atanu


And anicca said that Buddha did not teach Neti Neti?

I havent gone back to check but i dont think i ever said that, i would say he taught a form of it that might have been took on by later teachers




At the end of the day, you're still a christian by nature and that is why you are having a hell of a time understanding Vedanta.

Do you know me? I only ask since you seem to have such knowledge about my life. I have never been a Christian (strange how you assume everyone in the west must be one)

I am actually an atheist, never really believed in any God, even less since i went to Buddhism




Your self-identity depends on Buddhism being separate from Vedanta which is just fantasy.

No i just dont see any real evidence for it based on suttas and the teachings of the sangha




The paths may be different, but the philosophy and consequently the goals are absolutely the SAME!

That remains to be seen




Just because you converted from thumping a bible to thumping the "suttas", doesn't mean your temperament and capacity to understand have improved.


LOL! Sorry its just this is the first time in my life that i have been accused of being a bible thumper, as i said i have never been a christian and i used to heavily criticise the bible and Theistic religions in general



Buddhism is repackaged Hinduism for the orientals. That is all.

Usual tactic here, put down a religion to make it less threatening. Cant really have a discussion with these kinds of comments since they arent about dialogue but simple attacks


Spiritualseeker

Buddha never said the world is maya

will answer rest tomorow

metta

atanu
22 July 2009, 10:57 PM
Wow there have been a lot of posts since i last logged on lol


I havent gone back to check but i dont think i ever said that, i would say he taught a form of it that might have been took on by later teachers

Namaste anicca,

This statement related to 'neti-neti' is sufficient for me. Form is transient. Later or earlier has no meaning in true. Surely, you subtly imply that Upanishads copied Buddha's teachings. But i do not take that bait.

Rest, I have not read.

Metta.

Om Namah Shivaya

Spiritualseeker
24 July 2009, 12:52 PM
Dear Atanu,

As was pointed out by sherab in the other post there is a Ganesha sutra taught by the buddha. Here it is



Sanskrit:Aryaganpatihridaya
Tibetan:‘Phags pa Tshogs kyi dDag po’I sNiying po
English:Essence of Ganapati-Ganesvara
Author: Shakyamuni Buddha

Homage to all the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas

Thus have I once heard:
The Blessed One was dwelling in Rajagriha together with a great community of 1250 monks and of Boddhisattva-Mahasattvas. At that time the Blessed One spoke to the Venerable Ananda: “O Ananda, the tasks of anyone who comprehends the Essence of Ganapati-Ganesvara will all be accomplished. One’s wishes are fulfilled by comprehending it and every mantra will bring attainment:

“Tadyatha/ Namo stute-maha-ganapataye svaha/ Om kata kata/ Mata mata/ Dara dara/ vidara vidara/ Hana hana/ Grihna grihna/ Dhava dhava/ Bhamja Bhamja/ Stambha stambha/ Jambha jambha/ Moha moha/ Dehi dehi/ Dapaya Dapaya/ Dhana dhanya sidhi me prayaccha samaya-manu-smara maharudra vacaniye svaha/ Om kuru kuru svaha/ Om turu turu/ Om muru muru svaha/ Om bava samti vasu pushtim kuru svaha/ Adguta bindu kshabhita mahavidara/ Sama-gacchati mahabaya/ Mahabala/ Mahavarakra/ Mahahasti/ Maha-dakshini-ya praci-dayami svaha/ Om kuru kuru/ Curu curu/ Muru muru/ Om ga ga ga ga ga ga ga ga/ Om namo nama svaha/”

O Ananda, when any son of noble family, daughter of noble family, monk, nun, lay man or lay woman goes to a place of worship other than where the Three Jewels (are worshipped) or enters the palace retinue of a king and practices the mantras (recited in that place) and begins with this Essence of Ganapati-Ganesvara all one’s tasks will be accomplished. Have no doubts about it. If one is mindful (of this mantra) in fights, arguments, confusions, and wars, they will all be pacified. If you get up early each morning and recite it, you will attain learnedness. Yakshas, rakshasa and dakini will not rob your health but will promise to stay far away.”

After the Blessed One proclaimed these things, the gathering and everyone in it, along with the world with its gods, men, demigods, and gandharvas, rejoiced and praised the Blessed One’s teaching. This completes the Essence of Ganapati-Ganesvara


Kanjur (Pejing#338) Vol NG


Doesn't this also suggest that buddha was a hindu?

with love

namaste

Anicca
24 July 2009, 10:15 PM
Only if you take the mahayana sutras as coming from the Buddha, which they most likely dont



metta

Sherab
25 July 2009, 09:13 AM
Only if you take the mahayana sutras as coming from the Buddha, which they most likely dont



metta

Simply because the Mahayana is to vast of scope for the Theravada practitioners. After all, if you have compassion for all, then you must also realize that they are all "empty" and that you are "empty" ie. - equality.

Therefore, in Thervada, there is love, compassion, the four brahmaviharas, but not in the scope of the mahayana.

Anicca
25 July 2009, 10:56 AM
Simply because the Mahayana is to vast of scope for the Theravada practitioners. After all, if you have compassion for all, then you must also realize that they are all "empty" and that you are "empty" ie. - equality.

Therefore, in Thervada, there is love, compassion, the four brahmaviharas, but not in the scope of the mahayana.



So it seems your saying Mahayana is to complicated for Theravadins, is that correct?


If so its just another mahayana myth

metta

Sherab
25 July 2009, 10:58 AM
So it seems your saying Mahayana is to complicated for Theravadins, is that correct?


If so its just another mahayana myth

metta
Not complicated, just that they have different sensibilities and goals, and understanding.

and thats okay, thats why the buddha taught different systems, to help different beings according to their leanings. 84,000 dharmas for the 84,000 afflictive emotions.

shian
25 July 2009, 02:09 PM
Namaste all, ok, for first we see Buddha is a Hindu . But, which Hindu ? because Hindu have many sect with different theory. And what the Hindu lineage of Buddha ? or, in Buddha life time what is Hindu ? in India is born many philosophy, and one philosophy is become many diferent philosophy. Even you said Buddha is Shaivism , Vaishnava will said Buddha is Vaishnawa or others will said Buddha is devotee of Krsna ! And If Buddha is Buddhist. Theravadin will said Buddha is Theravada Mahayana will said Buddha is Mahayana Even Theravada also have many sect, so which Theravada is Buddha ? which Buddha is Theravada ? Sakyamuni Buddha ? Krakucchanda ? Vipasyin ? Amitabha ? or which Buddha ? this is so many Buddha in this entire universe. or only Gautama is Buddha ? Ok, about myth of Mahayana. Buddhism has also talk about Devas, Buddhas, Bodhisattvas in this entire universe is many Devas. Can you give me a proof the Nagas in every Theravada Sutras is fact ? or, if your refuge only Buddha , Dharma and Sangha, and then only our self is saviour. So if we cannot ask the Devas for any helps, why you ask doctor to help you if you sick ? why you ask police for protection ? why not ask Buddha , Dharma and Sangha ? The refuge to Triratna and need help from Devas is different things. pray or need help from Devas and Bodhisattvas is just same with we need help to other beings who have much power, like police, doctor , friends, etc. About what religion is Buddha, are this is important to your life ??? Please remember even Christians and Islam will said Buddha is only one man who searching for Allah ! Now, if you do debate here and maybe you win with your inttelegence or good writing. But if you debate with other people who is have more expert than you in writing argument and you is loose, are this is mean your sect teaching is FALSE ? Maybe Buddhas will cry with smile if looking you wasting time for such things

Spiritualseeker
25 July 2009, 02:24 PM
Hindu in terms of him revealing the ultimate truth of existence. The truth of the Uncreated Unborn Undestructable beyond time and space (Brahman) or Buddhahood which is exactly the same thing. I myself am deciding between hinduism and buddhism but I know that both of them lead to the same Realization. There is just different words involved. That is all.

Anicca
25 July 2009, 10:55 PM
Not complicated, just that they have different sensibilities and goals, and understanding.

and thats okay, thats why the buddha taught different systems, to help different beings according to their leanings. 84,000 dharmas for the 84,000 afflictive emotions.



Minus Mahayana/Vajrayana Sutras that have bare remanets of his teachings

Anicca
25 July 2009, 10:56 PM
Hindu in terms of him revealing the ultimate truth of existence. The truth of the Uncreated Unborn Undestructable beyond time and space (Brahman) or Buddhahood which is exactly the same thing. I myself am deciding between hinduism and buddhism but I know that both of them lead to the same Realization. There is just different words involved. That is all.



Hey

In order to understand your point i have to ask you two questions

What do you understand Brahman to be?

What do you understand Buddhahood to be?

metta

Anicca
25 July 2009, 11:13 PM
Namaste friend




Theravadin will said Buddha is Theravada Mahayana will said Buddha is Mahayana Even Theravada also have many sect, so which Theravada is Buddha ? which Buddha is Theravada ? Sakyamuni Buddha ? Krakucchanda ? Vipasyin ? Amitabha ? or which Buddha ? this is so many Buddha in this entire universe. or only Gautama is Buddha ?

There are no buddhas until Gotama's teachings have gone, one Buddha for one dispension of the teachings, so he proclaimed in the suttas. The concept of many buddhas in different realms (which your list of buddhas belongs to) is once again a later mahayana myth




Ok, about myth of Mahayana. Buddhism has also talk about Devas, Buddhas, Bodhisattvas in this entire universe is many Devas. Can you give me a proof the Nagas in every Theravada Sutras is fact ?

