There is no self

[forestofemptiness]

Two negatives don't make a positive--- a Buddhist hating on Hinduism doesn't warrant the reverse. I'd like to see something behind this statement that Buddhism "ripped off" Vedanta. Buddhist practice is very different from any other I've seen, and I don't mean this in a hierarchical way.

 

I would, on the other hand, recommend you read the guy in my signature, because he clears up the mess that Buddhists made after they ripped off Vedanta.

:-P

[Sunya]

Advaita Vedanta's Sankara is definitely younger than The Buddha, so if one were to consider Advaita Vedanta as taught by Sankara as Hinduism, they might be mistaken into believing that Hinduism is younger than Buddhism.

 

umm,, what? Sankara was around 8th century AD, Buddha was around 6th century BC. That's an 800 year gap.

 

There is no way that Vedanta predates the Buddha. What's this obsession with having Hinduism be the source of everything? Indians love to do that; Jesus was a Hindu, Buddha was a Hindu.. maybe Laozi was a Hindu too! Very ethnocentric tendencies in that culture. Fact is, Buddha came along and denied much of what was being taught at the time; he learned from Hindu teachers but wasn't satisfied with anything they taught him. Furthermore 'anatta' and dependent origination are the key teachings which can definitely be attributed to the Buddha himself and are the key reasons of why Buddhism departs from Hindu eternalist view. To say that Buddhists don't understand 'anatta' is just further clarifying that viewing Buddhism from a Hindu lens is impossible. It is not an eternalist teaching.

 

Shankara or the Trika Tantrics present Buddhism far better than most Buddhists do, because the Buddhists are so attached to a concept (anatta) that the Buddha introduced to help the seekers identify that which they are.

 

You must've been drunk when you wrote this.

 

The Buddha taught anatta for the seeker to dis-identify with that which he is not. Big difference. Identification leads to grasping, grasping leads to suffering.

Edited April 11, 2010 by mikaelz

[Lucky7Strikes]

The link was provided to show that someone else does not have the same access to other points of view or choices as you. Why the difference? Is she less than you are because of her circumstances. Did she have a chance to study the same dharma as you and realize "no self"? You are fortunate that you live in a culture in which you can still freely express your views and realize what you call "no self".

You miss the point. My post had nothing to do with this. But I do respect your compassion and displaying it oh so valiantly through a web link.

 

I actually prefer the term "no separation". That has been my experience. I had that experience when I was very young.

No you are talking about a state where consciousness is seen for what is is: isness, beingness. But that's beside the point and I don't really want to talk about that with you. I really have nothing to gain from this discussion, because I can't follow it. And you aren't reading or listening.

I guess you looked into your being and judged me as a moron with rigid views. I am neither. Comparing me to a "teabagger". You are way off the track. I have alienated my entire family of Republicans because of my open mindedness, questioning everything, and having dreaded progressive ideas. Furthermore, my exploration of eastern religion and philosophy.

No one cares, it really doesn't matter and this says nothing about anything. This is your ego entity getting the better of you. OH I"M SO DIFFERENT!! MEEEEEHHH!!

 

And dude, the teabagging was an example to illustrate the concept of disliking "intellectual philosophizing" just because you can't grasp it. Had NOTHING TO DO WITH REPUBLICANS (or even with being open minded)!!

 

Of course I know what determinism is. Of which there are many types. From genetic, environmental to philosophical etc. Tough subject to arrive at any absolute answer. The reason being is something called "dynamic systems" in which the main characteristic is change. Order and chaos. Multiple variables that interact with each other in ways that are sometimes extremely difficult to predict. I have a very difficult time with anything deterministic especially when I see how all things change and what causes change. That is why I challenge the ideology of an absolute deterministic karma.

Did I ever write anything about the definition of determinism?

 

WHAT WHAT WHATTTTTT???

 

BWA BWA BWA.

 

:lol: :lol:

Edited April 12, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[RongzomFan]

I suggest you consult with some devout Buddhists who have studied a great deal more than I have. I have shared with you some of the the very basic information and accounts handed down through the Buddhist lineages/sects, doctrines and also histories but you keep coming up with who knows what??

 

Indian "Tribals" I've heard of are normally related groups who worship and or have beliefs in spirit Beings such as tree spirits, animal spirits, elemental spirits, ancestor spirits, etc.. (along with various herbal, magic and shamanistic type practices)

 

 

whoever is Indian, raise your hand

 

cough....raises hand....cough

 

 

I don't know what valuable information you gave me that refutes anything I wrote.

 

You say Gautama was a kshatriya. That is sort of obvious since he was a prince. That does not imply anything about their belief system, even though you think it does.

 

If you cited something from the Pali canon or such, that would have held some weight.

Edited April 12, 2010 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

You obviously have learnt history different than I (and billions of other people in the world) did..

 

 

Actually every academic book agrees with me. And I am talking about regular mainstream academia. Email any well known historian who specializes in this stuff. I challenge you:) You can even contact my college professor LOL

 

You are correct the Vedas are older. Vedism is essentially simply fire ritual i.e. magick to get results. A very small portion of the population practiced it....the so called brahmins.

 

Then you had aestheticism that evolved into Jainism, and which the Buddha tried out.

 

You could have argued that Advaita was directly from the Upanishads....I would have bought that.

 

edit April 16: Check this out

 

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

Edited April 16, 2010 by alwayson

[ralis]

You miss the point. My post had nothing to do with this. But I do respect your compassion and displaying it oh so valiantly through a web link.

 

 

No you are talking about a state where consciousness is seen for what is is: isness, beingness. But that's beside the point and I don't really want to talk about that with you. I really have nothing to gain from this discussion, because I can't follow it. And you aren't reading or listening.

 

No one cares, it really doesn't matter and this says nothing about anything. This is your ego entity getting the better of you. OH I"M SO DIFFERENT!! MEEEEEHHH!!

 

And dude, the teabagging was an example to illustrate the concept of disliking "intellectual philosophizing" just because you can't grasp it. Had NOTHING TO DO WITH REPUBLICANS (or even with being open minded)!!

 

 

Did I ever write anything about the definition of determinism?

