servantofshakti

what exactely are the buddhas from a hindu pov?We have them in our tantras,but what are they?

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, EmeraldHead said:

Yeah that's a very good point to point out. Buddhism claims there is ONE buddha. Similarly just about every traditions claims there is ONE atma. Or if an immortal they say you actually ARE siva, etc. That shows a common ground at least.

 

I wonder if it's just a matter of different levels or sub achievements of the dharmakayas realization that differs in traditions?

 

What follows after the trikaya/shavabivakaya (nature body) is fully realised. Evolution stops? I would imagine it continues on forever, simply in ways we cannot have the paradigm off from our current level of realisation, or as hinduism would say, we cannot know it with out inferior knowledge.

It seems these kinds of questions are not very useful in terms of actual practice and we can get lost in the weeds comparing this vs that. I like your approach in the first part of this post, where you look for common ground. 

 

If you ask from a Vedantic or a Shaiva perspective, my understanding is that there are no "sub-achievements", either you have it, or you don't. What varies is the degree to which it (Realization) has been manifested in the transactional world. And the ongoing work happens there. Now, if the Self-realization is not the immediate goal, then based on good karma, the Jiva evolves to higher levels within the dualistic manifestation, called lokas. There are 7 lokas (realms) below our human one, and 7 above, with the highest one being Satyaloka. 

Here's an article by a dear friend of mine on the subject of lokas -- https://www.medhajournal.com/description-of-the-various-lokas-in-hindu-scripture/

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One Buddha? What do you mean? Is this a Chinese Buddhism thing? 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2
 Advanced issues found
‚Ė≤
 
6
17 hours ago, EmeraldHead said:

Yeah that's a very good point to point out. Buddhism claims there is ONE buddha. Similarly just about every traditions claims there is ONE atma. Or if an immortal they say you actually ARE siva, etc. That shows a common ground at least.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

One Buddha? What do you mean? Is this a Chinese Buddhism thing?

So it's not that I become a buddha and you become a buddha also, or I have an atma to realise and/or liberate, but rather he is buddha or "buddh" and I am buddh too, that same IS....I am realise atma, the atma which IS..... not isness, just IS....

 

So while you can think of it as the same mechanics of achieving etheric non-decay after physical death, this high degree of achievement isn't just a higher vehicle that is truly primordial and it's a matter of housing it and violatizing it, but rather awakening to the source of the universe and all manifestation which springs up from it...inside it!

 

"I am that" ... in a non new-agey manner. IS...

Edited by EmeraldHead
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, EmeraldHead said:

So it's not that I become a buddha and you become a buddha also, or I have an atma to realise and/or liberate, but rather he is buddha or "buddh" and I am buddh too, that same IS....I am realise atma, the atma which IS..... not isness, just IS....

 

So while you can think of it as the same mechanics of achieving etheric non-decay after physical death, this high degree of achievement isn't just a higher vehicle that is truly primordial and it's a matter of housing it and violatizing it, but rather awakening to the source of the universe and all manifestation which springs up from it...inside it!

 

"I am that" ... in a non new-agey manner. IS...

Isn't that called "TathńĀgatagarbha" or "BuddhadhńĀtu"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not interpersonal. Per HHDL, "Buddhism does not posit a universal or collective mind." Mind-streams are conventionally speaking, individual. 

 

From the Gelug-Kagyu Tradition of Mahamudra:

 

Quote

In summary, mind in Buddhism refers to experience, namely the mere arising and cognitive engaging with the contents of experience. The continuity of experience is known as the mind-stream, or "mental-continuum." It is always individual, with each moment of experience following from previous moments of experience according to the karmic laws of behavioral cause and effect. There is order in the universe, and "my" experience is never "your" experience. If I experience eating a meal, I and not you will next experience the physical sensation of being full. Buddhism does not posit a universal or collective mind.

 

34 minutes ago, EmeraldHead said:

So it's not that I become a buddha and you become a buddha also, or I have an atma to realise and/or liberate, but rather he is buddha or "buddh" and I am buddh too, that same IS....I am realise atma, the atma which IS..... not isness, just IS....

