Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 78

Thread: When it comes to Buddhism..

  1. #21
    Join Date
    November 2010
    Posts
    1,278
    Rep Power
    1651

    Re: When it comes to Buddhism..

    Quote Originally Posted by Twilightdance View Post
    If one understood Buddhism, one would find the silence of Buddha on topics which Vedanta goes ga-ga over to be one of the subtle and profound parts of Buddhist teachings.
    How is Buddha asking his followers not to speculate on issues subtle and profound? Astika Darshanas, right or wrong, took the bull by its horns and came up with transcendental and metaphysical arguments to support their POV. Too bad Buddha issued diktats to his followers not to speculate on certain issues. Seems cowardly and unworthy of a Kshatriya prince!

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

  2. #22
    Join Date
    November 2007
    Age
    67
    Posts
    844
    Rep Power
    560

    Re: When it comes to Buddhism..

    @Sahas
    There is no need to refer to academic/indological sources, it is according to buddhist tradition that Buddhas teachers (and his family) were shramanas not brahmanas. Indological speculations on the influence of early brahmanism on budhhism and vice versa are not ridicolous, but certainly worth of consideration. What is ridicolous is to assume a historical continuancy or even equivalence of modern popular puranic and agamic Hinduism with the early vedic religion or the early brahmanism of buddhas time.
    Wynne is making his case of the brahmanical origin of Buddhas teachers, (contrary to the statements in the suttas and buddhist tradition, that they were shramanas) based on cross reference to upanishadic statements and the Mokshadharma chapter of the Mahabharata. which is not only contradicting the buddhist tradition but it smacks of revisionism since the Upanishads in their final form (and the Mokshadharma chapter of the Mahabharata) long postdate the buddha and it is far more likely that upanishadic thought in this case (of meditative methods) was influenced by shramanic and buddhist concepts rather then the other way around.
    My quotes are from A. Berzin Website he is an academic but first of all a buddhist practicioner and his website is a recommendable and reliable resource on Buddhism especially regarding topics concerning Mahayana, tantric and tibetan buddhism and Vajrayana.
    http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/index.html)
    Last edited by MahaHrada; 05 December 2012 at 02:32 AM.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    November 2007
    Age
    67
    Posts
    844
    Rep Power
    560

    Re: When it comes to Buddhism..

    Quote Originally Posted by Equinox View Post
    LOL


    To state that Shramanas had no caste differences and lived in forests, and then realising that Siddhartha Gautama aka Buddha was a Kshatriya and lived in a palace is ABSOLUTELY contradicting and ironic.
    Not really, since we are talking about ascetic communities observation of caste distinctions, not about householders. It was the shramana wandering ascetics that lived in communities without observing caste distinctions. These communities were open to all castes at all stages of live, contrary to the brahmanic male solitary ascetics that spent the remaining years of their life, after their household duties, in solitude. Since Buddhas parents were not brahmins but kshatriyas and he left his family when he was young, it further reduces the likelyhood that he could have been a disciple of brahmin ascetics.
    Last edited by MahaHrada; 05 December 2012 at 02:54 AM.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    307
    Rep Power
    385

    Re: When it comes to Buddhism..

    Perhaps I am not making full sense of what you are asking, but will still attempt a semblance of a reply.

    Quote Originally Posted by wundermonk View Post
    Astika Darshanas, right or wrong, took the bull by its horns and came up with transcendental and metaphysical arguments to support their POV.
    This all depends on whether really the questions of existence and eternity of souls & universe represent the proverbial bull - and speculating on them amounts to catching it by its horn. The subtlety and profundity also lies in the same fact.

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

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by questions not answered by the Buddha according to Buddhism
    • the universe is eternal,
    • the universe is not eternal,
    • the universe is finite,
    • the universe is infinite,
    • after death, a Buddha continues to exist,
    • after death, a Buddha does not continue to exist,
    • after death, a Buddha both continues to exist and not to exist,
    • after death, a Buddha neither continues to exist or not to exist,
    • the body and the “self” are the same entity,
    • the body and the “self” are totally separate and different entities.
    Why are you unhappy? Because 99.9 per cent Of everything you think, And of everything you do, Is for yourself —And there isn't one

  5. #25
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    63
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4728

    Re: When it comes to Buddhism..