No i cant however the "nagas" you refer to are obviously symbolic/cultural beliefs that got included in Buddhism. In reguards to the Mahayana sutras (which i assume you elude to) ask any scholar, even look to your own rationality, and it tells you that mahayana doctrines are later (vedic influenced) concepts that have no basis in reality/history and no basis in the pali canon (which is the oldest and closest teachings we have of the Buddha)




or, if your refuge only Buddha , Dharma and Sangha, and then only our self is saviour.

The Buddha said we should only have ourselves as refuge (conventional speak) via the four foundations of mindfulness, NOT by praying or invoking so called "bodhisattvas" to help

If you like he taught "Self" reliance





So if we cannot ask the Devas for any helps, why you ask doctor to help you if you sick ? why you ask police for protection ? why not ask Buddha , Dharma and Sangha ?

The only refuge from ALL dukkha is the teachings of Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha with your "Self" as refuge (via method described above) however not all can do this so the protection of police etc are needed to minimize suffering to some degree for those who cannot fully overcome it via Dhamma




The refuge to Triratna and need help from Devas is different things. pray or need help from Devas and Bodhisattvas is just same with we need help to other beings who have much power, like police, doctor , friends, etc.

Except for the awkward fact that the Buddha never taught us to pray for others for help, never taught the "Bodhisattva" ideal or that the numerous accounts of them that Mahayana claim even exist. Why do you assume the supernatural (to which Bodhisattva's largely belong) exists?




About what religion is Buddha, are this is important to your life ???

The Buddhas teachings are beyond such mundane concepts such as "religion"




Please remember even Christians and Islam will said Buddha is only one man who searching for Allah !

They are very much mistaken, Buddha was more on the athiest side of thinking that theist/deist. They only claim that because they cant understand anything outside their own speculative view, caught in the net of views (as the Buddha taught)



146. Bhikkhus! When any of the samanas and brahmanas who speculate on the past, or the future, or both the past and the future, and adhere to beliefs relating to them, assert the many and varied (wrong) views about the past, or the future, or both, all of them are caught in the net of this discourse with all their sixty-two categories of wrong views, and if they try to rise (or sink), they rise (or sink) within the net, for all their views fall within the net of this discourse.





Now, if you do debate here and maybe you win with your inttelegence or good writing. But if you debate with other people who is have more expert than you in writing argument and you is loose, are this is mean your sect teaching is FALSE ?

The ability to win an argument doesnt always mean that argument is true and the other is false




Maybe Buddhas will cry with smile if looking you wasting time for such things

Buddha cry? Buddha smile? interesting, tell me how can a Buddha do such a thing?

metta

Sherab
25 July 2009, 11:28 PM
Minus Mahayana/Vajrayana Sutras that have bare remanets of his teachings

Vajrayana does not have sutras - only tantras.

Do you know what you are talking about? Vajrayana is just "uncommon" mahayana.

devotee
26 July 2009, 01:29 AM
SOME ETERNAL SUTRAS

Sutra 1 : Only Allah can give Salvation. Those who don't believe Q'uran & the prophet are destined to be condemned to fire of hell !

Sutra 2 : Jesus is the Only Way. Christianity is the Only True religion.

Sutra 3 : Children of Israel (Jews) only got the True message of God. Anything which is not in the Torah is false. The only Laws applicable to mankind is Laws of Moses.

Sutra 4 : Only Theravada is the path which can give freedom from dukkha. Anyone who is not a Theravadin is in delusion. There was no Buddha before Gautam Buddha & there won't be another after him. All Buddhas from Mahayana Buddhism & Vajrayana Buddhism & also all enlightened beings from any other religion are actually in delusion.

-----------------------------------------------------

Do you find a similarity here ? Now I understand, Theravada Buddhism is not much different from Abrahmic religions.

That is some enlightenment ! :D

OM

shian
26 July 2009, 08:09 AM
You not understand what Mahayana said about pray to Bodhisattvas and Devas.
That is very different with your mind about pray.

So wasting time,
if you belief that so you can do that.

because i just believe in what the benefit you get in life from anythings teachings

what you get for your mind

i not believe in what such a superior and inferior theory

i just believe in quality of our mind

because i see many peoples who so smart to talk about what ever Dharma but mind also still like mad horse

Eastern Mind
26 July 2009, 08:19 AM
i just believe in quality of our mind



Absolutely!

atanu
26 July 2009, 11:15 AM
Namaste friend

The Buddha said we should only have ourselves as refuge (conventional speak) via the four foundations of mindfulness, NOT by praying or invoking so called "bodhisattvas" to help

If you like he taught "Self" reliance

The only refuge from ALL dukkha is the teachings of Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha with your "Self" as refuge (via method described above) however not all can do this so the protection of police etc are needed to minimize suffering to some degree for those who cannot fully overcome it via Dhamma


Namaste anicca,

That is a big jump. Brahmacharya means just that: Dhamma and Sangha with your "Self" as refuge However, another leap may be required before we (me most) can discriminate the product (self-panchakosha) and the supportless (Self). IMO, there is also good value in someone's observation that just as we seek support in pillars of society, we may also profitably seek support from good teachers, who add value towards the above discriminative process.

Om Namah Shivaya

Anicca
26 July 2009, 01:15 PM
Sutra 4 : Only Theravada is the path which can give freedom from dukkha. Anyone who is not a Theravadin is in delusion. There was no Buddha before Gautam Buddha & there won't be another after him. All Buddhas from Mahayana Buddhism & Vajrayana Buddhism & also all enlightened beings from any other religion are actually in delusion.


Now now, when did i say that only Theravada can do this, as i said the Buddha told us that wherever there are people following the Noble Eight Fold Path, there you will find arahants


Mahayana and Vajrayana does have the NEFP, the problem lies in the fact that a lot of their doctrines and sutras are superfluous and have some contents that lead off the path, however the path is still there for those who want to follow it


The Buddhas in the Mahayana and Vajrayana are later additions. There were past Buddhas and future Buddhas, i never said there wasnt

However the one that mahayana go on about werent mentioned by the Buddha. Also there are none in this current age because there can only be one Buddha in each age, not loads of Buddhas at once all over the place. Buddha said this, of course Mahayana and Vajrayana just ignore this




also all enlightened beings from any other religion are actually in delusion.

If they assume some kind of Self or self then im afraid so

Anicca
26 July 2009, 01:24 PM
Vajrayana does not have sutras - only tantras.


Do you know what you are talking about? Vajrayana is just "uncommon" mahayana.


Semantics, the Buddha never taught Tantra, Tantra was just absorbed into Buddhism by some Buddhists


Strange how we dont hear the Buddha teaching anything like it in the earliest material and its only in texts that appear hundreds of years later that we find any mention of it


The scholar A. K. Warder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._K._Warder) gives the following reasons for not accepting the Mahayana Sutras as giving a historical account of events in the life of Gautama Buddha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana_Sutras#cite_note-13):

It is a curious aspersion on the powers of the Buddha that he failed to do what others were able to accomplish 600 years later.
Linguistically and stylistically the Mahayana texts belong to a later stratum of Indian literature than the Tripitaka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripitaka) known to the early schools (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_schools_of_Buddhism).
Everything about early Buddhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Buddhism), and even the Mahayana itself (with the exception of the Mantrayana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantrayana)), suggests that it was a teaching not meant to be kept secret but intended to be published to all the world, to spread enlightenment.
We are on safe ground only with those texts the authenticity of which is admitted by all schools of Buddhism (including the Mahayana, who admit the authenticity of the early canons as well as their own texts), not with texts accepted only by certain schools.
Mahayana developed gradually out of one, or a group, of the eighteen early schools (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Buddhist_Schools), and originally it took its stand not primarily on any new texts but on its own interpretations of the universally recognised Tripitaka.

Not saying it cant be helpful to some, put the myth that Vajrayana (and mahayana) was kept secret because people at the time wouldnt understand it and is superior to Theravada and the nikayas is absurd


Now of course Theravada isnt the complete original word of the Buddha but the nikayas (which were the core of all early schools) it sticks to are the oldest material there is and are the closest there is to the original teachings, teachings that Mahayana and Vajrayana contradict on many occasions

metta

Anicca
26 July 2009, 02:39 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Buddhist_Schools



Scroll down to the bottom it has a good chart

shian
26 July 2009, 08:56 PM
Annica, how come you can sure that all in the Theravada Tripitaka is originaly from Buddha self ?

how come you can sure that 8 noble path is speak from Gotama Buddha?

the scholar said ?

are you even research it by your self ?

and how come you can know that 8 noble path or even Caturaryasatyani is can lead you tu Nirvana ?

TatTvamAsi
26 July 2009, 11:01 PM
I have never been a Christian (strange how you assume everyone in the west must be one)I am actually an atheist, never really believed in any God, even less since i went to Buddhism

So you were born an athiest? LOL.. Where did you grow up again? Just because you ran away from your culture doesn't mean you have really dissociated your latent tendencies from that.



LOL! Sorry its just this is the first time in my life that i have been accused of being a bible thumper, as i said i have never been a christian and i used to heavily criticise the bible and Theistic religions in general

Yet your dogmatism towards Theravada Buddhism makes you even worse than a fundamentalist christian. As I said, whether you thump a bible or the "suttas", the fact remains that you are still thumping a philosophy; i.e. claiming exclusivity in the guise of Buddha "dhamma" lol..