 

So while you can think of it as the same mechanics of achieving etheric non-decay after physical death, this high degree of achievement isn't just a higher vehicle that is truly primordial and it's a matter of housing it and violatizing it, but rather awakening to the source of the universe and all manifestation which springs up from it...inside it!

 

"I am that" ... in a non new-agey manner. IS...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

soul is evolutionary, the "Soul of soul" or Brahman if you will is non-evolutionary... soul merges back to the "Soul of soul" in certain schools of Hinduism but not in others.  Btw, how many steps and concepts are we getting ahead of truly  following the  precepts of yama and niyama while talking about more advanced stuff?

 

Note: there is the saying that Brahman is the "eater of death" so  one could speculate about all that evolves and what death (and life for that matter) means in relation to evolution...but lets not torment ourselves too much.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/20/2020 at 10:56 AM, old3bob said:

soul is evolutionary, the "Soul of soul" or Brahman if you will is non-evolutionary... soul merges back to the "Soul of soul" in certain schools of Hinduism but not in others.  Btw, how many steps and concepts are we getting ahead of truly  following the  precepts of yama and niyama while talking about more advanced stuff?

 

Note: there is the saying that Brahman is the "eater of death" so  one could speculate about all that evolves and what death (and life for that matter) means in relation to evolution...but lets not torment ourselves too much.

 

"Soul is evolutionary..." Is this a map being described? Because it's presented as fact/territory here.

"'Soul of soul'  or Brahman is non-evolutionary..." Again presented as fact... "soul merges back...in certain schools of Hinduism but not in others..." which reveals the earlier statements to be not fact but indeed a presentation of one-and-more maps. And not the territory.

"Btw...precepts of yama and niyama...?" Yama according to Patanjali comprises one limb of an eight-limbed yoga, and not a precept, which is a Buddhist concept. Niyama according to Patanjali also comprises one limb of an eight-limbed yoga, and not a precept. (Nor would I consider Patanjali as Hindu, other than that it is also an "Indian" method. So I see three schools at play here: Buddhism, "Hinduism," and now Patanjali's eight-limbed yoga, which I would say is neither. Honestly I think of Patanjali more as "Naga" than anything.)
 

I'm mentioning this as there seems to be a confusion and intermingling of terms and jargon across the thread. Back to Patanjali, that name is associated with grammar for good reason.

 

'Hindu' I think is a term that serves us little in the current time, but does do some work. But, just as with Buddhism, after a mention of the word one would have to ask further: what type? So far as the original topic of the thread, though, I would turn to the inclusion of Siddhartha Gautama on the wheel of Vishnu avatars. Essentially to say, kinda all seems the same to me... Different avatar, different flavor, different approach...like an ultra-compassionate Vishnu, but still Vishnu, until the next turn of the wheel when the next expression takes flight.  

Edited by Mote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Mote said:

 

"Soul is evolutionary..." Is this a map being described? Because it's presented as fact/territory here.

"'Soul of soul'  or Brahman is non-evolutionary..." Again presented as fact... "soul merges back...in certain schools of Hinduism but not in others..." which reveals the earlier statements to be not fact but indeed a presentation of one-and-more maps. And not the territory.

Yes there are many different intepretations of the Vedic knowledge systems (Vedanta itself has multiple philosophical variants). And there are the Tantric Agamas etc. Some people consider the agamas as non-vedic, and many traditional scholars consider them part and parcel of the Vedic tradition (continuation thereof). So modern Hindu temple practices include both vedic as well as agamic practices. So agreed on multiple maps and systems 

Quote

"Btw...precepts of yama and niyama...?" Yama according to Patanjali comprises one limb of an eight-limbed yoga, and not a precept, which is a Buddhist concept. Niyama according to Patanjali also comprises one limb of an eight-limbed yoga, and not a precept. (Nor would I consider Patanjali as Hindu, other than that it is also an "Indian" method. So I see three schools at play here: Buddhism, "Hinduism," and now Patanjali's eight-limbed yoga, which I would say is neither. Honestly I think of Patanjali more as "Naga" than anything.)