    Namaste SM,

    Quote Originally Posted by Twilightdance View Post
    Objective of buddha dharma is cessation of suffering not spiritual experiences.
    If you can understand this it should have been clear to you that Buddhism lacks in doctrines on spiritual experiences and still you claim that Vedanta is of no use as compared to Buddhism ! Buddha's aim is limited to cessation of sufferings. Vedanta seeks end of sufferings but also seeks answers to mysteries of the Ultimate Reality. Buddha has no explanation for what the Reality is. If Emptiness is all that exists and there is no-self why seek liberation at all ? Who is bound who is seeking for liberation ??

    OM
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  6. #26
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    63
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4728

    Re: When it comes to Buddhism..

    Namaste,

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

    OM
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  7. #27
    Join Date
    November 2007
    Age
    67
    Posts
    844
    Rep Power
    560

    Re: When it comes to Buddhism..

    Quote Originally Posted by devotee View Post
    Hindu-Monks traditions were called Sramanik traditions
    yes... and christian monks are called Kimonos.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    January 2010
    Location
    tadvishno paramam padam
    Age
    38
    Posts
    2,168
    Rep Power
    2547

    Re: When it comes to Buddhism..

    Quote Originally Posted by devotee View Post
    Namaste,
    Actually all Hindu-Monks traditions were called Sramanik traditions.
    Even though, you don't want me to respond to your posts, I have to say that this is true. Shramana is not a word used exclusively by "non-Hindu" ascetics. Valmiki also calls Hindu ascetics shramanas.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    63
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4728

    Re: When it comes to Buddhism..

    Quote Originally Posted by Sahasranama View Post
    Even though, you don't want me to respond to your posts, I have to say that this is true. Shramana is not a word used exclusively by "non-Hindu" ascetics. Valmiki also calls Hindu ascetics shramanas.
    I have no issues with you if we can talk friendly.

    OM
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  10. #30
    Join Date
    November 2007
    Age
    67
    Posts
    844
    Rep Power
    560

    Re: When it comes to Buddhism..

    Quote Originally Posted by Sahasranama View Post
    Shramana is not a word used exclusively by "non-Hindu" ascetics. Valmiki also calls Hindu ascetics shramanas.
    Which is nothing but a symptom of the early assimillation of non vedic (shramanic) Ideas into Brahmanism /the vedic religion, resulting eventually in the emergence of the medieaveal indian religion we now call "Hinduism" which consist of several puranic and agamic and tantric sectarian religions (shaiva, Vaishnava, shakta, smarta etc) Hinduism is a religion that is an eclectic mix of vedic and non vedic concepts, indigenous indian traditions and the vedic tradition. Non vedic influences are shramanic, as well as tribal concepts with some medieveal and modern sects that are closer to the vedic theistic concepts and others more aligned to non theistic, pre vedic shramanic and tribal concepts. Nowadays Islamic and christian monotheistic ideas have also become an integral part of Hinduism. It does not mean that Hindu Monks are part of the shramana tradition, or buddhism and shramanism is part of an imagined overarching ancient Hindu Dharma that never existed, or Buddha was disciple of vedic teachers and other twisted supremacist, propaganda similar to that. Certainly Buddhism or Jainism and other shramanic tradition, the vedic religion, tribal religions etc. medieveal Hinduism as well, are all part of indian religion or bharata dharma if you so wish. But considering all religions in the history of India being part of a late eclectic development of Indian thought and religion is a supremacist fantasy.
    Last edited by MahaHrada; 05 December 2012 at 06:46 AM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism
    By Nirguna in forum Advaita
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07 December 2013, 02:52 PM
  2. God in Buddhism
    By shian in forum Buddhism
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 19 October 2011, 10:40 PM
  3. Yoga and Buddhism (differences)
    By Bob G in forum Yoga
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04 March 2008, 02:48 AM
  4. Refutation of Dr. Naiks Exposition of Buddhism
    By Vajradhara in forum Islam
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07 April 2006, 04:21 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •