Avalokiteshvara

[Twilightdance]

Looks like we should toss all the Upanishads into hindu ocean and forget about Brahman and pray to Siddhrtha Gautama instead !!
A watered down version of hinduism may not enthrall us, that too with its deletions of large chunks of hindu philosophy. Not sure why would one who already took pains to unerstand his/her own vast faith go down that path. A faith that kept away from dealing with creation and cosmos offers only a truncated version of hinduism nothing more, adopting hindu doctrines (karma, rebirth, nirvana) more less as is. Budha,during his lifetime, had emphasized on Dukha (sorrow) and preached a way around it, now if we consider hindu yamas and niyamas already well reserached before his time, dukha would not enter oneslife, would it. Whereas Advaita vedanta system considers consciousness 'as the very nature of of the soul, knowledge being only a manifestation of or reflection of consciousness on the vritti or modifications of the mind', Buddhism on the other hand reduces it (consciousness) to a mere ' series of momentary cognitions, each revealing itself'. IMHO other Dharmic faiths have very little to offer to hindus.That way abrahamic faiths seem more alien in the comparative religion realm. That said, a hindu can always explore anyother faith in order to be able to appreciate whats unique abou this/her own faith. Namaste.

You seem to think Advaita = Vedanta = Hinduism. This equation is wrong at all places.

Also I am not saying what you or others should or should not believe, what Hinduism is or should be etc. So I don't understand the question of watered down Hinduism etc? Some people claim advaita is watered down Hinduism - lately I somewhat (not fully) agree with them.

I do imply that Buddhism does give much deeper insight into non-dualism than advaita theories in Hinduism does, and this is my opinion.

If you want to challenge that - it is another matter, but I am not saying what Hinduism is or is not, as you seem to imply.

[PARAM]

Buddha was born a Hindu to the Sakya family of Suryavanshi Dynasty, as Siddhartha he studied in Hindu University of Takshila established by Takshal, the grandson of Bhagwan Ram's younger brother Bharata.

Buddha's birth was counted by Hindu Brahmin astrologers, he went to mahabinishkraman only after seeing a Brahmin sanyasi, he learned yoga and teachings from two Vedic Brahmins - Alar Kalam and Rudraka Ramputra, later he established his teachings with the help of five Brahmins - Aanj, Assji, Vapp, Mahanam, and Bhavdiya. Buddha remained Hindu throughout his life just like other spiritual teachers did.

Buddhism was parted away as a different religion in later times when corrupt teachings entered into the followers and they started fighting against Vedic teachings. Roots of Buddhism come from Hinduism and roots of Hinduism come from Vedas.

[shian]

acctually Buddhism is not against Hindu,

i am Buddhist and my Guru never teach me to against Hindu.

my Guru even said Buddhism will never become free from Hinduism, because Gautam Buddha is India people, and raise in Hindu philospohy.

Now we talk Gautam Buddha is raise under Hindu Philosophy, but which Hindu ? There is so many sect in India from ancient until now.

we all know that India have many sect of religion.

Offcourse sometimes we will se some text or some peoples of Buddhist against Hindu.

Then we see in Hindu also sometimes appear one sect who against others, then the text and teaching was talk about another sect is not perfect and even the follower not go to pray or refuge to another devas or devis , because they are demigods.

But in the fact, i am is Buddhist and practice Buddhist text
i have refuge to Buddha,
i have refuge to Shiva
i have refuge to Vishnu
i have refuge to Ganesh
etc
then absolutely no problem.
Because in Buddhist text, they are is ONE.

offcourse there is have some text who get influence by time, place etc

even we are Hindu, we also cant guarante that peoples who use the name of Hindu is teach in right way.
Buddhist also same, we also cant guarante that all peoples who use the name of Buddhism is teach other in right way !

so its normal if sometimes appeared the sectarian conflict :
Hindu VS Buddhist (modern)
Buddhist VS Buddhist (sectarian)
Hindu VS Hindu (sectarian)

if there is one Buddhist is mad and kill Hindu people, we cannot say all Buddhist is murder.
if there is one Hindu is mad, and kill Buddhist people, we also cant say all Hindu is murder.

In the fact,
we use Vedic mantra, dont search in complex way, a simpe bija AUM or OM we all know this is Vedic

one name of Buddhist Goddess Tara is Veda-mata

we also worship Murugan and named as Skandha, and VEDA Dharmapala !

we have Sutra about 12 Devas who said dont blame 12 Devas, because they is manifestation of Buddha (Buddshim call Universe highest consciousness). Who is 12 Deva (include Indra, Ishana, Brahma)
you see Indra and Brahma who is seen as demigods in some sect, in Vajrayana Buddhism they are is seen as high as Buddha, who play role in body of Deva to guide sentient beings.

Mahavairocana Sutra also said Vishnu or Narayana is high as Buddha.

Even Kubera or Vaishravana, the demigods , King of Yaksha is seen as Buddha who use form of Yaksa to guide sentient beings.

How about other Buddhist who speak bad about Hindu deitys ?

1. We must see the condition (if it is appear in ancient world)
2. That is their ability to understand Buddha's teaching (that is their spiritual state)
3. Not only Buddhist, different sect of Hindu have their own opinion about other deities.

So i cant find anything different between Buddhism and other sect in Hinduism (in general situation) off course there is some teachings who different, but that is also happened in Hindu and Buddhist sect, they have some different (normal)

Offcourse not only you Param,
i also know some Buddhist speak not true about Hindu Dharma.

In material world view, it is normal
but in spiritual and mind side, it is poor, dont have ability to get what is important essence of Dharma

[Twilightdance]

actually Buddhism is not against Hindu,

i am Buddhist and my Guru never teach me to against Hindu.

It is not about "against", "vs" or other form of religious competitions. Buddhism offers an insight which does not exist in Hinduism or rejected by it - it is that simple. Similarly Hinduism offers some insights which Buddhist reject or does not accept.

The two arose from same culture and share lot of cultural and even liturgical elements. But for someone following both doctrines I feel a healthy recognition of the difference in goals must be given due thought, if one is serious about their practices.

As I said, the two are not completely incompatible in terms of goals - but I believe it does require considerable adjustments and may be only accepting both in parts.

If one's idea of religious practice is participating in religious events and rituals and getting blessing from all divine sources (something present day Hinduism has got very comfortable with) - then why just buddhism+hinduism. One should visit churches, graves of sufi pirs, synagogues, sai baba mandirs and every other place which offers a possibility of supra-physical intervention for benefits.

[shian]

@Twilightdance,

about Buddhism reject some Hindu theory.

are you sure all sect in Hinduism have whole same theory or theachings ?

or

are you sure all sect in Buddhisme have whole same theory or theachings ?

even two people in same sect also have different spiritual understanding.

Offcourse for practice , sadhaka must choose one method of one sampradaya.
This is happened in both of Hindu and Buddhist .

Offcourse there is have different in teachings, even every sect in one religion is also different !

but the point that i mean is

all the difference is not for blame each other.

All is only a method who choosen by individual who feel suitable with one method.

Then Buddhism is not believe that Buddha only teach in one way .

So i not believe that Buddha Dharma is the only way for sentient being. Because Lord is compassionate Lord and very wise, Lord have many skilfull means to guide different peoples.

So... it is not about you do all method for practice, it is imposible

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�

You seem to think Advaita = Vedanta = Hinduism.

Yes, I too must concur this equation is somewhat misleading. But I can see why many people ( in general) would see this as the axiom of hinduism. It is due the fact of ādi śaṅkara-ji's� influence on this matter. He greatly influenced the landscape on many levels.

praṇām

1. Ādi Śaṅkara we know as Śaṅkara Bhagavatpāda.

• ādi = first, beginning
• Śaṅkara = śaṃkara = causing prosperity , auspicious , beneficent. This is another name for śiva or rudra.
• Bhagavatpāda = Bhagavat+pāda bhagavat is glorious , illustrious , divine + pāda or pādāḥ is added to proper names or titles in token of respect.With this case pāda it is then a ray or beam of light.

[Twilightdance]

@Twilightdance,

about Buddhism reject some Hindu theory.

are you sure all sect in Hinduism have whole same theory or theachings ?

No all sects teach different things but none of them are completely in-sync with Buddhism - at least the established traditional ones.

are you sure all sect in Buddhisme have whole same theory or theachings ?

Harmony is much greater among buddhism because it is one person (the Buddha) influenced religion. No they don't agree on everything, I believe - but they do believe in basics about what Buddha taught.

even two people in same sect also have different spiritual understanding.

Yes, and we are all free to choose our own path and even define our own path. So of course you and I can choose things from both Buddhism and Hinduism - I am not saying it is wrong. I am just saying that we should do it more consciously.

all the difference is not for blame each other.

Blaming each-other was the past time of sponsored monks of middle ages. We don't have the time and luxury to engage into such polemics - at least most of us don't. We need to quickly form opinions based on data, define what one wants to do and set out on it. Only few can spend 20 years studying religious polemics and then devote time to debate against other religions. Debates had benefits at the time, but now we are past that.

All is only a method who choosen by individual who feel suitable with one method.

Exactly! I was only asking about being mindful of the choice.

[Twilightdance]

Namaste,

Thank you for sharing your views.

Sorry did not see your post.

I cannot agree that the non-duality taught in Hindu philosophy is constructed from a dualistic point of view.

I hate to do this, but here is the key point:- In all Hindu thought classical, vedantic or agamic or tantric [except in shankaracharya's advaita] reality of individuals as atomic selfs of jiva-purusha's is the core. Advaita / Dvaita then becomes an argument around whether this atomic self completely/partially/never in identity with the universal self.

Buddhism starts with the denial of this atomic self as something self existing. The view ripens further into non independent existence of all forms leading to the concept of emptiness. Towards the last part of buddhist philosophical developments a positivist characterization of the ultimate reality begin to appear in the works of consciousness-only schools like vijnanavada, chittamatras etc.

But the point of departure is at the very first point which is our own independent existence as:- atomic self identity/i-consciousness/atman - what ever you want to call it.

The atomic self is inherently inclined towards dualistic conceptualization, and advaita became important in Hinduism 1500 years after buddha first expressed a non conceptual, non dual view of experience.

But since the primary point of Buddhist advaita experience is denied or ignored or can't be accepted by Hindus - I don't believe it is available easily through Mooji or Ramana Maharshi's teachings or any Hindu conceptualization of advaita.

Now problem is it is not prudent to deny an ultimate reality - but also I find that buddha's insight of non independent existence is something completely novel and not seen in any other thought. Now the question are the grounds of non-duality reached by realizing that "I" do not exist independently leading to the realization of all existence as a vast "net" of forms including myself IS SAME as the ground of non-duality promised by meditating on the self and sacrificing this limited identity to some thing bigger - universal self, God etc etc. I think not. I believe both are within releams of human possibilities, but better not mingled up. Plus I personally feel the later framework of non-duality is artificial as it just tries to wriggle out a non duality out of dualistic concepts like self, God etc etc.

Pranams.