I've highlighted the part of your post that I found odd. Now agreed that there was no "Hinduism" during the times of Patanjali, but he is very much a part of the "Hindu" traditions (as they are construed today). Patanjali's system was Samkhya, which is essentially the backbone of modern Hindu cosmology. And Yoga is also an integral part of the Hindu way of seeking (one way out of many, but an integral part). So mostly (and most) Indians don't consider Patanjali's yoga as  non-Hindu. There ARE some western ahem "yogis" who try to appropriate yoga and therefore try to separate it from the Hindu dharmic family. I'm curious about the "Naga" part though...can you elaborate?

Quote

I'm mentioning this as there seems to be a confusion and intermingling of terms and jargon across the thread. Back to Patanjali, that name is associated with grammar for good reason.

 

'Hindu' I think is a term that serves us little in the current time, but does do some work.

Try telling that to the 1 billion Hindus who self-identify as followers of Hindu dharma for thousands of years of unbroken lineage.  :) 

Quote

But, just as with Buddhism, after a mention of the word one would have to ask further: what type? So far as the original topic of the thread, though, I would turn to the inclusion of Siddhartha Gautama on the wheel of Vishnu avatars. Essentially to say, kinda all seems the same to me... Different avatar, different flavor, different approach...like an ultra-compassionate Vishnu, but still Vishnu, until the next turn of the wheel when the next expression takes flight.  

The Shad-darshanas (http://veda.wikidot.com/shad-darshana) have been considered the six philosophical schools that constitute Hindu dharma. 

 

Edited by dwai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, Mote said:

 

"Soul is evolutionary..." Is this a map being described? Because it's presented as fact/territory here.

"'Soul of soul'  or Brahman is non-evolutionary..." Again presented as fact... "soul merges back...in certain schools of Hinduism but not in others..." which reveals the earlier statements to be not fact but indeed a presentation of one-and-more maps. And not the territory.

"Btw...precepts of yama and niyama...?" Yama according to Patanjali comprises one limb of an eight-limbed yoga, and not a precept, which is a Buddhist concept. Niyama according to Patanjali also comprises one limb of an eight-limbed yoga, and not a precept. (Nor would I consider Patanjali as Hindu, other than that it is also an "Indian" method. So I see three schools at play here: Buddhism, "Hinduism," and now Patanjali's eight-limbed yoga, which I would say is neither. Honestly I think of Patanjali more as "Naga" than anything.)
 

I'm mentioning this as there seems to be a confusion and intermingling of terms and jargon across the thread. Back to Patanjali, that name is associated with grammar for good reason.

 

'Hindu' I think is a term that serves us little in the current time, but does do some work. But, just as with Buddhism, after a mention of the word one would have to ask further: what type? So far as the original topic of the thread, though, I would turn to the inclusion of Siddhartha Gautama on the wheel of Vishnu avatars. Essentially to say, kinda all seems the same to me... Different avatar, different flavor, different approach...like an ultra-compassionate Vishnu, but still Vishnu, until the next turn of the wheel when the next expression takes flight.  

 

ah I could have prefaced everything with, "a some say this or that" which I did at one point... Anyway you got your points across  and I'll keep your remarks in mind for next time.   Btw. a precept is defined as "a general rule and or practice" which the teachings of yama and niyama are. 

 

The big difference between Buddhism is that it has a central historic human founder in the Buddha thus any of its various schools should still be in bounds of his core teachings and if not they then become  quasi this or that.  Hinduism on the other hand does not have a central historic human founder claimed or taught by all,  although it has founders of sects and a great many schools, but again the founders of those different sects and schools do not have a common human founder that they have to stay in bounds with to be called a Hindu.  They do have the Vedas, the worship or reverence of Lord Ganesha, along with several other major key beliefs and practices across sects and most schools that are said to be the boundaries to be called a Hindu;  for instance teachings on karma, reincarnation, reverence of chosen Gods or Devas, many spiritual related cultural norms, etc. etc.

