PDA

View Full Version : Hi all!



saddha
21 April 2009, 09:02 PM
Hi,

I am a Buddhist, used to be a Hindu. I am not a "neo-Buddhist", but from the Kshatriya kula and a Rama/Shiva Bhakt and worshipped them, chanting their names led me to the Lord Himself in Kaliyuga, Buddha.

I believe in ancient Indian Buddhism.

I thought I'd join the forum to shed some light on INDIAN Buddhism compared to Hinduism...

So if you have any questions, please do ask and I'll try to answer to the best of my ability.

Znanna
25 April 2009, 09:26 PM
Namaste,

What makes INDIAN Buddhism different from just plain old regular Buddhism?

ZN

saddha
26 April 2009, 08:48 AM
Namaste,

What makes INDIAN Buddhism different from just plain old regular Buddhism?

ZN

Wonderful question.


1)Ancient Indian Arya Savaks (Aryan hearers, the perversion of this is called "Buddhists") knew of Buddha as "Bhagavan" or God. In fact, every sutta/sutra begins with, "Evam maya Sutam, ekasmin samaya BHAGAVA viharati sma"...

2)Ancient Indian Buddhism is connected with Rama (Dasaratha Jataka, Buddha reveals HE IS RAMA), it is also connected with Krishna (Sariputta is revealed to have been born as Krishna in Ghata Jataka)

It is also associated with Siva! Nibbana is considered the attainment of Sivam!

For me as a Hindu, I felt at home with all the Gods united in Buddhi -- in Buddha -- and my mind was free from divisions and became one pointed -- to take refuge in Buddha meant to take refuge in the highest truth, the intelligence of God himself -- MY MIND BECAME MONOTHEISTIC. Than I understood true monotheism.

Buddha united Siva, Rama and Krishna in my heart! My meditation became even more powerful.

2)Ancient Indian Arya Savaks did not hide the Dhamma, but preached to all and thought regardless of caste or sex.

Why? Because they thought it their duty to help all beings move towards Bodha Dhamma to relieve their pain and suffering, because they knew how Bodha Dharma helped relieve their own pain and suffering-- it was thought of as the ultimate relief from the pains of Kaliyuga.

That is why Buddha Dharma was the first universal tradition -- it was also the first missionary tradition.

3)Arya Savaka Buddha Dharma of the Indians was full of faith and love for the Buddha as Lord and INDIAN BUDDHISTS DID NOT DENY ATMA!!!

Proof -- READ THE Theragatha/Therigatha and Matrceta's Hymn to Buddha and Ashwaghosha "the Awakening of Faith" in the original language)

An Arahant is one who has FULLY developed Atta (Atma), At the culmination of the path is the Arahant, described as "one of developed self" (bhāvit-atto),
He or she is "self-controlled" (atta-danto) and "with a well-controlled self" (attanā sudantena); and is
"Unlimited, great, deep, immeasurable, hard to fathom, with much treasure, arisen (like the) ocean."

Candrakīrti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candrakirti) contextualises ātman as follows:

Ātman is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature. The non-existence of that is Anatman.

—Bodhisattvayogacaryācatuḥśatakaṭikā256.1.7
Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra Buddha: "... it is not the case that they [i.e. all phenomena] are devoid of the Self. What is this Self? Any phenomenon ["dharma"] that is true ["satya"], real ["tattva"], eternal ["nitya"], sovereign/autonomous ["aishvarya"] and whose foundation is unchanging ["ashraya-aviparinama"] is termed 'the Self' [atman]."

-- So, far from the almost nihilistic FOREIGN BUDDHISM, that only views Buddha as a human teacher who taught there is no soul, Indian Buddhism is full of Love for God (Buddha) and Full of Faith, FULL OF LOVE FOR ALL CREATURES GREAT AND SMALL and FULL OF SOUL!

For me to have discovered this, is like discovering a hidden treasure -- the true meaning of this hidden treasure, can only be understood by Hindus who are Shiva/Rama/Krishna bhakts!

Znanna
26 April 2009, 01:38 PM
Thank you for the explanation.

Sometimes, it is only by understanding what is "not," is what IS, comprehended.

Some traditions named the Buddha as Tathagata (thus-come-one); is this the "almost nihilistic" form or the Indian form of Buddhism to which you refer?




Namaste,
ZN

saddha
26 April 2009, 03:24 PM
Thank you for the explanation.

Sometimes, it is only by understanding what is "not," is what IS, comprehended.

Some traditions named the Buddha as Tathagata (thus-come-one); is this the "almost nihilistic" form or the Indian form of Buddhism to which you refer?




Namaste,
ZN

ALL traditions, from the earliest to the latest, know Buddha as TAT-agatha.

But the foreign Buddhists don't understand this and translate it literally "that has come or that has gone"

Now as Hindus we know what Tat means.

Buddha is "Tat Savitur Varenyam" of the Gayatri which gives Buddhi or divine intelligence.

Buddha is "TAt" of "Tat tvam Asi"

In Gita, "Tat" is the true name of God.

Agatha means has arrived at or come.

Tat-agatha -- the Lord has COME!