What are your tradition's safeguards against self-delusion or being deluded by others?

[freeform]

12 minutes ago, dmattwads said:

 

All I'll say at this point is that I was a history major for my undergrad degree and I have never ever heard of any evidence for this sort of history in India or anywhere else that goes back this far in this manner. 

 

It's like 10yr old Daoist schools "proving" that they can trace their lineage to the Yellow Emperor or Lao Tzu or some bollocks like that. I hope we can just leave this subject for another time and place (preferably out of my sight! )

Edited January 7, 2021 by freeform

[dwai]

24 minutes ago, freeform said:

 

It's like 10yr old Daoist schools "proving" that they can trace their lineage to the Yellow Emperor or Lao Tzu or some bollocks like that. I hope we can just leave this subject for another time and place (preferably out of my sight! )

Actually, it is a lot more serious than that. Indian civilizational history has been systematically distorted by Westerners (conquerors and all) over the ages. It is a matter of the natives speaking up -- their voices matter too.  

[dwai]

39 minutes ago, dmattwads said:

 

All I'll say at this point is that I was a history major for my undergrad degree and I have never ever heard of any evidence for this sort of history in India or anywhere else that goes back this far in this manner. 

All I can say is, watch the video I shared in this post -- 

 

[freeform]

Just now, dwai said:

It is a matter of the natives speaking up -- their voices matter too.

 

There are many issues in the world.

 

Let's not try to solve them in a Daoist forum, on a topic discussing discernment.

 

 

[Maddie]

2 minutes ago, freeform said:

 

There are many issues in the world.

 

Let's not try to solve them in a Daoist forum, on a topic discussing discernment.

 

 

 

Yes. My original point was that I don't think the "Hinduism" portrayed in the Buddhist suttas is actual Hinduism.

[dwai]

18 minutes ago, freeform said:

 

There are many issues in the world.

 

Let's not try to solve them in a Daoist forum, on a topic discussing discernment.

 

 

Agreed  

[Apech]

28 minutes ago, dwai said:

Actually, it is a lot more serious than that. Indian civilizational history has been systematically distorted by Westerners (conquerors and all) over the ages. It is a matter of the natives speaking up -- their voices matter too.  

 

Ok OK ... let's leave it.  I can agree that Westerner scholars got it wrong ... and are still getting it wrong ... but then so are you.  But I don't want to derail this thread (any more).

 

 

[Apech]

23 minutes ago, dmattwads said:

 

Yes. My original point was that I don't think the "Hinduism" portrayed in the Buddhist suttas is actual Hinduism.

 

Without wanting to provoke any controversy ... there wasn't any 'Hinduism' at the time of the Buddha ... there was vedic Brahmanism which was quite different.  Also can I make the point that most if not all of Buddhas criticism of Brahmin priests was that they were not being very good Brahmin priests - they had at that time 5th century BC become static and arrogant in their attitudes and relied on blood purity and not ethical purity.

 

 

[Maddie]

4 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Without wanting to provoke any controversy ... there wasn't any 'Hinduism' at the time of the Buddha ... there was vedic Brahmanism which was quite different.  Also can I make the point that most if not all of Buddhas criticism of Brahmin priests was that they were not being very good Brahmin priests - they had at that time 5th century BC become static and arrogant in their attitudes and relied on blood purity and not ethical purity.

 

 

 

I almost and should have typed proto-hinduism but yes not what we know as Hinduism today. 

 

I think another false argument today between Hinduism and Buddhism is the atman vs anatman debate but I don't think that was originally what the Buddha was saying.

[dwai]

24 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Ok OK ... let's leave it.  I can agree that Westerner scholars got it wrong ... and are still getting it wrong ... but then so are you.  But I don't want to derail this thread (any more).

 

 

 Why do you think I'm getting it wrong? Watch the video and then start another thread if you want to dispute the contents provided therein. 

[Apech]

1 minute ago, dwai said:

 Why do you think I'm getting it wrong? Watch the video and then start another thread if you want to dispute the contents provided therein. 

 

I read Oak last time you recommended him.  Let's leave it.

[dwai]

21 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Without wanting to provoke any controversy ... there wasn't any 'Hinduism' at the time of the Buddha ... there was vedic Brahmanism which was quite different. 

What is the difference between "hinduism" and Vedic "brahmanism"?

The core of what is "Hinduism" today is that the Vedic tradition preserved in the system organized by Adi Shankaracharya and very much alive and kicking -- only, it's not a fact that's very well known to outsiders. 

21 minutes ago, Apech said:

Also can I make the point that most if not all of Buddhas criticism of Brahmin priests was that they were not being very good Brahmin priests - they had at that time 5th century BC become static and arrogant in their attitudes and relied on blood purity and not ethical purity.

 

 

 That might be the case --- or might not be. The Buddha's main point of contention was more or less what Advaita Vedanta makes today -- the gradual path vs the direct path. The Buddha's path is more akin to what is called the Direct Path today. (of course IMHO).

[dwai]

2 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

I read Oak last time you recommended him.  Let's leave it.

That's what most academics say -- but no one actually has either the research rigor - rather there is a reliance on stale and incorrect precedents. I've not seen a valid refutation of what he proposes -- you know why? Because they can't disprove him -- the evidence is solid. Ok ok...now let us backburner the topic.  

[Apech]

2 minutes ago, dwai said:

What is the difference between "hinduism" and Vedic "brahmanism"?

The core of what is "Hinduism" today is that the Vedic tradition preserved in the system organized by Adi Shankaracharya and very much alive and kicking -- only, it's not a fact that's very well known to outsiders. 

 That might be the case --- or might not be. The Buddha's main point of contention was more or less what Advaita Vedanta makes today -- the gradual path vs the direct path. The Buddha's path is more akin to what is called the Direct Path today. (of course IMHO).

 

Jesus H. Christ.

 

https://www.thedaobums.com/topic/52191-what-are-your-traditions-safeguards-against-self-delusion-or-being-deluded-by-others/?do=findComment&comment=955505

 

[natural]

12 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Jesus H. Christ.

 

https://www.thedaobums.com/topic/52191-what-are-your-traditions-safeguards-against-self-delusion-or-being-deluded-by-others/?do=findComment&comment=955505

 

 

 Is that an H. for Holy or Harold?

[freeform]

35 minutes ago, Apech said:

Let's leave it.

 

 

37 minutes ago, dwai said:

start another thread

Some great ideas here.

[dwai]

27 minutes ago, natural said:

 

 Is that an H. for Holy or Harold?

Henrietta?

[Limahong]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

It is a matter of the natives speaking up -- their voices matter too.

 

 

 

 

 

[Limahong]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

Why do you think I'm getting it wrong? Watch the video and then start another thread if you want to dispute the contents provided therein.

 

How about the context?

 

 

[Limahong]

17 minutes ago, dwai said:

Henrietta?

 

 

 

 

[Limahong]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

That's what most academics say -- but no one actually has either the research rigor - rather there is a reliance on stale and incorrect precedents.

 

Hi dwai,

 

What is research rigor?

 

 

Are you from the academia?

 

- Anand

 

 

[Limahong]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

Because they can't disprove him -- the evidence is solid.

 

 

What is solid?

 

 

 

[Wilhelm]

3 hours ago, dmattwads said:

 

All I'll say at this point is that I was a history major for my undergrad degree and I have never ever heard of any evidence for this sort of history in India or anywhere else that goes back this far in this manner. 

You know - it was part of the 'lore' when I was studying Yoga, but I never stopped to think of it in empirical terms, I just thought "Ok, this is the lore." And kept going.  

I'm not sure I ever believed it or disbelieved it.  It was almost like studying Middle-Earth!

 

Edit: Oops!  It looks like we're getting off this topic.  I agree with the other folks here - unless there's a practical purpose to the information it makes for a rather silly debate

Edited January 7, 2021 by Wilhelm

[Limahong]

2 hours ago, dmattwads said:

My original point was that I don't think the "Hinduism" portrayed in the Buddhist suttas is actual Hinduism.

 

Says who?

 

5 hours ago, dmattwads said:

I seriously think one of the posters yesterday was either taking something or had stopped taking something they needed to be taking.

 

Is (s)he here today?

 

[Limahong]

Deleted `~ a repetition.

 

Edited January 7, 2021 by Limahong
Correction