Edited by old3bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dwai said:

Yes there are many different intepretations of the Vedic knowledge systems (Vedanta itself has multiple philosophical variants). And there are the Tantric Agamas etc. Some people consider the agamas as non-vedic, and many traditional scholars consider them part and parcel of the Vedic tradition (continuation thereof). So modern Hindu temple practices include both vedic as well as agamic practices. So agreed on multiple maps and systems 

I've highlighted the part of your post that I found odd. Now agreed that there was no "Hinduism" during the times of Patanjali, but he is very much a part of the "Hindu" traditions (as they are construed today). Patanjali's system was Samkhya, which is essentially the backbone of modern Hindu cosmology. And Yoga is also an integral part of the Hindu way of seeking (one way out of many, but an integral part). So mostly (and most) Indians don't consider Patanjali's yoga as  non-Hindu. There ARE some western ahem "yogis" who try to appropriate yoga and therefore try to separate it from the Hindu dharmic family. I'm curious about the "Naga" part though...can you elaborate?

Try telling that to the 1 billion Hindus who self-identify as followers of Hindu dharma for thousands of years of unbroken lineage.  :) 

The Shad-darshanas (http://veda.wikidot.com/shad-darshana) have been considered the six philosophical schools that constitute Hindu dharma. 

 

 

Thank you for your reply.

The bit about multiple maps has more to do with the structure of the sentence and argument as posited. As if to say, were the collection of statements/sentence run through an English programming compiler, it would likely show an error as output.

"I've highlighted the part of your post that I found odd. Now agreed that there was no "Hinduism" during the times of Patanjali, but he is very much a part of the "Hindu" traditions (as they are construed today)...."

I guess that's my point. Just because the entire world calls something a word, doesn't make it so. Just because a billion identify as such, doesn't make it much of a thing of substance, but identity. My point is that there really is not a "Hindu-ism," but perhaps "India-isms," grouped together. The fact that the link you sent unrolls into a list of many different perspectives ("hundreds", to quote the site, of which it offers a collection of six as 'classical'), to me, proves this point. That site, by the way, I would also disagree with--to say that 'yoga' adheres solely to Patanjali and his sutras strikes me as odd. That said, when I click the 'home' link of that site it begins by saying that the original term for 'Hindu' would be "Sanatana Dharma," which I would support. Honestly I'm surprised a modern yogi would support 'Hindu,' which seems to, again, just not do the requisite work that "Sanatana Dharma" would. "Hindu" seems like a holdover from colonial action, posing an obstacle to vidya, view.

RE: western yogis and Hindu: I will say this much: I have learned that I never know who is on the other side of the line on the internet. I've also learned that part of the purpose of a caste system in India was to, again in part, proliferate and protect a bloodline. I have learned that such bloodlines can grow dormant and skip generations, and can be reignited. Similar reinvigorations of spiritual lineages can happen "outside" of blood as well; a being can link back in through other lives and reconnect through either dreaming or meditation. But it seems there are physical components to lineage as well, at least so once upon a time in the Brahmin line. Remember that collectives travel, lineages and cultures travel--across time and distance. Remember: we are all one human collective above all. If one feels pride at being from Easter Island, or Turkey, or Bosnia, or wherever, that's fine. But I am human, working for humans.

RE: Naga: to shift toward a bit lighter of tone, I've just found it funny that Siddhartha Gautama lists as a rule--somewhere, in some sutta--that his school is meant for humans, and--specifically--not nagas, hahaha. And then Patanjali comes out with some sutras that, from a certain point of view, basically improve on Siddhartha's school, introducing the concept of samadhi, samyama, etc. So it's not Buddhist, but... Dunno where I've come across it but yes Patanjali is sometimes described as being a naga scholar, wielding a sword of discernment. When I click into it as naga understanding, it helps me. But I also have a lot of naga in my stew, so to speak.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Mote said:

 

Thank you for your reply.

The bit about multiple maps has more to do with the structure of the sentence and argument as posited. As if to say, were the collection of statements/sentence run through an English programming compiler, it would likely show an error as output.

"I've highlighted the part of your post that I found odd. Now agreed that there was no "Hinduism" during the times of Patanjali, but he is very much a part of the "Hindu" traditions (as they are construed today)...."