 

WHAT WHAT WHATTTTTT???

 

BWA BWA BWA.

 

:lol: :lol:

 

 

I am tired of your patronizing and condescending attitude towards me. Furthermore, the previous ad hominem attacks on my intelligence are not appreciated. I do understand the conversation and I can read. Also I do appreciate intellectual debate.

 

I posted the thoughts on determinism because you brought it up.

 

 

ralis

Edited April 12, 2010 by ralis

[Lucky7Strikes]

I am tired of your patronizing and condescending attitude towards me. Furthermore, the previous ad hominem attacks on my intelligence are not appreciated. I do understand the conversation and I can read. Also I do appreciate intellectual debate.

 

I posted the thoughts on determinism because you brought it up.

 

 

ralis

MAMA MIA!!

 

CAN'T ANYONE TAKE AN INSULT???

 

WHY...

 

SO...

 

 

SERIOUSSS????

 

 

Anyways, when did I bring up determinism? You posted as if that was my way of seeing things...

Edited April 12, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

And just because there are certain differences in position between Advaita and Buddhism, it is not entirely illogical to accept that they are both referring to the same experience (Nirvana or Advaita). The descriptives, etc that follow the experience differ from person to person based on personal history, motive, biases, etc.

 

I have said so before and I say it again -- Shankara or the Trika Tantrics present Buddhism far better than most Buddhists do, because the Buddhists are so attached to a concept (anatta) that the Buddha introduced to help the seekers identify that which they are. It is this misunderstanding on part of the Buddhists that makes their philosophy incorrect/incomplete.

I used to think Dwai was a "marble" head, but I really appreciate his inputs from Hindu perspective.

 

The words may indeed represent the same realization, we don't know that, so let that be that. The Self, the state of Pure Consciouisness needs to be realized anyway, so it doesn't take anything away from the Hindu traditions that view the Self as the ultimate. After that, it is a matter of choice and personal will as to where further inquiry takes them. These arguements over history, language, etc. are useful only until they cease to have relevance to our very experiences.

 

On another note,

 

Some people think these threads are quite useless and filled with bickering words, but I disagree. Everyone here is sincere and passionate about their Path and understanding reality. Who cares if some insults are exchanged as long as the greater goal is not reduced to ego-fulfillment, arguing for arguing sakes. We are good people here, the passion is good, it humbles, incites, inspires, angers and at the end of the day, I (well at least myself) learn much from it.

 

Thanks everyone. .

Edited April 12, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[3bob]

whoever is Indian, raise your hand

 

cough....raises hand....cough

 

 

I don't know what valuable information you gave me that refutes anything I wrote.

 

You say Gautama was a kshatriya. That is sort of obvious since he was a prince. That does not imply anything about their belief system, even though you think it does.

 

If you cited something from the Pali canon or such, that would have held some weight.

 

Actually, and perhaps you should cite something that holds some weight...

I'm no expert but here is some additional information below:

 

"Shakya (Sanskrit:Śākya, Devanagari: शाक्य and Pāli:Sākya) was an ancient janapada in the 1st millennium BCE.[1] In Buddhist texts, the Śākyas are mentioned as a Kshatriya clan of Gotama gotra". ("The most famous Śākya was Shakyamuni Buddha")

 

"The Janapadas are the major realms or kingdoms of Vedic (Iron Age) India, by the 6th century BC evolving into the sixteen classical Mahajanapadas .

[dwai]

Two negatives don't make a positive--- a Buddhist hating on Hinduism doesn't warrant the reverse. I'd like to see something behind this statement that Buddhism "ripped off" Vedanta. Buddhist practice is very different from any other I've seen, and I don't mean this in a hierarchical way.

 

 

 

Well start learning Vedanta. Since you already have a Buddhist background, the truth of the matter will become self-evident once you do.

 

And since I know you from a different lifetime, I owe you a little more of an explanation ( I do recognize that the previous line might have come across a tad patronizingly) ...

 

There is no "hating" here. I am stating a fact based on my understanding of the subject. Think about it this way. Simply take the syntax. Atma, Anatma, Prajna, Satya, Asatya, Paramarthika, Vyavaharika, etc are all Vedantic terms. And that is simply at the Nama-rupa level. As understanding deepens, one can see the similarities (and there are more similarities than differences).

 

Just because I said Buddhism "ripped" off Vedanta, doesn't necessarily mean it is bad or dishonest in any shape, size or form. No system of thought in India existed in a cocoon, isolated from the others. They all grew because of their interaction.

 

The Jina philosophy, the Vedantic philosophy all heavily influenced Buddha. Even though it is "claimed" that none of these worked for him, it isn't really an accurate depiction. The basis of his self-inquiry and the edifice of his knowledge was Vedantic. The fact aside that he wasn't satisfied with what he thought he had realized...his realization (enlightenment) later on was a fruit (at least in part) of the work he had done apriori. He didn't suddenly, mysteriously forget everything he had learnt to become Buddha. He used what he had learnt, refined them, built on them with his personal insights.

 

It might be surprising to some, but that is how all Spiritual practices are. Doesn't matter whether you are a Buddhist or a Taoist or A Vedantin, to reach the pinnacle (which is the experience of Non-Duality), it is personal effort that is needed.

 

Shakyamuni is a highly revered figure in Indian tradition. He is considered an avatara of Vishnu, which basically puts him on the same level as Krishna or Rama. So even for people who do not deal with Divinity in the Non-Dual level, he is out there at the pinnacle of the Divinity Scale.

 

Swami Vivekananda considered Shakyamuni one of the Greatest Vedantins of all times...

Edited April 12, 2010 by dwai

[dwai]

Actually every academic book agrees with me. And I am talking about regular mainstream academia. Email any well known historian who specializes in this stuff. I challenge you:) You can even contact my college professor LOL

 

You are correct the Vedas are older. Vedism is essentially simply fire ritual i.e. magick to get results. A very small portion of the population practiced it....the so called brahmins.

 

Then you had aestheticism that evolved into Jainism, and which the Buddha tried out.

 

Then you had mysticism represented by the Upanishads and also Buddha's gurus.

 

You could have argued that Advaita was directly from the Upanishads....I would have bought that.

 

 

Traditional Indian history narratives differ from the Western/Euro-centric narrative of History as told by Westerners for Westerners (with the "O By the Way, you Natives, learn something about your own history from us" kind of condescension). I give you one example -- a shining beacon of Western Academia was a German Philologist named Max Mueller. Max's take on dating things in India was "Well...the Bible said the World was created in 4000 BC. These indian scriptures (Rg Veda) looks very old. The internal records within the text indicate that the earliest Mandalas in it were composed around 7000 BC. But since God created the Universe in 4000 BC, it can't be possible that the Rg Veda was composed in 7000 BC. So I wil pull a year 1500 BC from my you-know-what and ascribe it as the date the Rg Veda was composed".

 

This historical (pun intended) blunder affected (and continues to affect the state of Indology and World History to this day).

 

And you have revealed that your google searches on Indian history have not been very fruitful. If they had, you would know that the Upanishads (aka Vedanta) are corrolaries of the Vedas. So that what you call "Fire Rituals or Magick" are actually only one aspect of Hindu practices.

 

The Fire Rituals that are performed (to this day) have both an esoteric and an exoteric aspect to them. The objective of the external + internal meditation was Harmony. You see, the Vedic Indians tried to maintain balance and harmony in the Universe (internal as well as external). It is called Rta (or Rita). The rituals were of different kinds and were geared towards taking the practitioner towards a very specific meditative state that helped him/her and the collective community live such that Rta was upheld. This was Purva Mimamsa and a bonafide school of Indian Philosophy.

 

The Sama Veda deals with Sound and the chanting/incantations of the hymns induce meditative states in the practitioner. At the esoteric level, this is meditation on sound (I think Drew Hempel here would have some understanding of this topic here among the TTBs), and ritual sacrifice of Sound to reach emptiness. At the exoteric level, it gave birth to Classical Indian Music theory.

 

This Rta became Dharma during the Uttara Mimamsa period (Vedantic period). These "Magick" rituals are performed to this day in what are called Yajnas, and temple ceremonies are a mix of these ancient techniques along with practices influenced by the Agamas (the Tantric texts) which developed at a later stage.

 

Also, if you had spent time learning about Vedanta, you would know that the orthodox schools of Hindu Darshana (or Philosophy) uphold the Upanishads (which are corrolaries of the 3 main Vedas and the Fourth Upaveda -- Atharva Veda), The Vedanta Sutras (also called the Brahma Sutras) and the Bhagavad Gita as the guides to and repositories of Absolute Knowledge (Shruti), as revealed intuitively to seekers when they are in the state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi (or Objectless Consciousness). This combination is called Prasthanatryayi).

 

So I guess either you were a very bad student or your teacher a very bad teacher, or both and you still have quite a ways of learning to do before you can speak with any semblance of authority on this subject.

[hajimesaito]

I know some orthodox Brahmins and even they agree that the Vedas were first written down sometime around 1300s. Similarly for the Upanishads/Vedanta. Buddhist scriptures have been committed to written form since much much earlier; more than half a millennium. One of the reasons why it took so much time for the Brahmins to write down their magic formulae was because they considered it sacred and only to be passed along their own racial bloodline. That is why some Hindu scriptures like Manusmriti advocate very inhuman punishment for any outsider who hears the Veda. If you read the Vedas, you will find many hymns there that are to be recited to appease various natural deities. And this is very similar to the religion of Zoroastrianism based on the Zend Avesta.

 

My point being, the religion of the Vedas is actually only a ritualistic tradition much similar to shamanism/animism of the Brahmins alone - and not the "Hindus" because a "Hindu" is defined on the basis of political and geographical boundaries and not on the basis of the core beliefs one adheres to. Another thing I would want to clear out is that Hinduism is indeed much much later to Buddhism. In fact, much of the popular Hinduism of modern India arose at a time when Buddhism had already almost gone extinct after enjoying a great following within and outside India. Modern Hinduism includes "Bhakti religions", "Puranic religion", "Advaita/Vedanta" and the Vedism of the Brahmins (exclusively). None of these have anything to do with Buddhism. Bhakti arose during the time when Muslims started invading from the west and it is a religion of core theism where the devotee completely devotes himself/herself to the duty and worship of their personal deities. Puranic religion is just the various mythical stories regarding the main Hindu deities like Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma etc. This also includes the religion and deity worship based on the epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata - the two classical ancient Hindu epics. The remaining two - namely, Vedantaism and Vedism - are the sole religions of the minority Brahmins alone in India and none of the regular Hindus have any idea about what these are (except the academicians perhaps).

 

 

Buddha's original teachers Alara Kalama and Udakka Ramaputta were most likely Jains or even followers of some other Sramanic traditions. So yes, Buddha did attain some of the higher Jhanas after learning from these teachers and ascetics but he gained ultimate enlightened all by himself.

 

Often the modern Hindu leaders have the tendency to spread the misinformation that Buddhism is merely an offshoot of Hinduism (they don't define "Hinduism" clearly still!) and that Buddha was a Hindu. But this is what they believe and not what the Buddhists believe. In the Vishnu purana, a Hindu text, written around the 6th AD, Buddha is mentioned as an avatar of the Hindu god Vishnu who had taken the incarnation on Earth so that he could deviate and deliberately misguide the "demons" by preaching false and heretic (atheistic) doctrine and thus render them eligible for slaughter. So the Brahmins actually considered the Buddhists to be "demons"! On a serious note, the historians all agree that this was a strategy to co-opt Buddhism, at that time a popular religion among the masses, into their own religious fold so that they could have the sole superiority over religion as their ancestors had enjoyed the sole right to perform the yajnas/sacrificial rites.

 

 

Some Upanishads were probably conceived before the time of the Buddha, but majority of them were written after Buddha died. And again, only the Brahmins, a minority in India, were aware of these.

Isn't it surprising that a religion that enjoyed great popularity and following once in ancient India was completely exterminated from that land and the blame was put solely on Muslim invaders even when the same Muslim invaders hardly touched HInduism itself?

[Sunya]

hajimesaito, very insightful post. welcome to the TB boards

[Marblehead]

I used to think Dwai was a "marble" head, but I really appreciate his inputs from Hindu perspective.

 

 

You sure thought that one wrong, didn't you? Hehehe.

 

Dwai deserves much more respect than I do!

 

Peace & Love!

[dwai]

I know some orthodox Brahmins and even they agree that the Vedas were first written down sometime around 1300s. Similarly for the Upanishads/Vedanta. Buddhist scriptures have been committed to written form since much much earlier; more than half a millennium. One of the reasons why it took so much time for the Brahmins to write down their magic formulae was because they considered it sacred and only to be passed along their own racial bloodline. That is why some Hindu scriptures like Manusmriti advocate very inhuman punishment for any outsider who hears the Veda. If you read the Vedas, you will find many hymns there that are to be recited to appease various natural deities. And this is very similar to the religion of Zoroastrianism based on the Zend Avesta.

 

I am afraid you don't know much about this topic. What is the nationality of these "Orthodox" Brahmins that you know?

 

My point being, the religion of the Vedas is actually only a ritualistic tradition much similar to shamanism/animism of the Brahmins alone - and not the "Hindus" because a "Hindu" is defined on the basis of political and geographical boundaries and not on the basis of the core beliefs one adheres to. Another thing I would want to clear out is that Hinduism is indeed much much later to Buddhism. In fact, much of the popular Hinduism of modern India arose at a time when Buddhism had already almost gone extinct after enjoying a great following within and outside India. Modern Hinduism includes "Bhakti religions", "Puranic religion", "Advaita/Vedanta" and the Vedism of the Brahmins (exclusively). None of these have anything to do with Buddhism. Bhakti arose during the time when Muslims started invading from the west and it is a religion of core theism where the devotee completely devotes himself/herself to the duty and worship of their personal deities. Puranic religion is just the various mythical stories regarding the main Hindu deities like Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma etc. This also includes the religion and deity worship based on the epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata - the two classical ancient Hindu epics. The remaining two - namely, Vedantaism and Vedism - are the sole religions of the minority Brahmins alone in India and none of the regular Hindus have any idea about what these are (except the academicians perhaps).

 

Read my post about the relationship between Shakyamuni and Vedanta. I prefer not to use the term Hinduism but use Sanatana Dharma instead, which has two sides to it -- a socio-cultural side (tradition) and a spiritual side. As such, Dharma should not be translated into religion because religion is much narrower in definition and focus than Dharma.

 

Bhakti is an aspect of spiritual pursuit that is discussed in great detail in the Bhagavad Gita (one of the 4 ways to seek Union or Yoga -- Raja, Jnana, Karma and Bhakti). Unlike what people think, Bhakti is the hardest Yoga, because it calls for complete surrender to the Divine (Tao/Brahman, whatever you want to call it). At it's pinnacle, Bhakti IS The Watercourse Way, because the individual is like a leaf being swept away in the currents of...

 

A lot of people in the West tend to insist (I have spoken in great detail with some scholars/practitioners of Hinduism in the US) that Native majority in India don't have the sophistry or the intellectual capabilities to know of or understand Vedanta or Vedic Dharma. They tend to take a reductionist approach like you demonstrated, and try to break down things into packets of information that are (arguably) best comprehensible by them. It has no bearing on the ground reality of practice in India. The two most popular Yogas in India are Raja Yoga and Bhakti Yoga and it is most accessible to the masses. That doesn't mean many also practice Karma or Jnana Yoga (vedanta specifically is Jnana Yoga). All three of the other yogas have their root in Jnana...so while i can see Buddhist egos being satisfied by changing the chronology and details of Indian History, it really doesn't have any bearing on the truth of things.

 

 

Buddha's original teachers Alara Kalama and Udakka Ramaputta were most likely Jains or even followers of some other Sramanic traditions. So yes, Buddha did attain some of the higher Jhanas after learning from these teachers and ascetics but he gained ultimate enlightened all by himself.

 

Often the modern Hindu leaders have the tendency to spread the misinformation that Buddhism is merely an offshoot of Hinduism (they don't define "Hinduism" clearly still!) and that Buddha was a Hindu. But this is what they believe and not what the Buddhists believe. In the Vishnu purana, a Hindu text, written around the 6th AD, Buddha is mentioned as an avatar of the Hindu god Vishnu who had taken the incarnation on Earth so that he could deviate and deliberately misguide the "demons" by preaching false and heretic (atheistic) doctrine and thus render them eligible for slaughter. So the Brahmins actually considered the Buddhists to be "demons"! On a serious note, the historians all agree that this was a strategy to co-opt Buddhism, at that time a popular religion among the masses, into their own religious fold so that they could have the sole superiority over religion as their ancestors had enjoyed the sole right to perform the yajnas/sacrificial rites.

 

 

Some Upanishads were probably conceived before the time of the Buddha, but majority of them were written after Buddha died. And again, only the Brahmins, a minority in India, were aware of these.

Isn't it surprising that a religion that enjoyed great popularity and following once in ancient India was completely exterminated from that land and the blame was put solely on Muslim invaders even when the same Muslim invaders hardly touched HInduism itself?

 

The chronology of the Upanishads is something one must rely on internal data for. When I have time, I will post the specific dates of the major Upanishads. Of all the Upanishads, only one or two post-date the Buddha. Like I have mentioned before, everything was skewed after Max Mueller messed up the date of Rg Veda based on his Biblical errors.

 

Buddhism was literally eliminated from India because the Buddhist scholars deviated from the Path of the Buddha and started indulging in debates like "There is No Self and I have proof", which did absolutely nothing to alleviate the suffering of the masses, which is what the Buddha had originally intended for.

Edited April 12, 2010 by dwai

[ralis]

I am afraid you don't know much about this topic. What is the nationality of these "Orthodox" Brahmins that you know?

 

 

 

 

 

A lot of people in the West tend to insist (I have spoken in great detail with some scholars/practitioners of Hinduism in the US) that Native majority in India don't have the sophistry or the intellectual capabilities to know of or understand Vedanta or Vedic Dharma. They tend to take a reductionist approach like you demonstrated, and try to break down things into packets of information that are (arguably) best comprehensible by them. It has no bearing on the ground reality of practice in India. The two most popular Yogas in India are Raja Yoga and Bhakti Yoga and it is most accessible to the masses. That doesn't mean many also practice Karma or Jnana Yoga (vedanta specifically is Jnana Yoga). All three of the other yogas have their root in Jnana...so while i can see Buddhist egos being satisfied by changing the chronology and details of Indian History, it really doesn't have any bearing on the truth of things.

 

 

 

 

 

Buddhism was literally eliminated from India because the Buddhist scholars deviated from the Path of the Buddha and started indulging in debates like "There is No Self and I have proof", which did absolutely nothing to alleviate the suffering of the masses, which is what the Buddha had originally intended for.

 

I have tried to insert the element of human suffering into my exchanges with some of the Buddhists here and what I get in return are neg. remarks. It is as if Buddhists are not really interested in the plight of others and instead argue ad infinitum points that are moot.

 

I agree that the Buddhist apologists take a reductionist and mechanistic approach which denies reality. The best example from a recent post is that Hitler did not exist but was a process resulting from dependent origination i.e, a collection of processes.

 

Thanks for your astute observations and comments.

 

 

ralis

Edited April 12, 2010 by ralis

[Lucky7Strikes]

Buddhism was literally eliminated from India because the Buddhist scholars deviated from the Path of the Buddha and started indulging in debates like "There is No Self and I have proof", which did absolutely nothing to alleviate the suffering of the masses, which is what the Buddha had originally intended for.

 

HAHAHAHHAHAHAH!!!

[ralis]

HAHAHAHHAHAHAH!!!

 

Why not debate instead of adding snide uncivilized remarks.

 

 

ralis

[RongzomFan]

Traditional Indian history narratives differ from the Western/Euro-centric narrative of History as told by Westerners for Westerners (with the "O By the Way, you Natives, learn something about your own history from us" kind of condescension). I give you one example -- a shining beacon of Western Academia was a German Philologist named Max Mueller. Max's take on dating things in India was "Well...the Bible said the World was created in 4000 BC. These indian scriptures (Rg Veda) looks very old. The internal records within the text indicate that the earliest Mandalas in it were composed around 7000 BC. But since God created the Universe in 4000 BC, it can't be possible that the Rg Veda was composed in 7000 BC. So I wil pull a year 1500 BC from my you-know-what and ascribe it as the date the Rg Veda was composed".

 

This historical (pun intended) blunder affected (and continues to affect the state of Indology and World History to this day).

 

And you have revealed that your google searches on Indian history have not been very fruitful. If they had, you would know that the Upanishads (aka Vedanta) are corrolaries of the Vedas. So that what you call "Fire Rituals or Magick" are actually only one aspect of Hindu practices.

 

The Fire Rituals that are performed (to this day) have both an esoteric and an exoteric aspect to them. The objective of the external + internal meditation was Harmony. You see, the Vedic Indians tried to maintain balance and harmony in the Universe (internal as well as external). It is called Rta (or Rita). The rituals were of different kinds and were geared towards taking the practitioner towards a very specific meditative state that helped him/her and the collective community live such that Rta was upheld. This was Purva Mimamsa and a bonafide school of Indian Philosophy.

 

The Sama Veda deals with Sound and the chanting/incantations of the hymns induce meditative states in the practitioner. At the esoteric level, this is meditation on sound (I think Drew Hempel here would have some understanding of this topic here among the TTBs), and ritual sacrifice of Sound to reach emptiness. At the exoteric level, it gave birth to Classical Indian Music theory.

 

This Rta became Dharma during the Uttara Mimamsa period (Vedantic period). These "Magick" rituals are performed to this day in what are called Yajnas, and temple ceremonies are a mix of these ancient techniques along with practices influenced by the Agamas (the Tantric texts) which developed at a later stage.

 

Also, if you had spent time learning about Vedanta, you would know that the orthodox schools of Hindu Darshana (or Philosophy) uphold the Upanishads (which are corrolaries of the 3 main Vedas and the Fourth Upaveda -- Atharva Veda), The Vedanta Sutras (also called the Brahma Sutras) and the Bhagavad Gita as the guides to and repositories of Absolute Knowledge (Shruti), as revealed intuitively to seekers when they are in the state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi (or Objectless Consciousness). This combination is called Prasthanatryayi).

 

So I guess either you were a very bad student or your teacher a very bad teacher, or both and you still have quite a ways of learning to do before you can speak with any semblance of authority on this subject.

 

 

But I still don't get how any of this refutes what I wrote?

 

I admitted the Vedas are older.

I also mentioned the Upanishads.

 

Maybe you don't even read what I wrote?

 

dwai, are you Indian?

 

I am....I went to a hindu temple yesterday.

 

you wrote "The Janapadas are the major realms or kingdoms of Vedic (Iron Age) India"

 

Yes Gautama lived during the Vedic age. So what? That does not mean anything dude.

 

Next thing you are going to tell me is that Patanjali, founder of yoga, did not rip off buddhism!

Edited April 12, 2010 by alwayson

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

For more than three decades i have studied various philosophies and belief systems.. i find it to be shallow and insincere to judge beliefs without having a reasonably good experiential understanding of those beliefs.. this method of study quickly taught me how to suspend my personal preferences in order to have an authentic experience of whichever system i was interested in at the time. From this i have come to some fundamental understandings, some of which i will try to communicate here..

 

As i studied various beliefs, i would hear or experience certain concepts that simply 'made sense', without contemplation or comparative analysis.. as some would refer to it, there was a certain 'resonance' or "good vibe"..

 

As i studied various beliefs, i began to notice that the "good vibes" were related to very similar concepts that were present, in one form or another, in most of the belief systems.. the 'words' the belief systems used to present these 'similar concepts' might be radically different, but the principle was very similar..

 

As i studied various beliefs, i noticed that the followers of a particular system generally assumed their beliefs to be superior to other beliefs.. as such, they frequently assumed the roles of 'defenders and recruiters'.. and, in doing so, they would challenge the different 'words' of another system, unaware that the 'principles' were not different..

 

As i studied various beliefs, i noticed that reliance on pre-existing 'authority' or 'tradition' as the 'source' of 'belief' was used to validate the follower's current beliefs.. and that same 'authority' holds sway over the follower's own common-sense..

 

As i studied various beliefs, i noticed that 'ritual' is used as an effective tool to establish heirarchy and authority.. a tool for separating experiences into successively more complex rituals, each supporting the next more complex ritual.. such that the rituals become the 'separation' between the seeker and that which is sought.. the follower's accomplishment of ritual complexity is managed by the system's appointed structure of 'authority..

 

As i studied various beliefs, i noticed that every system has provisions for 'sudden understanding'.. a sort of 'instant complete awareness'..

 

As i studied various beliefs, i noticed that most hold a belief that the Human Being and the physical Life experience are, in some way, flawed, or incomplete, or less than 'real or true'.. a notable exception to this observation is Taoist Philosophy..

 

As i studied various beliefs, i notice that most followers of a belief system find it easier to tear-down the beliefs of others than to explain the actuallities and benefits of their own beliefs..

 

As i studied various beliefs, i noticed that when the follower of a belief system is faced with an undeniable example of inconsistency by their system's beliefs, the follower will abandon common-sense and integrity to preserve their belief in the system.. regardless of the irrational or disagreeable perspective necessary to accomplish it, the follower will maintain denial rather than seek understanding..

 

As i studied various beliefs, i noticed that the fundamental principles of the beliefs are conceptual, and as such unverifiable by simple observation.. as 'concepts', the principles are subjective and cannot be scrutinized by a dependable standard..

 

So.. i have arrived at my current understanding, which i will try to describe.. i understand that every belief system that i have studied is based on a perception of 'truth and reality'.. that 'perception' is subject to the condition of the 'mind' upon which it is deposited by the perceiver's awareness.. an active mind will not receive the information 'exactly' as perceived.. a still mind will receive the information 'exactly' as perceived, based, of course, on the degree of stillness.. A belief system that utilizes 'ritual' also engages the 'mind' to insure that the information received is consistent with the system..

 

I find that by not choosing a particular system, the consistencies common to most systems reveal principles that are fundamental to all systems or to NO system.. for the individual interested in 'understanding' the nature of existence, the clarity offered by a still mind is essential.. The first awareness noticed by the still mind is that 'it' is aware of itself, it experiences 'stuff' that is not 'it', it is 'self-aware', which.. is 'self-evident.

 

This 'self' is the 'why' of all of the belief systems.. there are NO belief systems without the 'selfs' to believe.. the system serves the self, created by the self. I cannot explain the choice to pretend there is no self, it's an irrational misinterpretation of Life.. which is very simply observable as the interactive relationships of individualities.. the interactive relationships result in a Unified Awareness of the 'Source' of ALL things..

 

Be well..

Edited April 12, 2010 by TzuJanLi

[dwai]

But I still don't get how any of this refutes what I wrote?

 

I admitted the Vedas are older.

I also mentioned the Upanishads.

 

Maybe you don't even read what I wrote?

 

That is an incorrect question. The Question you should be asking is "Do I read what I wrote?"

 

dwai, are you Indian?

 

I am....I went to a hindu temple yesterday.

 

I am. I have a reasonably sincere daily practice of Yoga, Meditation. I am born and raised Indian, grew up in a reasonably traditional family and interacted at a deep level with sincere and serious practitioners of Dharma.

 

you wrote "The Janapadas are the major realms or kingdoms of Vedic (Iron Age) India"

 

Yes Gautama lived during the Vedic age. So what? That does not mean anything dude.

 

Next thing you are going to tell me is that Patanjali, founder of yoga, did not rip off buddhism!

 

 

I never wrote anything about the Janapadas. You don't get it. Yoga is based on Sankhya which predates The Buddha by at least a couple of millenia. I don't see how Patanjali's teachings are in any way incongruous with what the main body of Sankhya teaches.

 

 

[RongzomFan]

Yoga is based on Sankhya which predates The Buddha by at least a couple of millenia.

 

 

 

I thought Samkhya was WAY after the Buddha.

 

And I agree yoga predates the Buddha. Buddha performed kechari mudra in the pali canon believe it or not.

 

What I am saying is that: Patanjali's branches of yoga and notions of samadhi are influenced heavily by buddhism.

Edited April 12, 2010 by alwayson

[dwai]

I thought Samkhya was WAY after the Buddha.

 

And I agree yoga predates the Buddha. Buddha performed kechari mudra in the pali canon believe it or not.

 

What I am saying is that: Patanjali's branches of yoga and notions of samadhi are influenced heavily by buddhism.

 

It is quite possible that Patanjali's Yoga Sutras drew upon various sources, including Buddhism. Sankhya, the parent of Yoga is actually significantly older and is attributed to Vedic Rishi (Sage) Kapila, who was mentioned in texts such as Mahabharata and The Bhagavad Gita. Since the Bharata War occured in 3102 BC, it is therefore practical to think Kapila was at least a contemporary if not older than those who participated in the Bharata War.

 

 

 

[hajimesaito]

I am afraid you don't know much about this topic. What is the nationality of these "Orthodox" Brahmins that you know?

 

The nationality of those orthodox Brahmins whom I know happen to be Indian. And so is mine.

 

 

I prefer not to use the term Hinduism but use Sanatana Dharma instead, which has two sides to it -- a socio-cultural side (tradition) and a spiritual side.

 

If you can search the term "Santana Dharma" as applied in reference to the modern Hindu religion(s) anywhere in the Hindu scriptures that were written before a few centuries ago, then I will concede my case. This is just one term being introduced by Hindu nationalists because they do not like the term "Hindu" which is foreign in origin. On the contrary, I remember reading this phrase (which means "eternal dharma") being used for Buddhism in many of the Buddhist scriptures (although right now I don't remember exactly which one). This is not surprising because modern Hinduism is heavily influenced by Buddhism.

 

 

Bhakti is an aspect of spiritual pursuit that is discussed in great detail in the Bhagavad Gita (one of the 4 ways to seek Union or Yoga -- Raja, Jnana, Karma and Bhakti).

 

 

Now comes the interesting part. But the issue is very complex and the space and time very less. I will not comment much about Bhakti here - and as such, you already seem to know about it a lot - but the only thing I can say is the Bhakti is a kind of hero worship of the deities. Whether it leads to any spiritual attainment or not is really contentious and I will not discuss here. I will make a proposition however, though I won't be able to really prove it elaborately here due to the lack of space and resources with me right now. Consider this: around 5 centuries or more after Buddha's final nibbana, his religion had spread like fire everywhere in India due to its profound nature along with much royal support from the likes of Emperor Asoka. Naturally, the Brahmins (priests) who had been conducting sacrifices for the royalty in their regions were loosing lot of business as many people were slowly discarding those beliefs and adhering to Buddha's dharma. Enter the most astute Brahmins here. What could be a better strategy then to raise their own hero (in this case Krishna) and take philosophical doctrine from Buddhism, mould it into their own theistic form, and then promote this mythical hero? Thus, Bhagwat Gita was written. Krishna was invented as a hero, a random story about him appended to the original Mahabharata. If you compare the Buddhist Pali canon with the Bhagwat Gita, you will find many of the teachings being remarkably similar. In fact, some parables used by Krishna are taken word to word as Buddha had spoken several centuries earlier. Concept of reincarnation was added with a twist so as to give legitimacy to the Brahmanic caste system so that they could maintain their superiority. Slowly as Buddhism declined for various reasons, Krishna was being popularized more and more. Finally with the result that Krishna became the central god all over India and Buddha was forgotten completely. The mythical Krishna replaced the historical Buddha while also legitimizing the Hindu caste system based on the Manu smriti. That is why Krishna himself says that any individual who is born into a particular caste should only indulge in his/her own restricted occupations, lest he may not achieve Krishna.

 

As for Bhakti movement, even if initially it was just a continuation of theistic religion of Upanishads, the deities and gods and their legends were invented and written much much later. The famous North Indian god Rama was taken from the epic Ramayana and a Bhakti worship was created around him. Similarly for various other deities. Although some of the initial pioneers of Bhakti religion, like Kabir, were genuinely talented and spiritually attained, their actual doctrine doesn't necessarily need to be theistic, as becomes evident on closer inspection of their teachings.

 

 

When I have time, I will post the specific dates of the major Upanishads.

 

Sure do it. But as I said earlier, the Upanishads were orally transmitted just like the Vedas, so no one can really confirm when exactly they were conceived. But it is pretty much clear as to when they were first written down and that happens to be almost a millennium after Buddha's mahaparinibbana.

 

Buddhism was literally eliminated from India because the Buddhist scholars deviated from the Path of the Buddha and started indulging in debates like "There is No Self and I have proof",

 

Hahaha....sorry for my laughter but this excuse is really amateur. If the Buddhists deviated from the path of the Buddha, then the Brahmins completely overhauled their supposedly profound and great dharma. All these practices of untouchability, sati, devdasi (religious prostitution), Kulin system (extreme form of polygamy from Bengal) and many many more were introduced into "Hinduism" and were followed and enforced for so many years, ending in abject poverty, illiteracy etc of a great ancient people who had a few centuries ago been pioneers in various philosophical systems, arts, sciences etc. If you say that the Buddhist monks in India became corrupt consequently leading to the demise of Buddhism, then Brahmanism should have ended long ago because the Brahmins were far more corrupt. So the excuse that Buddhism simply got obliterated spontaneously on its own is not good enough because Brahmanism survived and thrived despite being much more corrupt.

[dwai]

The nationality of those orthodox Brahmins whom I know happen to be Indian. And so is mine.

 

 

So am I...both an Indian National and an Orthodox Brahman.

 

 

If you can search the term "Santana Dharma" as applied in reference to the modern Hindu religion(s) anywhere in the Hindu scriptures that were written before a few centuries ago, then I will concede my case. This is just one term being introduced by Hindu nationalists because they do not like the term "Hindu" which is foreign in origin. On the contrary, I remember reading this phrase (which means "eternal dharma") being used for Buddhism in many of the Buddhist scriptures (although right now I don't remember exactly which one). This is not surprising because modern Hinduism is heavily influenced by Buddhism.

 

here you go:

 

The first use perhaps comes from Kathopanishad. For example, the Kathopanishad declares: "Eso's' vatthah sanatanah."^[3]

 

The Manu Smriti (4-138) goes on to declare:

 

Satyam bruyatpriyam bruyanna bruyatsatyamapriyam.Priyam cha nanrtam bruyadesa dharmah sanatanah. Translation: "Speak the truth, speak the truth that is pleasant. Do not speak the truth to manipulate. Do not speak falsely to please or flatter someone. This is the quality of the Sanatan Dharma".

 

The Bhagavata Purana reads:

 

"At the end of each cycle of four yugas, the rishis, through their asceticism, saw the collections of srutis swallowed up by time, after which the eternal (Sanatanah) dharma (was re-established)."[4]

 

 

Now comes the interesting part. But the issue is very complex and the space and time very less. I will not comment much about Bhakti here - and as such, you already seem to know about it a lot - but the only thing I can say is the Bhakti is a kind of hero worship of the deities. Whether it leads to any spiritual attainment or not is really contentious and I will not discuss here. I will make a proposition however, though I won't be able to really prove it elaborately here due to the lack of space and resources with me right now. Consider this: around 5 centuries or more after Buddha's final nibbana, his religion had spread like fire everywhere in India due to its profound nature along with much royal support from the likes of Emperor Asoka. Naturally, the Brahmins (priests) who had been conducting sacrifices for the royalty in their regions were loosing lot of business as many people were slowly discarding those beliefs and adhering to Buddha's dharma. Enter the most astute Brahmins here. What could be a better strategy then to raise their own hero (in this case Krishna) and take philosophical doctrine from Buddhism, mould it into their own theistic form, and then promote this mythical hero? Thus, Bhagwat Gita was written. Krishna was invented as a hero, a random story about him appended to the original Mahabharata. If you compare the Buddhist Pali canon with the Bhagwat Gita, you will find many of the teachings being remarkably similar. In fact, some parables used by Krishna are taken word to word as Buddha had spoken several centuries earlier. Concept of reincarnation was added with a twist so as to give legitimacy to the Brahmanic caste system so that they could maintain their superiority. Slowly as Buddhism declined for various reasons, Krishna was being popularized more and more. Finally with the result that Krishna became the central god all over India and Buddha was forgotten completely. The mythical Krishna replaced the historical Buddha while also legitimizing the Hindu caste system based on the Manu smriti. That is why Krishna himself says that any individual who is born into a particular caste should only indulge in his/her own restricted occupations, lest he may not achieve Krishna.

 

You do realize that a lot of "Buddhists" were actually Brahmins, right? Including Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti, etc? It is very convenient to paint something as the "Other" and "Bad", it gives one the saction to close the mind and heart. It is however, counterintuitive to what the Buddha intended to teach.

 

Your claims here are so ridiculous that I don't even want to bother refuting them. Anyone with half a brain will go and figure out the chronology of the Mahabharata, The Bhagavad Gita, etc. And please don't (mis)quote the Gita...the previous condition applies to this as well. I would recommend you go get a copy of the Bhagavad Gita by Eknath Easwaran and read it cover to cover (and the pages in between as well). It will do you good...

 

As for Bhakti movement, even if initially it was just a continuation of theistic religion of Upanishads, the deities and gods and their legends were invented and written much much later. The famous North Indian god Rama was taken from the epic Ramayana and a Bhakti worship was created around him. Similarly for various other deities. Although some of the initial pioneers of Bhakti religion, like Kabir, were genuinely talented and spiritually attained, their actual doctrine doesn't necessarily need to be theistic, as becomes evident on closer inspection of their teachings.

 

hehe...please post what you wrote here: http://www.medhajournal.com

I can guarantee you that you will earn kudos and brownie points for your imagination.

 

Sure do it. But as I said earlier, the Upanishads were orally transmitted just like the Vedas, so no one can really confirm when exactly they were conceived. But it is pretty much clear as to when they were first written down and that happens to be almost a millennium after Buddha's mahaparinibbana.

 

If you read the Vedas, you will know that there are very clear astronomical markers in them, that fix their dates quite succinctly. Same holds true for the Upanishads.

 

 

Hahaha....sorry for my laughter but this excuse is really amateur. If the Buddhists deviated from the path of the Buddha, then the Brahmins completely overhauled their supposedly profound and great dharma. All these practices of untouchability, sati, devdasi (religious prostitution), Kulin system (extreme form of polygamy from Bengal) and many many more were introduced into "Hinduism" and were followed and enforced for so many years, ending in abject poverty, illiteracy etc of a great ancient people who had a few centuries ago been pioneers in various philosophical systems, arts, sciences etc. If you say that the Buddhist monks in India became corrupt consequently leading to the demise of Buddhism, then Brahmanism should have ended long ago because the Brahmins were far more corrupt. So the excuse that Buddhism simply got obliterated spontaneously on its own is not good enough because Brahmanism survived and thrived despite being much more corrupt.

 

Social practices are not the same as Spiritual practice. There is no defending the bad aspects of Indian society...but I can assure Buddhists had Caste too:

 

The nastik Buddhists too have a caste system. In Sri Lanka, the Rodis have always been despised and they might have been out-casted by the Lankan Buddhists due to the absence of "ahimsa" (non-violence), which Buddhism heavily depends on. The writer Raghavan notes: "That a form of worship in which human offerings formed the essential ritual would have been anathema to the Buddhist way of life goes without saying; and it needs no stretch of imagination that any class of people in whom the cult prevailed or survived even in an attenuated form would have been pronounced by the sangha (i.e. the Buddhist clergy) as exiles from the social order." Savarkar too believed that the status of the backward castes (e.g. Chamar) that performed non-violence only worsened.^[64] When Ywan Chwang traveled to South India after the period of the Chalukyan Empire, he noticed that the caste system had existed among the Buddhists and Jains.[65]

 

There is no denying that Shakyamuni was a great Vedantin and a great reformer. Here's some of what Swami Vivekananda had to say about Shakyamuni:

 

The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda Volume 7 [ Page : 59 ] INSPIRED TALKSBuddha was a great Vedantist (for Buddhism was really only an offshoot of Vedanta), and Shankara is often called a "hidden Buddhist". Buddha made the analysis, Shankara made the synthesis out of it. Buddha never bowed down to anything -- neither Veda, nor caste, nor priest, nor custom. He fearlessly reasoned so far as reason could take him. Such a fearless search for truth and such love for every living thing the world has never seen. Buddha was the Washington of the religious world; he conquered a throne only to give it to the world, as Washington did to the American people. He sought nothing for himself.

 

The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda Volume 4 [ Page : 136-137 ] ON LORD BUDDHA

 

He was the only man who was bereft of all motive power. There were other great men who all said they were the Incarnations of God Himself, and that those who would believe in them would go to heaven. But what did Buddha say with his dying breath? "None can help you; help yourself; work out your own salvation." He said about himself, "Buddha is the name of infinite knowledge, infinite as the sky; I, Gautama, have reached that state; you will all reach that too if you struggle for it." Bereft of all motive power, he did not want to go to heaven, did not want money; he gave up his throne and everything else and went about begging his bread through the streets of India, preaching for the good of men and animals with a heart as wide as the ocean.

 

He was the only man who was ever ready to give up his life for animals to stop a sacrifice. He once said to a king, "If the sacrifice of a lamb helps you to go to heaven, sacrificing a man will help you better; so sacrifice me." The king was astonished. And yet this man was without any motive power. He stands as the perfection of the active type, and the very height to which he attained shows that through the power of work we can also attain to the highest spirituality.

 

I wish I had one infinitesimal part of Buddha's heart. Buddha may or may not have believed in God; that does not matter to me. He reached the same state of perfection to which others come by Bhakti -- love of God -- Yoga, or Jnana. Perfection does not come from belief or faith. Talk does not count for anything. Parrots can do that. Perfection comes through the disinterested performance of action.