When it comes to Buddhism..

[philosoraptor]

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

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

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

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

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

[Jainarayan]

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

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

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

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

[philosoraptor]

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

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

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

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

[devotee]

Namaste SM,

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

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

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

OM

[Twilightdance]

Namaste SM,



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

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

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

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

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

[devotee]

All most everybody in this forum have gone through this reaction from you. When you don't have any arguments left ...

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

OM

[Jainarayan]

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

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

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

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

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

Have a nice life.

[satay]

Admin Note

Thread under review.