I guess that's my point. Just because the entire world calls something a word, doesn't make it so. Just because a billion identify as such, doesn't make it much of a thing of substance, but identity. My point is that there really is not a "Hindu-ism," but perhaps "India-isms," grouped together. The fact that the link you sent unrolls into a list of many different perspectives ("hundreds", to quote the site, of which it offers a collection of six as 'classical'), to me, proves this point.

 

Actually it proves nothing. Yes, many traditions are woven together into a complex tapestry that form a cohesive  religious, social and cultural fabric. I don’t get this compulsive reductionist approach to things. Most Indians don’t think this way. And last I checked, the India is no longer colonized. Let us continue to define ourselves in whatever way we’ve done for millennia. 

24 minutes ago, Mote said:

 

That site, by the way, I would also disagree with--to say that 'yoga' adheres solely to Patanjali and his sutras strikes me as odd. That said, when I click the 'home' link of that site it begins by saying that the original term for 'Hindu' would be "Sanatana Dharma," which I would support. Honestly I'm surprised a modern yogi would support 'Hindu,' which seems to, again, just not do the requisite work that "Sanatana Dharma" would. "Hindu" seems like a holdover from colonial action, posing an obstacle to vidya, view.

 

As a Darshana, Yoga is precisely as outlined by patanjali. What other yoga (in that context) do you know about? :) 

 

What we call ourselves is a matter of convention and usage. Yes Hindu dharma IS Sanatana dharma.
 

It is patronizing to tell Hindus what they can call themselves or not. As a practicing Hindu from a long lineage of Hindus,  I would find it offensive if it took internet posts seriously. :) 

Who gave anyone the right to go about meddling with how 1/5th of humanity refer to themselves? 

 

24 minutes ago, Mote said:

 

 



RE: western yogis and Hindu: I will say this much: I have learned that I never know who is on the other side of the line on the internet. I've also learned that part of the purpose of a caste system in India was to, again in part, proliferate and protect a bloodline. I have learned that such bloodlines can grow dormant and skip generations, and can be reignited. Similar reinvigorations of spiritual lineages can happen "outside" of blood as well; a being can link back in through other lives and reconnect through either dreaming or meditation. But it seems there are physical components to lineage as well, at least so once upon a time in the Brahmin line. Remember that collectives travel, lineages and cultures travel--across time and distance. Remember: we are all one human collective above all. If one feels pride at being from Easter Island, or Turkey, or Bosnia, or wherever, that's fine. But I am human, working for humans.

 

 

That is very good. But I don’t buy into the post-modern humanism paradigm. It has been weaponized by communists (I know...some will roll their eyes). It is perfectly okay to be proud of and celebrate our differences while we manage to maintain a diverse cohesion (as people have done so in India for thousands of years). 

Wrt the caste system, Varna wasn‚Äôt a hereditary thing to start with. Jati is. We see it in all cultures, just that most other ancient cultures only exist in history books ¬†‚ÄĒ the Indian one being the only exception.¬†

24 minutes ago, Mote said:

RE: Naga: to shift toward a bit lighter of tone, I've just found it funny that Siddhartha Gautama lists as a rule--somewhere, in some sutta--that his school is meant for humans, and--specifically--not nagas, hahaha. And then Patanjali comes out with some sutras that, from a certain point of view, basically improve on Siddhartha's school, introducing the concept of samadhi, samyama, etc. So it's not Buddhist, but... Dunno where I've come across it but yes Patanjali is sometimes described as being a naga scholar, wielding a sword of discernment. When I click into it as naga understanding, it helps me. But I also have a lot of naga in my stew, so to speak.
 

Haha I thought you were referring to the Nagas who were the offspring of Rishi Kashyap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

ah I could have prefaced everything with, "a some say this or that" which I did at one point... Anyway you got your points across  and I'll keep your remarks in mind for next time.   Btw. a precept is defined as "a general rule and or practice" which the teachings of yama and niyama are. 