This is what happens when you have westerners flocking over from a spiritual wasteland to the lush forests of the East, especially India; there is still confusion! ;)



Usual tactic here, put down a religion to make it less threatening. Cant really have a discussion with these kinds of comments since they arent about dialogue but simple attacks

Yawn! I am not putting down Buddhism. I just stated it is non-different from Hindu philosophy. Perhaps you misunderstood! The fact is still that Buddhism arose from Hinduism and is repackaged Hinduism for the orientals.

Your understanding, or rather the lack thereof, like the other converts to Buddhism may be fine to you and people like you. However, you cannot disprove thousands of years of philosophy of the Vedas which have been affirmed and reaffirmed by crores of enlightened beings in India.

Isn't it also strange that there has been no real enlightened being in the west? lol..

devotee
27 July 2009, 12:15 AM
Now now, when did i say that only Theravada can do this, as i said the Buddha told us that wherever there are people following the Noble Eight Fold Path, there you will find arahants

Your posts indicated that Only Theravadin know the Truth & hence other are in a delusion to the extent they don't conform to Theravadin theory. Do you subscribe to this view or not ? Please give your answer in Yes or No.



Mahayana and Vajrayana does have the NEFP, the problem lie in the fact that a lot of their doctrines and sutras are superfluous and have some contents that lead off the path, however the path is still there for those who want to follow it

Please read the highlighted part of your post. Who are you to decide whether they are superfluous or necessary ? Are you a spokesperson of Buddha ? How can you claim that Buddha said only what you claim that he said ? May be he said but Theravadins missed it. May be the teachings of Buddha were not complete in itself & there was a need to have those valuable additions later on ?

You are not even an enlightened being & you acquire rights to criticise the theories taught by enlightened beings who were never anyway less in comparison to Gautam Buddha ? This shows your ignorance & arrogance.


The Buddhas in the Mahayana and Vajrayana are later additions.
However the one that mahayana go on about werent mentioned by the Buddha. Also there are none in this current age because there can only be one Buddha in each age, not loads of Buddhas at once all over the place. Buddha said this, of course Mahayana and Vajrayana just ignore this

Because Mahayana & Vajrayana were able to understand Gautam Buddha better than Theravadins, IMO. If you consider that Gautam Buddha was any way superior to any of the Buddha/enlightened beings later on, I am afraid, you really don't understand Buddhism. Does Buddhism teach attachment to a name & form e.g. Gautam Buddha ?


If they assume some kind of Self or self then im afraid so

This dogmatic belief puts you in the category of the extremists of the Abrahamic religions & also shows how deluded you are ! There have been enlightened beings even in Islam & Christianity. You better understand that enlightenment is not a proprietary article of Theravada Buddhism.

Anicca
27 July 2009, 12:36 PM
Namaste



So you were born an athiest? LOL.. Where did you grow up again? Just because you ran away from your culture doesn't mean you have really dissociated your latent tendencies from that.


Everyone is born an atheist since atheism is a lack of belief in something, no one is born believing in gods, just as no one is born beliveing in astrology, tarrot cards or communism. Another assumption of yours that im "running away". Im in no rebellion i just do not believe in any god/godess, another false dichotomy you have here, similar to the extreme religious view of "no religion = immoral/amoral"

I grew up in the UK, most people in the uk (in my generation at least) are athiest or irreligious




Yet your dogmatism towards Theravada Buddhism makes you even worse than a fundamentalist christian. As I said, whether you thump a bible or the "suttas", the fact remains that you are still thumping a philosophy; i.e. claiming exclusivity in the guise of Buddha "dhamma" lol..

If you want to ignore historical research and believe the mahayana/vajrayana fairy tales thats up to you, I myself prefer facts not wish thinking

Do i know that Theravada is the only way, no i dont and i never said it is. However i do know that in the earliest reliable material (which is shared by all buddhist schools) the Buddha said that only those who follow the NEFP can reach nibbana (mahayana and Vajrayana is included in this since they have the NEFP). Since im a buddhist its part of the teaching i take on board



This is what happens when you have westerners flocking over from a spiritual wasteland to the lush forests of the East, especially India; there is still confusion!

Once again generalizing whole populations. Your also once again asserting your own dogma here, lets turn this back on yourself, who are you to assert that the west is a "spiritual wasteland"? Bit fundementalist and dogmatic isnt it?



Yawn! I am not putting down Buddhism. I just stated it is non-different from Hindu philosophy. Perhaps you misunderstood! The fact is still that Buddhism arose from Hinduism and is repackaged Hinduism for the orientals.

Way different, but i guess some people find it scary to admit this since for some bizzare reason they think that if it is different it somehow contradicts there own belief, instead of allowing this they just claim that its all just hinduism, thus sneakily assuming the superiority of their own religon over all other religious and philosophical thought



Your understanding, or rather the lack thereof, like the other converts to Buddhism may be fine to you and people like you. However, you cannot disprove thousands of years of philosophy of the Vedas which have been affirmed and reaffirmed by crores of enlightened beings in India.

Once again assuming you know more than a tradition that has stood for 2,500 years. Your arrogance is astounding here. As for the Vedas im not trying to disprove them, this seems to be a fundemental point of this whole thread that keeps getting missed (or ignored). What i am saying is that Buddhism isnt part of the Vedic tradition, for some reason some people here seem to take that as meaning that Hinduism is false which is yet again a false dichotomy




Isn't it also strange that there has been no real enlightened being in the west? lol..

Ever read any greek philosophy?

Anicca
27 July 2009, 12:55 PM
Namaste



Your posts indicated that Only Theravadin know the Truth & hence other are in a delusion to the extent they don't conform to Theravadin theory. Do you subscribe to this view or not ? Please give your answer in Yes or No.


No i dont believe that. What i believe is that those that stick to the Nikayas are on safer ground than those that adhere to the later sutras. I also said that any who follow the NEFP can reach nibbana

The Nikayas BTW are held to be true by all schools. Theravada only gets its teachings from the Nikayas while mahayana and Vajrayana except later texts, a long with the myth that these texts were kept hidden in secret because others wouldnt understand them and that those who follow Theravada follow a "lesser Vehicle"




Please read the highlighted part of your post. Who are you to decide whether they are superfluous or necessary ? Are you a spokesperson of Buddha ? How can you claim that Buddha said only what you claim that he said ? May be he said but Theravadins missed it. May be the teachings of Buddha were not complete in itself & there was a need to have those valuable additions later on ?

Because the Buddhas teaching was basic (in a manner of speaking). Dukkha and its quenching via the NEFP. The later texts add so much stuff on top of this such as Buddha realms, Buddha nature, praying to gods etc that it complicated what didnt really need complicating, adding to what was already perfect (the Buddha btw said he didnt hold any teachings back and that it was perfect as it was).


Perhaps the teachings of Theravada does go off a little bit, i in fact agree with this in some aspects. However the material the Theravadins use to teach, the nikayas, are the oldest texts we have of the Buddhas word (also backed by the chinese version of the nikayas, the Agamas). Texts that are ancient, accepted as authentic by all schools. In fact by ever school of Buddhism that has ever been and yet people ask me to believe mahayana texts that appeared several centuries later, are of an obviously different style and contain concepts that go against the earlier material that is accepted by all buddhists. And the story offered to explain tese texts to back them up?

They wouldnt have understood back then so they were hidden in a secret realm of the nagas



Lets look at the Mahayana and Vajrayana belief that there are many Buddhas at the same time in different parts of the universe. This is backed by their texts, but look at what the nikayas has to say which are the older, earliest material



It is impossible that two rightfully Enlightened Ones should be born in the same world system at one and same time. It is possible that a single rightfully Enlightened One should be born in the world system at one time. (M115)

World system means universe. So here we have a classic example, the older material states that there is only one Buddha at a time in any age, never more than one at the same time. The mahayana texts which are hundreds of years later say there are many Buddhas.

Any one with an ounce of common sense can see that the Mahayana and Vajrayana texts are not the word of the Buddha, they are later material that absorbed other religious teachings. Not saying they werent inspired by the Buddha by some degree but teachings that come from the Buddha, they are not

Also interesting to note that every scholar, who's job involves finding these sort of things out, agree that the Nikayas are more reliable than the later texts and that mahayan and vajrayana dont have teachings that come from the Buddha







Because Mahayana & Vajrayana were able to understand Gautam Buddha better than Theravadins, IMO.

We can only move away from the Buddhas teachings not further towards it if we start to go off and form our own opinions on the Dhamma, which are coloured by conditioning of the mind. This is what mahayana basically is, monks and nuns philosopy and personal opinions about the nature of the Buddhadhamma



If you consider that Gautam Buddha was any way superior to any of the Buddha/enlightened beings later on, I am afraid, you really don't understand Buddhism


Your words not mine


Does Buddhism teach attachment to a name & form e.g. Gautam Buddha ?

No it teaches the opposite, but detachment doesnt mean you can run off and start making up other Buddhas that you think are out there




This dogmatic belief puts you in the category of the extremists of the Abrahamic religions & also shows how deluded you are ! There have been enlightened beings even in Islam & Christianity. You better understand that enlightenment is not a proprietary article of Theravada Buddhism.

All beings find nibbana through the NEFP, there is no other way

Buddhas words, agree or disagree thats up to you. I however find it more delusional to believe the warm and fuzzy view of "all is one". It may sound all nice and good but it doesnt really represent reality


Dont you see your paradoxically enforcing your own dogmatism and fundementalism by trying to tell me what Buddhism is and that "all is one"

Anicca
27 July 2009, 12:58 PM
Annica, how come you can sure that all in the Theravada Tripitaka is originaly from Buddha self ?

I dont claim the Theravada tripitaka is, the nikayas however (which are shared by all schools) is the oldest material there is of his teachings and so is the closest we have to his original word and, in my view and some historical scholars, actually contains his word. This cant be said for the Mahayana and Vajrayana texts


how come you can sure that 8 noble path is speak from Gotama Buddha?

The fact that its been a core principle of every buddhist tradition thats ever existed is pretty strong evidence



and how come you can know that 8 noble path or even Caturaryasatyani is can lead you tu Nirvana ?

Confirmed confidence in the Dhamma and the Buddha and Sangha

devotee
27 July 2009, 09:14 PM
Thanks to Anicca, I think, now, I know fully about an extremist Buddhist sect & my delusion is removed. I think it is a waste of time to go any further. So, I am leaving this thread and making a forecast here :

If tomorrow there can be any danger to this world from Buddhism, it has to be Theravada Buddhism.

And I am serious about it.

OM Peace, Peace, Peace !

Eastern Mind
27 July 2009, 10:37 PM
Which sect are the Sinhalese of Sri Lanka?

TatTvamAsi
28 July 2009, 01:57 AM
You cannot even grasp a simple statement I made. Nobody is born an 'athiest'! The fact that you are from a christian land, britain, by all definition, is a christian country!


Namaste
Everyone is born an atheist since atheism is a lack of belief in something, no one is born believing in gods, just as no one is born beliveing in astrology, tarrot cards or communism. Another assumption of yours that im "running away". Im in no rebellion i just do not believe in any god/godess, another false dichotomy you have here, similar to the extreme religious view of "no religion = immoral/amoral"

I grew up in the UK, most people in the uk (in my generation at least) are athiest or irreligious






If you want to ignore historical research and believe the mahayana/vajrayana fairy tales thats up to you, I myself prefer facts not wish thinking

Do i know that Theravada is the only way, no i dont and i never said it is. However i do know that in the earliest reliable material (which is shared by all buddhist schools) the Buddha said that only those who follow the NEFP can reach nibbana (mahayana and Vajrayana is included in this since they have the NEFP). Since im a buddhist its part of the teaching i take on board

You prefer facts? What about the FACT that buddhism is a darshana of Hindu philosophy, ableit a nastika one?

Secondly, what about the FACT that Buddha was a Hindu in Hindu land (India)?





Once again generalizing whole populations. Your also once again asserting your own dogma here, lets turn this back on yourself, who are you to assert that the west is a "spiritual wasteland"? Bit fundementalist and dogmatic isnt it?

Well, let's see. In the last 3500 years, westerners have been busy pillaging, raping, stealing, and murdering people all over the world. Of course, in the past 50 years (barely), due to the immense wealth (stolen and misappropriated from other countries/lands) in western nations, people from all over the world have flocked to these nations to make a living.

There has been not ONE contribution to humanity by westerners in the past 3500 years spiritually speaking. Of course, if you consider christianity/islam spiritual, well, that is quite laughable. There has not been ONE enlightened saint in the west in the past 3000 years, just charlatans. So, if you ask me, it is quite clear as to why the west is a spiritual wasteland.




Way different, but i guess some people find it scary to admit this since for some bizzare reason they think that if it is different it somehow contradicts there own belief, instead of allowing this they just claim that its all just hinduism, thus sneakily assuming the superiority of their own religon over all other religious and philosophical thought

child,

the only scared one here is you. you are unable to grasp the fact that buddhism is merely an offshoot of Hinduism. Contradicting one's belief? hahha.. the whole point I have been making is that buddhist philosophy is NON-DIFFERENT to HINDU PHILOSOPHY!! How can it contradict each other? it looks like you are the one who assumes buddhist, especially theravada, is superior to other philosophies.





Once again assuming you know more than a tradition that has stood for 2,500 years. Your arrogance is astounding here. As for the Vedas im not trying to disprove them, this seems to be a fundemental point of this whole thread that keeps getting missed (or ignored). What i am saying is that Buddhism isnt part of the Vedic tradition, for some reason some people here seem to take that as meaning that Hinduism is false which is yet again a false dichotomy

Your comprehension of Hinduism (Sanatana Dharma) is NOT; simply, you don't get it. Buddhism is a NASTIKA tradition of Sanatana Dharma. Sorry buddy, but that means it IS a part of Hinduism! Carvaka for example is purely athiestic, yet it is considered, like buddhism, a nastika tradition of Sanatana Dharma.




Ever read any greek philosophy?

Absolutely! And I marvel at the profundity of philosophers who stated that the earth was at the center of the universe! :rolleyes:




[/quote]

TatTvamAsi
28 July 2009, 01:59 AM
Which sect are the Sinhalese of Sri Lanka?

They are mostly theravadins....although there are mahayana buddhists there as well..

btw, the sinhalese are some of the most violent buddhists on the planet; at the forefront of denying rights to the Tamils in Sri Lanka.

TatTvamAsi
28 July 2009, 02:02 AM
All beings find nibbana through the NEFP, there is no other way



If this isn't fanaticism, I don't know what is! :rolleyes:

Anicca
28 July 2009, 07:56 AM
You cannot even grasp a simple statement I made. Nobody is born an 'athiest'! The fact that you are from a christian land, britain, by all definition, is a christian country!

Everyone is born an atheist, even you. Nobody is born with a belief in something since beliefs are acquired later on.


A person born in the USSR wasnt born a communist it would have been acquired later on through conditioning


No one is born believing in any kind of god since by definition atheism is a lack of belief in something, same as not believing in astrology or unicorns


Yes i was born in a Christian country however my contact with it was a bare minimun. My childhood was one of no religion at all, i started mixing with the religions and the religious later on in life



You prefer facts? What about the FACT that buddhism is a darshana of Hindu philosophy, ableit a nastika one?

Secondly, what about the FACT that Buddha was a Hindu in Hindu land (India)?

You havent produced any facts at all. All you have done is voiced your own wish thinking and tried to justify it by the fact that Buddha was simply born in india




Well, let's see. In the last 3500 years, westerners have been busy pillaging, raping, stealing, and murdering people all over the world. Of course, in the past 50 years (barely), due to the immense wealth (stolen and misappropriated from other countries/lands) in western nations, people from all over the world have flocked to these nations to make a living.

No my friend this has been the general state of affairs all over the world. If you think only in the west such things happened and the rest of the world was a paradise then you are very much ignorant of not only history but also human nature

Anyway i dont really want to get into the West v East debate since i dont really see what it has to do with the topic at hand




There has been not ONE contribution to humanity by westerners in the past 3500 years spiritually speaking. Of course, if you consider christianity/islam spiritual, well, that is quite laughable. There has not been ONE enlightened saint in the west in the past 3000 years, just charlatans. So, if you ask me, it is quite clear as to why the west is a spiritual wasteland.

LOL your more extreme than (what people think of) me. I would never make such a bold claim as you do, your hinting at some insecurities about the West in genenral here via your obvious superiority complex



the only scared one here is you. you are unable to grasp the fact that buddhism is merely an offshoot of Hinduism. Contradicting one's belief? hahha.. the whole point I have been making is that buddhist philosophy is NON-DIFFERENT to HINDU PHILOSOPHY!! How can it contradict each other? it looks like you are the one who assumes buddhist, especially theravada, is superior to other philosophies.


Hindu philosophy and Buddhist philosophy are similar, i never had a problem with admiting this. However similarity doesnt mean they are one in the same, a point you fail to grasp. Pretending that they are is just deciet, much better to be honest about these things

Lets not forget that not one piece of evidence has been presented to back up the claim that they are other than "I think .... means this" or "Buddha wouldnt have said this" or "This is what i think is true"

These are all fallacies and personal opinions and are not facts based on comparrison of the texts and teachings of the two traditions

There has been some comparrison by some memebers here however as i pointed out, at the core, they diverge. No Self in Buddhism and not having a belief or assumption of Self/Brahman at all

When i have pointed out where they diverge, and diverge they do, people fall into false dichotomies



Your comprehension of Hinduism (Sanatana Dharma) is NOT; simply, you don't get it. Buddhism is a NASTIKA tradition of Sanatana Dharma. Sorry buddy, but that means it IS a part of Hinduism! Carvaka for example is purely athiestic, yet it is considered, like buddhism, a nastika tradition of Sanatana Dharma.

And i wonder how follwers of Carvaka would have responded if you met them with the same charge. If we are talking about them all belonging together because of geography and culture then thats fine but if we are talking about them all teaching the same thing and having the same philosophy then this doesnt work, even more obviously so with the Carvaka's




Absolutely! And I marvel at the profundity of philosophers who stated that the earth was at the center of the universe!

As if eastern philosophers didnt also make errors and come up with bizzare things?


metta

Anicca
28 July 2009, 07:57 AM
If this isn't fanaticism, I don't know what is! :rolleyes:



Then you call Buddha a fanatic

Anicca
28 July 2009, 08:04 AM
Thanks to Anicca, I think, now, I know fully about an extremist Buddhist sect & my delusion is removed. I think it is a waste of time to go any further. So, I am leaving this thread and making a forecast here :

If tomorrow there can be any danger to this world from Buddhism, it has to be Theravada Buddhism.

And I am serious about it.

OM Peace, Peace, Peace !


No real danger, Theravada doesnt attempt to impose beliefs on others (by saying your all actually Theravadins). Theravada accepts the fact that people have different beliefs and there are different teachings in the world. People can come to Buddhism or can not come, take it or leave it its up to the individual


Its quite a clever slight of hand you have done here, paint me as a dogmatic fundementalist when its actually the other way around. An ingrained refusual to accept the fact that not everything is hinduism and not every person agrees with your POV.

In essence all i have done here is firstly put forth the Theravada/Buddha's teachings and secondly deny the claim that Buddhism is Hinduism based on a lack of any credible evidence

Because of doing this there has been an uproar and non stop attempt to back me down from this, when this has failed there was an attempt to move on to demonize me as some kind of fanatic, which im not


Saying that blue and green are different colours is not fanaticism, its telling the truth and being honest. Pretending they are one and the same is being dishonest


metta

Anicca
28 July 2009, 08:05 AM
Which sect are the Sinhalese of Sri Lanka?



Theravada with some mahayana minority


Theravada is sri lanka, thailand, burma, cambodia, laos


Mahayana and Vajrayana is tibet, china, japan, korea

Anicca
28 July 2009, 08:30 AM
They are mostly theravadins....although there are mahayana buddhists there as well..

btw, the sinhalese are some of the most violent buddhists on the planet; at the forefront of denying rights to the Tamils in Sri Lanka.



Another sweeping generalization of an entire group, you seem to be quite good at these. Another false dichotomy again

atanu
28 July 2009, 08:47 AM
Its quite a clever slight of hand you have done here, paint me as a dogmatic fundementalist when its actually the other way around. An ingrained refusual to accept the fact that not everything is hinduism and not every person agrees with your POV.

metta

Namaste anicca,

I have wondered what has impelled you to persist and post rejoinder after rejoinder, when as per you there is no essence/self beneath this Universe? Why all this empty verbal war? Will it take you beyond dukkha?

Also, you are misleading people. Buddhism and Hinduism, as the names imply have differences, just as anicca and atanu have differences of name and form. But, the point (at least of this fellow atanu) is that Buddha's teaching is not what is not present in Vedas.

Veda teaches: The Truth is one. Sages give it different names. No teaching goes beyond this.

Veda teaches that Atman is not dual. By no means, except by uniting one's mind with one's own self, one can discern that there are no separate selves. And also that the Self is all pervasive, devoid of bones, and subtle like air or sun light and not localised and particulate, as the perception tells us.

That Buddha did not have to consult Veda is not a big deal. Gita says: What use is Veda to one who has known the Atman. Similarly, in modern times there has been a sage, who did not study Vedanta/veda but experienced one unbroken Self and then found his experience taught in Vedas/Upanishads. It's no big deal for believers like us who know that the particular incarnation in a particular body is not the first one. There might have been solid learning in earlier incarnations.

In summary, Veda teaches of an indescribale indivisible unborn, unchangeable, unmade entity/non-entity that is the true substratum timelessly for all phenomenom, which come and go. Veda teaches that this True is called by different names by sages. Veda teaches that this must be known.

No other knowledge is beyond this.

metta

Om Namah Shivaya

Anicca
28 July 2009, 11:09 AM
Namaste anicca,

I have wondered what has impelled you to persist and post rejoinder after rejoinder, when as per you there is no essence/self beneath this Universe? Why all this empty verbal war? Will it take you beyond dukkha?

Also, you are misleading people. Buddhism and Hinduism, as the names imply have differences, just as anicca and atanu have differences of name and form. But, the point (at least of this fellow atanu) is that Buddha's teaching is not what is not present in Vedas.

Veda teaches: The Truth is one. Sages give it different names. No teaching goes beyond this.

Veda teaches that Atman is not dual. By no means, except by uniting one's mind with one's own self, one can discern that there are no separate selves. And also that the Self is all pervasive, devoid of bones, and subtle like air or sun light and not localised and particulate, as the perception tells us.

That Buddha did not have to consult Veda is not a big deal. Gita says: What use is Veda to one who has known the Atman. Similarly, in modern times there has been a sage, who did not study Vedanta/veda but experienced one unbroken Self and then found his experience taught in Vedas/Upanishads. It's no big deal for believers like us who know that the particular incarnation in a particular body is not the first one. There might have been solid learning in earlier incarnations.

In summary, Veda teaches of an indescribale indivisible unborn, unchangeable, unmade entity/non-entity that is the true substratum timelessly for all phenomenom, which come and go. Veda teaches that this True is called by different names by sages. Veda teaches that this must be known.

No other knowledge is beyond this.

metta

Om Namah Shivaya


Hey

I really dont have a problem with the above because, as you say, thats what Vedanta teaches which is fine, i respect that. However others here cant seem to bear the fact that I and Theravada do not agree with the above. They dont seem to respect the fact that not everyone agree's with them and have tried to paint me/Theravada as fundementalist and evil because of it


The reason i have been answering is because i dont like to leave posts unanswered since its like im ignoring them

metta

TatTvamAsi
28 July 2009, 03:31 PM
Then you call Buddha a fanatic

Wait, you're Buddha? hahaha.. now I see it all!

TatTvamAsi
28 July 2009, 03:33 PM
Another sweeping generalization of an entire group, you seem to be quite good at these. Another false dichotomy again

You haven't the slightest clue as to what the Tamils in sri lanka have faced and are still facing. I suggest you don't talk about this. have you been to sri lanka? have you seen the tamils there and the buddhist 'monks'? the only false dichotomy is your presumptousness in understanding buddhist philosophy and claiming to "educate" others on what it is.

Sherab
28 July 2009, 03:49 PM
You haven't the slightest clue as to what the Tamils in sri lanka have faced and are still facing. I suggest you don't talk about this. have you been to sri lanka? have you seen the tamils there and the buddhist 'monks'? the only false dichotomy is your presumptousness in understanding buddhist philosophy and claiming to "educate" others on what it is.
Maybe you should share, with images :)

TatTvamAsi
28 July 2009, 03:49 PM
No my friend this has been the general state of affairs all over the world. If you think only in the west such things happened and the rest of the world was a paradise then you are very much ignorant of not only history but also human nature

Anyway i dont really want to get into the West v East debate since i dont really see what it has to do with the topic at hand

you are thoroughly clueless and ignorant about the history of India. Name ONE country India has invaded & conquered in its hoary past! Name ONE Hindu king that has waged war against others on a religious basis. All wars in India (Hindu India) were dharmic. Until the onset of the barbarians (musilms/christians/communists), there was no unnecessary bloodshed.

India was most definitely a paradise before 600 AD. That is why, after all, that that charlatan jesus christ himself came to India to learn under the gurus there!

India was a paradise because it was the richest country, spiritually and materially until the 1800s. Where did that rapist christopher columbus try to go to? Oh that's right, INDIA! Where was the first center of learning? Nalanda & Takshashila; again in India! Look, don't even try to give this, "o all were the same" bilge. Thousands of years ago, westerners were living in caves when Indians were meditating on the nature of reality on the banks of the Saraswati and Sarayu. I believe you were interested in facts; so here they are.


LOL your more extreme than (what people think of) me. I would never make such a bold claim as you do, your hinting at some insecurities about the West in genenral here via your obvious superiority complex


Nice way of dodging the question! Still cannot name anyone who has been enlightened in the west I see.




As if eastern philosophers didnt also make errors and come up with bizzare things?



wow, how factual and to the point! :rolleyes:

you, as you have accused me, have presented NO facts to back up your petty retort! What errors? Which philosophers? Is this why you ran away from your identity and adopted Buddhism? LOL the hypocrisy.

JAI HIND!

Sherab
28 July 2009, 04:07 PM
Hi tat, and where does this place western hindus?

Does the fact we're not Indian mean we do not have superior ancestors?

Or because we are hindu, we are now part of a family?

Do explain. :)

TatTvamAsi
28 July 2009, 10:07 PM
Hi tat, and where does this place western hindus?

Does the fact we're not Indian mean we do not have superior ancestors?

Or because we are hindu, we are now part of a family?

Do explain. :)

there is no such thing as a 'western hindu'. that's some name you westerners give yourselves. A Hindu can only be BORN a Hindu. Through thousands of lifetimes of penance, devotion, and surrender (of the ego). What 99.99% of westerners exhibit is the antithesis to these qualities. Of course, you will have an anomaly here or there but that is not the rule. This is exemplified in people like "Anicca" because of their rajasic nature; or in kindergarten terms, unwillingness to let go of their latent tendencies (vasanas).

Of course, my interpretation of these things is orthodox so if you get some lib Indian "Hindu" to answer, they will say you are the "same". Modern India is totally unrepresentative of what India was great for; due to the muslims/christians/communists in number and power. Just because some organization says "we convert people to Hinduism" doesn't mean it actually does. I can claim to beat Lebron James in basketball. You'll believe it when you see it; I hope.

Remember, being a Hindu, apart from relations and birth, is about nature of being; SATTVIC. I am not a paradigm of this but since I'm surrounded by beasts day-in and day-out (outside of home), I have had to grow a 'thick skin' if you will! :D

At the end of the day, almost all westerners are NOT sattvic and therefore not Hindu. "Who is a Hindu?" One who is SATTVIC in nature and EXPERIENCES the divinity in ALL THINGS. This is VERY DIFFERENT to pretending to be nice to everyone on the basis of this statement. This at first may seem contradictory to you since you will ask, "well, we are humans too so why can't you see the divinity in us?" I just have to say it is quite hidden and muddled!..

From my experience, westerners who jump ship to Eastern philosophy always assume a role of interpreter and teacher and start pontificating to others not only outside of the philosophy but the practitioners themselves! What arrogance! They always pretend to know more than the practitioners themselves, they start controlling the atmosphere in discussion, worship, classes etc. This is purely rajasic in nature and therefore UN-Hindu. Yoga is a great example of this. Westerners who practice yoga (asanas actually as no westerner has the slightest clue as to what yoga really is) are such dunces that they cannot even pronounce the names of the asanas properly. Secondly, they claim to know what Yoga is about and go around spreading absolute bilge like "Yoga has nothing to do with Hinduism" and claim to be "yoga teachers". hahahha Ahh.. it's disgusting in my opinion. That jeebus' quote comes to mind here: "DON'T THROW PEARL BEFORE SWINE!".

I still cannot understand why Yogananda and Mahesh Yogi went to the west to teach Yogasana?

Getting back on track:

I commend some of you westerners for being able to break the mold you were brought up in (christianity) and question the nature of existence and ask deeper questions. This has naturally brought you toward Hinduism. However, you see that many modernized & educated westerners have still not given up the tendencies of religious fanaticism. This can be demonstrated by imposition of governance, laws, agreements between countries etc. Imposing christianity and imposing democracy are equally bad. They presuppose one philosophy or form of government is better/higher than the other! The so-called pluralism nonsense in the west is such a joke as it never really allows true assimilation by immigrants. I'm not complaining as Hindus are the highest educated and wealthiest minority in the US! ;)

Let me tell you what Hinduism is about. In any western country (US, UK, Australia etc.), when one immigrates to that country, one HAS to adapt to their culture, way of life, food to a certain extent, dress code, laws etc. Since when have westerners gone to another country (not in the west) and adapted to the NATIVE country's ways? N-E-V-E-R! instead, they try to impose their ways on the natives! This is sickening and despicable. Everyone else has to adjust but you people don't have to? LOL.. how is that "Hindu"? Whereas in India, each group can be THEMSELVES; their culture, their religion, their food, their way of life! It is TRULY diverse; not like the feigned diversity in the west where each group has its own enclave.

Remember, ultimately, we are all better off with our own kind! There is a fundamental difference between reading/discussing Hinduism and actually practicing it. I highly doubt that any westerner who claims he is a Hindu actually practices it, or at least, practices it correctly philosophically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually.

There is a reason why the Ulemas in Mecca have said that the Qu'ran cannot be interpreted by anyone outside of the faith & culture. If they allowed it, you would have a thousand westerners writing about what they 'perceive' islam to be and not what it is according to the muslims themselves. Of course, I don't care two hoots about the muslims.

Hindus unfortunately never did this and therefore we have all sorts of scumbags like wendy doniger & co. writing absolute trash about Hinduism, Hindu culture, and Indians! Tell me, does Ganesha look like he enjoys oral sex because of his "limp phallus" aka his trunk? That is the interpretation of these scum at places like Univ. of Chicago and Harvard etc. These westerners claim to be interpreting Hinduism for the masses of the world and what's infinitely worse, for Hindus themselves!

And if Hindus react, "OH FUNDAMENTALIST! OH HINDUTVA! OH HINDU TERRORIST!"

So, long post short, I consider a person Hindu only if he/she is born in India to Hindu parents with legitimate ancestry. We Hindus can track our ancestry back to the SAPTA-RISHIS....according to our "gotra".. what's your gotra? Valhalla?

devotee
28 July 2009, 11:17 PM
Namaste,

With due respect to all western Hindus (is it necessary to use the term "eastern or "western"), I and a majority of Hindus do not subscribe to the views expressed by TTA above.

Let us not forget that Hindus were the one who proclaimed, " Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam" ===> the whole earth is one family. It is the Hindus who proclaimed, "That Thou Art" ! It is the Hindus who first proposed that all labels must be stripped off for knowing the essence. We Hindus said, "Jaat na Puchho Saadhu ki" ==> never ask the caste of a Saint. We were the first to say, "There is no You, He, I, She or They. Seeing the difference is illusion". How can there be difference among us, spiritually, just because we are born in different countries ?

All born-Hindus are not Sattvik & neither all so-called Western Hindus are rajasik/tamasik. The Indian Hindu society does have good & bad people as any society has. Any sense of superiority with regard to race, region, skin is simply a delusion.

I don't believe that one becomes Hindu just by being born to a Hindu parent. A Hindu is one who accepts the Hindu way of life ... who believes in the authority of the Vedas, who knows, understands & respects our scriptures. And keeping this in mind, I find many born-Hindus as really Non-Hindu & many so called westerners as pure Hindu.

On this forum itself, I consider Yajvan ji, Eastern Mind, Znanana etc. better Hindus than millions of born-Hindus in India. ..... And when the great Hindu Gurus like Swami Vivekananda, Maharishi Yogananda, Swami Lakshmanjoo, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Jiddu Krishnamurthy & many others didn't consider them different, who are we to say anything in contradiction ? Are we more knowledgeable/enlightened than them ? Let's not forget that Swami Vivekananda & Maharishi Yogananda were ordered by their Gurus to travel to west to spread the message of Vedanta. Why ? Why Sister Nivedita remained one of the most favoured disciple of Swami Vivekananda ? Why YSS/SRF was entrusted to a "westerners" than to a "born" Hindu ?

I think if Max Muller would not have taken pains to do research on our hundreds of scriptures, many of our scriptures would have been lost to dust of time. The total money spent in getting the authentic books & their translation ran into hundreds of thousands of Rupees & more than 30 years of time. Why not this work was undertaken by the rich Kings of India at that time who were mainly interested in indulging in wine & women & fighting among themselves ? I bow to Max Muller with reverence whenever I remember the sacrifice made by him for the cause of the Hindus.

I don't want any argument here but I just wanted to express my views because I feel the views expressed by TTA may hurt sentiments of people who are not born Hindu, but certainly better Hindus than most of us.

Finally, I must also say I love TTA for his love for Hindu culture, India & our religion but we do have differences.

OM

atanu
29 July 2009, 02:10 AM
Hey

I really dont have a problem with the above because, as you say, thats what Vedanta teaches which is fine, i respect that. However others here cant seem to bear the fact that I and Theravada do not agree with the above. They dont seem to respect the fact that not everyone agree's with them and have tried to paint me/Theravada as fundementalist and evil because of it
The reason i have been answering is because i dont like to leave posts unanswered since its like im ignoring them

metta

Namaste anicca,

There is a fundamental gap in understanding. It is not necessary that when I present myself as a proponent of Advaita Vedanta, it is actually that. Similarly when you represent Theravada, you may be coloring it. More so, when you claim to represent Buddha.

We have seen that Buddha teaches that "The self cannot be found separate from the idea of change." Now two diametrically opposite understandings emerge:

1. Your View: Self is non-existent.

2. Our View: Self is in the fabric of of the idea of change. The idea of change cannot sprout in absence of Self.

------------------------------
A little bit of contemplation will indicate as to which is correct.


Vedanta teaches:

To pitch darkness they go who worship the Unmanifested (Prakriti). To a greater darkness than this go those who are devoted to the Manifested (Hiranyagarbha).

Different indeed, they say, is the result (attained) by the worship of the Manifested and different indeed, they say, is the result (attained) by the worship of the Unmanifested. Thus have we heard from the wise who had explained it to us.

He who knows both the Unmanifested and the destructible manifested (Hiranyagarbha) together, transcends death by the (worship of) the destructible and attains immortality by the (worship of ) the Unmanifested.

I request you to read the above carefully.

Some religions appear to teach or to emhasize only worship/adoration/faith of the Unmanifest. They are all violent religions. Till one sees the TRUTH embedded in every aspect of life and Universe, one will be hatredful, arrogant, spiteful, irritated, and violent. Because, the underlying unity in the manifestation is not understood by such people.

Om Namah Shivaya

Ekanta
29 July 2009, 06:23 AM
Namaste,
I don't want any argument here but I just wanted to express my views because I feel the views expressed by TTA may hurt sentiments of people who are not born Hindu, but certainly better Hindus than most of us.

Finally, I must also say I love TTA for his love for Hindu culture, India & our religion but we do have differences.
OM

We express love according to our capacity.
Another aspect is this: When someone limit what was meant for humanity to a country [talk about limited tamastic view] its adharmic and hence its dharma to speak against it.

Ekanta
29 July 2009, 06:37 AM
Let my clarify a bit. Due to the purity of the rishis in India the Veda was revealed to them. Veda dont belong to India, it belongs to humanity. India received and protected the Veda. This is why I repect India so much. However, the moment you say "Veda, Sattva etc" belong to India, you simply is no hindu anymore. Protecting Veda is admirable, protecting India is admirable. But its not the same thing. Trying to make it the same thing is to miss the point. Veda is universal, India is not. India has a role to play in the drama. Dont confuse the role with the eternal. If God so wished, another country could be chosen.

Eastern Mind
29 July 2009, 07:06 AM
TTA: Thank you for your opinions. Having been around fellow Hindus for over 35 years now, of all creeds and colours, I can tell you quite honestly that I've heard all of your points before.

I've been kicked out of a Hindu Temple, made to feel quite unwelcome, and been given the ugly stare of intolerance enough to make others want to go home. (Well, the one time, I did just go home.) But the overwhelming majority are welcoming, friendly, respectful, even admiring. So all this is nothing new.

However, since you may not have read or heard of some of the counter thoughts to your views, I shall present them here.

1) How then do you view the Mauritians, the Sri Lankans, Pakistani Hindus, the Fijians, the Guyanese, the Jamaicans, the South Africans? I don't mean natives here, but those who were sent out by the British in indentured labour, or were in Pakistan before the divide. The Sri Lankans were there for at least 2000 years.

2) I believe you have a general misunderstanding on the west. It is in part very non-religious, unlike India. I was never baptised in Xianity, never went to church, didn't celebrate Christmas or Easter. My father was an agnostic leaning to atheism. In the west many many people, perhaps 50% or more are like this. It is very unlike India, where religion of some sort is ALL OVER THE PLACE. Have you been to the west? Lived in the west? If you can accuse western scholars of misrepresenting Hinduism (and they certainly do) cannot the opposite hold true?

3) Much of what you say comes across as disguised racism. I have a problem in that because it is so very very surface. When I get stared at or belittled in temples, it is almost always obvious.

4) Do you also believe that once you leave India, you also lose your Hinduism, as some traditionalists believe? This one I find of the more extreme.

5) When I travelled in India on pilgrimage, people asked, "Do you live here?" indicating a certain acceptance of the way I was carrying myself. Would you have been able to accept that a prostration in front of God was sincere, or would you have thought I was faking it for show?

6) I have seen the same attitude for North/South within the Indian community here. I was at a Tamil bhajan a couple of months back, where the Tamil group were renting space in a North Indian temple. (The fact that they had to rent indicates something unto itself.) An elderly man came by and sat beside me with the 'stare' I referred to earlier. He leaned over and asked, in a very condescending tone, "What language is this?" Then he gave me the gruff 'Oh" when I replied. The Tamils were singing ancient thevarams about Siva. Are you also anti-Indian, if they are from somewhere else than your home area?

In the west, where intolerance prevails, there is a saying by bikers: "If it ain't a Harley, it ain't a bike." Translation: If it ain't an Indian Hindi or Sanskrit speaking darker person, it ain't a Hindu."

So, in summary, if I can accept you as you are (and I do) then would it not be courteous of you to do the same of me?

Aum Shanti

Aum Namasivaya

Sherab
29 July 2009, 08:37 AM
TTA:

You actually make a good point about how HINDUS act, and it is also true with BUDDHISM - I was one of those types, always "correcting" people. I agree that westerners may act like that, after hearing you speak, i will be more mindful. Also, EM has covered most of the other parts that I was thinking, in his reply. Overall, i dont think all westerners are that way, maybe just the ones who are not "serious" enough to "lay back"... I guess that happens, eh?

atanu
29 July 2009, 09:11 AM
From my experience, westerners who jump ship to Eastern philosophy always assume a role of interpreter and teacher and start pontificating to others not only outside of the philosophy but the practitioners themselves!

Dear TTA,

That is almost always true with all young souls, from whatever place. Moreover, colder climes and food habit promotes activity in western habitats. Whereas, in India, if one is not careful, the weather easily leads one to sloth.

But generalisation and stereotyping is absolutely wrong. I feel that there is a mix-up between dharmic understanding and political leaning.

Om

devotee
29 July 2009, 09:12 AM
I request Satay to remove all posts which are not connected with the topic of this thread.

We have generated enough hatred by now. Let's stop it & reflect on what we have done here & what the scriptures teach.

OM Shanti, Shanti, Shanti.

atanu
29 July 2009, 09:28 AM
TTA:

You actually make a good point about how HINDUS act, and it is also true with BUDDHISM - I was one of those types, always "correcting" people.

Sherab,

In the film 'Seven years in Tibet', a lady tells the western protagonist of the movie "In your culture, one who moves higher and higher is revered. Here we revere those who successfully renounce the ego."

There is some truth in this generality. That does not of course mean that one way is bad and another good -- it is all in the flow; one stream. The same rajasic soul encounters pain and takes up sattwik ways.

Om Namah Shivaya

TatTvamAsi
29 July 2009, 02:19 PM
Let my clarify a bit. Due to the purity of the rishis in India the Veda was revealed to them. Veda dont belong to India, it belongs to humanity. India received and protected the Veda. This is why I repect India so much. However, the moment you say "Veda, Sattva etc" belong to India, you simply is no hindu anymore. Protecting Veda is admirable, protecting India is admirable. But its not the same thing. Trying to make it the same thing is to miss the point. Veda is universal, India is not. India has a role to play in the drama. Dont confuse the role with the eternal. If God so wished, another country could be chosen.

It is quite funny when you say that "Veda dont belong to India" because if it wasn't for India, there is no Veda. I know this seems very narrow but it is very true. In ancient India, the place was conducive for spiritual progress and enlightenment; hence the great number of rishis, sages, and saints. However, the place that was like a spigot of spirituality in the world (India) also has significance. For example, mount Kailash or Tiruvannamalai, or Kasi (Benares), etc. are places where the spiritual energy is supposed to be very strong and present. Do you think this is coincidental? yes, the name India may be a foreign term but it is no coincidence that Bharat was THE place of spiritual progress.

I don't know about you, but I feel a strong connection to Mother India even when I live abroad. Every time I visit (I lived there till I was 12) tears fill my eyes and my urge to stay in Tiruvannamalai (my father's place of ancestry) is almost uncontrollable. Despite the horrible weather, squalor, noise, pollution, and indifferent public, India is the place I will be born forever; if at all! I may have left India to find greener pastures but the Indian in me forever is!

Loving India doesn't mean I hate others. I love the West for certain reasons which I shall explain shortly.

Namaskar.

TatTvamAsi
29 July 2009, 02:21 PM
Namaste,

With due respect to all western Hindus (is it necessary to use the term "eastern or "western"), I and a majority of Hindus do not subscribe to the views expressed by TTA above.

Let us not forget that Hindus were the one who proclaimed, " Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam" ===> the whole earth is one family. It is the Hindus who proclaimed, "That Thou Art" ! It is the Hindus who first proposed that all labels must be stripped off for knowing the essence. We Hindus said, "Jaat na Puchho Saadhu ki" ==> never ask the caste of a Saint. We were the first to say, "There is no You, He, I, She or They. Seeing the difference is illusion". How can there be difference among us, spiritually, just because we are born in different countries ?

All born-Hindus are not Sattvik & neither all so-called Western Hindus are rajasik/tamasik. The Indian Hindu society does have good & bad people as any society has. Any sense of superiority with regard to race, region, skin is simply a delusion.

I don't believe that one becomes Hindu just by being born to a Hindu parent. A Hindu is one who accepts the Hindu way of life ... who believes in the authority of the Vedas, who knows, understands & respects our scriptures. And keeping this in mind, I find many born-Hindus as really Non-Hindu & many so called westerners as pure Hindu.

On this forum itself, I consider Yajvan ji, Eastern Mind, Znanana etc. better Hindus than millions of born-Hindus in India. ..... And when the great Hindu Gurus like Swami Vivekananda, Maharishi Yogananda, Swami Lakshmanjoo, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Jiddu Krishnamurthy & many others didn't consider them different, who are we to say anything in contradiction ? Are we more knowledgeable/enlightened than them ? Let's not forget that Swami Vivekananda & Maharishi Yogananda were ordered by their Gurus to travel to west to spread the message of Vedanta. Why ? Why Sister Nivedita remained one of the most favoured disciple of Swami Vivekananda ? Why YSS/SRF was entrusted to a "westerners" than to a "born" Hindu ?

I think if Max Muller would not have taken pains to do research on our hundreds of scriptures, many of our scriptures would have been lost to dust of time. The total money spent in getting the authentic books & their translation ran into hundreds of thousands of Rupees & more than 30 years of time. Why not this work was undertaken by the rich Kings of India at that time who were mainly interested in indulging in wine & women & fighting among themselves ? I bow to Max Muller with reverence whenever I remember the sacrifice made by him for the cause of the Hindus.

I don't want any argument here but I just wanted to express my views because I feel the views expressed by TTA may hurt sentiments of people who are not born Hindu, but certainly better Hindus than most of us.

Finally, I must also say I love TTA for his love for Hindu culture, India & our religion but we do have differences.

OM

Namaste Devotee,

I respect your views and thank you for understanding mine.

Namaskar.

Sherab
29 July 2009, 02:38 PM
It is quite funny when you say that "Veda dont belong to India" because if it wasn't for India, there is no Veda. I know this seems very narrow but it is very true. In ancient India, the place was conducive for spiritual progress and enlightenment; hence the great number of rishis, sages, and saints. However, the place that was like a spigot of spirituality in the world (India) also has significance. For example, mount Kailash or Tiruvannamalai, or Kasi (Benares), etc. are places where the spiritual energy is supposed to be very strong and present. Do you think this is coincidental? yes, the name India may be a foreign term but it is no coincidence that Bharat was THE place of spiritual progress.

I don't know about you, but I feel a strong connection to Mother India even when I live abroad. Every time I visit (I lived there till I was 12) tears fill my eyes and my urge to stay in Tiruvannamalai (my father's place of ancestry) is almost uncontrollable. Despite the horrible weather, squalor, noise, pollution, and indifferent public, India is the place I will be born forever! I may have left India to find greener pastures but the Indian in me forever is!

Loving India doesn't mean I hate others. I love the West for certain reasons which I shall explain shortly.

Namaskar.

I think, people who now have western bodies, does not mean they were not in India. I had a divination done (by a tibetan lama), and i lived in the town of Sissu in lahoul-Spiti.

Just because we have western bodies does not mean we are, inside, "not indians".

Namaste

TatTvamAsi
29 July 2009, 03:46 PM
Namaste Eastern Mind,

Let me first say that I respect the fact that you seem like an ardent Hindu despite being born & brought up in the West.

The solution in this argument lies in the shastras. According to the Scriptures, one (the jIvA) chooses where, when, and to whom to be born (to). It is not a coincidence that people are born all over the world and follow their own paths.

I will address your questions below.

1.) People who were taken from India as indentured laborers are still Hindu not just because of their ancestry and birth, but because of their nature of being (SATTVIC) and demeanor. Indians (Hindus) may leave India, but the Indian (Hinduism) doesn't leave us.

Of course, there are exceptions to this as many children born and brought up in the West completely eschew Indian ideals and philosophy and fall for the hedonistic lifestyle prevalent in the West but that is still not indicative of them losing their Hindu'ness'.

2.) I have lived in the US for over a decade (14 years now) and have experienced and been subjected to Western culture in various shapes, ways, and forms. Yes, most youths in the West are not religious, however, replacing their parents' zeal for religion is the cultural identity and way of life. One is not accepted unless one dresses like them, eats like them, talks like them, behaves like them, and in certain cases, even thinks like them! They are a social outcaste if one does not conform to their pre-conceived notions of what is "normal" and what isn't.

In India, this is not true to a large extent. As mentioned earlier, communities that are widely varied in culture, food, dress, demeanor, and thought have coexisted relatively peacefully for thousands of years! I always tell my friends this: "In America, people look different but inside they are the same (culturally); in India, people look the same but are quite different!"

The necessity to conform to one's way of life or culture is NOT pluralistic in the real sense! It is fundamentalism at its worst due to the apparent mirage of "acceptance".

As for scholars, please. Show me one Hindu scholar who has denigrated the jesus myth or has written scathingly about jeebus or that pedophile muhamMAD. Perhaps I should write a book! And then make a movie! Wonder how many OSCARS I would win! ;)

3.) I can honestly say that this is the first time someone has suggested that I am a racist. I truly hold no hate or disdain for others. The mindset of people who think that others should conform to their way is what I despise. I have umteen friends who are white christians and are very friendly. It is just that they, to the fault of Indians themselves to some extent, are woefully ignorant of India and Hinduism. Their false notions have a direct impact on my psyche and consequenlty I am forced to voice my opinion. I usually just tell them to read about Hinduism written by HINDUS, not westerners; ergo, the point of this thread!

4.) As for losing Hindu identity and culture when leaving India, I agree in certain instances (of the modern Indian youth IN India itself and outside). I have seen a wide range of people in the US who are either devout or totally anti-Hindu (Indians themselves). The devout families are busy teaching their children the philosophy and sending them to Bharatanatyam classes or Balavihar and they themselves (the adults) are very culturally aware. The other end of the spectrum includes those who are busy with their careers, drenched in the high of their material success, or drinking, eating meat, and chasing females.

5.) I absolutely accept you prostrating in front of God, in a temple or otherwise. I commend that sincerety and to add to Devotee's point, this sincerety which is lacking in crores of so-called Hindus themselves IN India! At the same time, if you were to hold a talk on Hinduism in a temple and start pontificating I would definitely not be in the audience.

It is just that. I will never "learn" yoga from a westerner. They simply cannot grasp the concept of Yoga and hence will not have the knowledge to really impart to others like a guru. I will learn from Westerners how to manage a business, how to form government, and of course, how to shoot big guns! ;)

Would you learn basketball from a Mexican? I would prefer a black teaching me basketball. Stereotype? May be. True? Absolutely! And, don't quote exceptions as they don't make the rule.

6.) I too have experienced this North vs. South debate and find it quite irritating but it is the fault of Indians, although the British were the first to impose this stupid Aryan invasion myth into the psyche of India, that they are perpetuating it. It is similar to blacks in the US using the word "nigger" as a slang when whites have long stopped its usage. Whose fault is that?

I have even had someone tell me that a Saraswat Brahmin is "higher" than an Iyer or Iyengar! hahaha.. Quite laughable but that's the nature of the beast. Each person thinks highly of himself. Remedy? Yoga & meditation to quell the ego I guess! ;)

As far as accepting you, if you were to visit my home, my family including myself, will gladly invite you inside and treat you as a guest in accordance with the "atitI daivO bhava" principle. It is the Hindu tradition that is alive in us. On that note, I have experienced with westerners where if I were to visit someone, I have been made to stand outside and the person would just chat with the door half-opened. Ignorant? May be. Uncultured? Absolutely! It was such an affront to me the first time that I have now learnt not to react to it (even mentally) as I think of such "people" as uncouth and uncultured.

Namaskar.


TTA: Thank you for your opinions. Having been around fellow Hindus for over 35 years now, of all creeds and colours, I can tell you quite honestly that I've heard all of your points before.

I've been kicked out of a Hindu Temple, made to feel quite unwelcome, and been given the ugly stare of intolerance enough to make others want to go home. (Well, the one time, I did just go home.) But the overwhelming majority are welcoming, friendly, respectful, even admiring. So all this is nothing new.

However, since you may not have read or heard of some of the counter thoughts to your views, I shall present them here.

1) How then do you view the Mauritians, the Sri Lankans, Pakistani Hindus, the Fijians, the Guyanese, the Jamaicans, the South Africans? I don't mean natives here, but those who were sent out by the British in indentured labour, or were in Pakistan before the divide. The Sri Lankans were there for at least 2000 years.

2) I believe you have a general misunderstanding on the west. It is in part very non-religious, unlike India. I was never baptised in Xianity, never went to church, didn't celebrate Christmas or Easter. My father was an agnostic leaning to atheism. In the west many many people, perhaps 50&#37; or more are like this. It is very unlike India, where religion of some sort is ALL OVER THE PLACE. Have you been to the west? Lived in the west? If you can accuse western scholars of misrepresenting Hinduism (and they certainly do) cannot the opposite hold true?

3) Much of what you say comes across as disguised racism. I have a problem in that because it is so very very surface. When I get stared at or belittled in temples, it is almost always obvious.

4) Do you also believe that once you leave India, you also lose your Hinduism, as some traditionalists believe? This one I find of the more extreme.

5) When I travelled in India on pilgrimage, people asked, "Do you live here?" indicating a certain acceptance of the way I was carrying myself. Would you have been able to accept that a prostration in front of God was sincere, or would you have thought I was faking it for show?

6) I have seen the same attitude for North/South within the Indian community here. I was at a Tamil bhajan a couple of months back, where the Tamil group were renting space in a North Indian temple. (The fact that they had to rent indicates something unto itself.) An elderly man came by and sat beside me with the 'stare' I referred to earlier. He leaned over and asked, in a very condescending tone, "What language is this?" Then he gave me the gruff 'Oh" when I replied. The Tamils were singing ancient thevarams about Siva. Are you also anti-Indian, if they are from somewhere else than your home area?

In the west, where intolerance prevails, there is a saying by bikers: "If it ain't a Harley, it ain't a bike." Translation: If it ain't an Indian Hindi or Sanskrit speaking darker person, it ain't a Hindu."

So, in summary, if I can accept you as you are (and I do) then would it not be courteous of you to do the same of me?

Aum Shanti

Aum Namasivaya

Sherab
29 July 2009, 04:15 PM
"It is just that. I will never "learn" yoga from a westerner."

I assume by westerner you mean, a white person doing is a form of exercise, and not as part of ashtanga. I agree with you there, however, im sure there are some good westerners who can teach ashtanga yoga, and are qualified gurus.

TatTvamAsi
29 July 2009, 04:16 PM
Interesting. Well, I agree that in previous lifetimes people may have been born in India etc. However, what is the reason they went 'away'?

And look, my statements are based on the experience I have had with many westerners. As stated before, there may be several examples of great Hindu devotees from the West. I am just saying it is REALLY hard to find them! :)


I think, people who now have western bodies, does not mean they were not in India. I had a divination done (by a tibetan lama), and i lived in the town of Sissu in lahoul-Spiti.

Just because we have western bodies does not mean we are, inside, "not indians".

Namaste

TatTvamAsi
29 July 2009, 04:24 PM
yes, I agree. There are several westerners who do asanas well but that is not all there is to Yoga. And the common misconception is perpetuated by them.

Also, I took a Yoga class once with a westerner, again speaking from experience, and had a western lady next to me in the class and said she was there to get a "toned waist".. I wanted to slap her but I just laughed and ignored it.

LOL..


"It is just that. I will never "learn" yoga from a westerner."

I assume by westerner you mean, a white person doing is a form of exercise, and not as part of ashtanga. I agree with you there, however, im sure there are some good westerners who can teach ashtanga yoga, and are qualified gurus.