 

The big difference between Buddhism is that it has a central historic human founder in the Buddha thus any of its various schools should still be in bounds of his core teachings and if not they then become  quasi this or that.  Hinduism on the other hand does not have a central historic human founder claimed or taught by all,  although it has founders of sects and a great many schools, but the founders of those sects and schools do not have a common human founder that they have to stay in bounds with to be called a Hindu.  They do have the Vedas, the worship or reverence of Lord Ganesha, along with several major key beliefs and practices across sects and most schools that are said to be the boundaries to be a Hindu;  for instance teachings on karma, reincarnation, reverence of chosen Gods or Devas, many cultural norms, etc. etc.

 

Thank you for your reply, and the noticed shift in tone. We are all in this together.

 

Yes, it was more to-do with clarity. Especially important as we find ourselves in a thread that is, in part, regarding clarity of terms and perspectives. As Patanjali would say, "[insert language that mote does not speak]". Which a translator might put as, As the roots of suffering involve a lack of insight, or avidya, every utterance--even online--provides an opportunity to do work. And we are all learning.

And so that brings me back to yama, niyama, and the word 'precept.' To which I will say that Patanjali simply lists the limbs in order, calling it a seven-step process. I can understand if one would really want to fight for a use of the word 'precept' to mean a general rule and to then include it with discussion of yama and niyama, but I think it's a fight that one does not need. Leave 'precept' to the Buddhist schools. After all, the etymology of the word "precept" breaks it into pre + cept: prae (before) + capare (take), into praecipere: warning. Even if one intends some other definition, the energy of the word will still carry through its execution, and it carries allusions to time and order--pre--outside of a "main" process.

 

One might argue for yama as foundation, niyama also as foundation, but even then. I would simply say, Yama is yama. Niyama is Niyama. Two limbs of eight. Full stop. This shift started for me when I stopped grouping yamas and niyamas together offhandedly, and stopped terming them as 'Do's and Don't do's.' Yama; Niyama. My current practice involves sitting with each, holding a different finger for each, including them with the toes, making a kind of 'net' energetically through contemplation. When I sit in meditation, if I have to, I can lean into this invisible 'net' I've already played with. I do, though, perform these actions first in a series. But I can't say that one limb is absent, even if performing a seven-step process. The asana is always there when I sit with yama, prana always there as I hold the finger, and the meditations on yama and/or niyama constitute samyama, essentially involving all limbs--pratyahara at a low level as this marks the outset of my practice.

 

An understanding of the power of language--I'm pretty sure, but could be wrong--is included by Patanjali as part of the siddhis which arise due to the practice. I have no siddhis, but inconsistencies in language now pop out to me, and it actually led to the end of many of my relationships. Once you understand what the effects that people's language have, it...sucks. While I don't identify as Buddhist, I think the guy hit the nail on the head with that first noble truth. 

 

Which brings me to your last point, of the distinction between 'Buddhism' and 'Hinduism.' I would agree with the distinction that Buddhism (seems to) have a historical figure at its root. But I do tend to agree with what's posited by the Lotus Sutra, that the true dharma lasts only for a time once a Tathagatha takes the stage, and then a false dharma lasts for a time. I think we are in a time of false dharma--not maliciously so, just that it's in a very Swiss-Cheese state at the moment, I would say.

 

All to say, I think this thread points to a general call for clarity of terms, especially when we introduce other styles, compare styles. It helps everyone when we know exactly what we're saying--to the best of our ability; even though this is the internet and it sucks; sometimes it helps to become a stickler for one's own wordings.

 

Anyway, my best to everyone. I think I've been on the internet for too long of late. I will vow to take a break. Be well - mote 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, dwai said:

Actually it proves nothing. Yes, many traditions are woven together into a complex tapestry that form a cohesive  religious, social and cultural fabric. I don’t get this compulsive reductionist approach to things. Most Indians don’t think this way. And last I checked, the India is no longer colonized. Let us continue to define ourselves in whatever way we’ve done for millennia. 

As a Darshana, Yoga is precisely as outlined by patanjali. What other yoga (in that context) do you know about? :) 

 

What we call ourselves is a matter of convention and usage. Yes Hindu dharma IS Sanatana dharma.
 

It is patronizing to tell Hindus what they can call themselves or not. As a practicing Hindu from a long lineage of Hindus,  I would find it offensive if it took internet posts seriously. :) 

Who gave anyone the right to go about meddling with how 1/5th of humanity refer to themselves? 

 

That is very good. But I don’t buy into the post-modern humanism paradigm. It has been weaponized by communists (I know...some will roll their eyes). It is perfectly okay to be proud of and celebrate our differences while we manage to maintain a diverse cohesion (as people have done so in India for thousands of years). 

Wrt the caste system, Varna wasn‚Äôt a hereditary thing to start with. Jati is. We see it in all cultures, just that most other ancient cultures only exist in history books ¬†‚ÄĒ the Indian one being the only exception.¬†

Haha I thought you were referring to the Nagas who were the offspring of Rishi Kashyap. 

 

"Actually it proves nothing." I disagree. 

 

"Last I checked, India is no longer colonized..." Yes, this supports my point about harboring a colonial holdover. I guess for me, it amounts to clarity. And does that word add to clarity, or does it in fact increase avidya, and thus do harm? This would be up to the individual to decide. Then again I've met people who claim to know how majorities of entire populations think.

 

"What other yoga...in that context..." The site doesn't really present it within a context though, not as it appears. So your question kinda skirts my point. My point being, if I were to write that website, I would word things differently; arrange the words on the page and title, even, differently. Not a huge point.  Many of my points amount to things like this, by the way. I've become a nitpicker of language, due to, yes, time spent with the yoga sutras. It might come off like quibbling over semantics, but to term it so would be to miss out on potentially huge 'leaks' of power, clarity, what-have-you. As the Hagakure says, a warrior treats small things like big things, and big things as small.

"What we call ourselves is a matter of convention and usage." Again I notice someone seeming to speak for others not present, and I would urge caution. "Yes Hindu Dharma IS Sanatama Dharma." And so, doesn't the fact that this must be clarified, again, prove the opposite point? It seems redundant. "Sanata Dharma" alone would inform one as to more of its actual substance, while STILL informing a hearer of an Indian origin via the presence of Sanskrit.

 

When I served in Iraq, locals would call me 'Hindu,' which, in Arabic, meant 'Indian.' And not religious. Just to, like, provide an example from elsewhere. So if you come across an Arabic speaker (and maybe you know this), you may have to get into more weeds if one wishes to distinguish ethnicity from religion from country because of this adherence to inefficient language. Inefficient language, in my view, contributes to harm in the larger perspective.

 

Important to note that I'm not talking to all of India or Indians, but one person at a time. And the things I'm presenting here may go however they would over a conservative mindset. I understand that conservative polarization survives in India today, but I guess my words would seek to reach a mind open to changing a word, and to encourage yogis to let go of country or ethnic distinction. One of my points in this thread has been that these terms and distinctions--Buddhist, Hindu, etc--have largely served to divide us and to hinder understanding. Like the tower of babel. And I have made it my work (these days, by and large) to create something new and to try to unite the clans; so I'm merely presenting this perspective. I don't know if I can change your mind, and I'm not seeking to do so.

 

I'm not saying a people should call themselves this or that. There's no should presented here. I wrote that it surprises me that a modern yogi would prefer the term. Just that it surprises me, which, I guess, is kinda like saying I find it disappointing. But I am entitled to my own opinion. And if others want to tell me how to live, I promise not to get offended. That's a bit of a rule I have, actually, to not allow myself to become offended--after all, who is there to offend?

 

"I don’t buy into the post-modern humanism paradigm..Varna wasn't hereditary..." It seems like you may have missed my point here. An error on my part and I'll leave it. I believe you regarding varna and jati.

 

RE: Naga: Ah, haha. Nahp, dragons and snakes. Funnily enough I was researching him the other day, I think because he's listed with the septirishis. But...maybe? You would likely know more than me.

I added this on another post, but I've decided to step away from internet for awhile. I have enjoyed this and wish you the best. Apologies for any offense. Be well -mote

 

 

 

 

Edited by Mote
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites