dwai

How does that show that Sanatana Dharma is not the root of Pauranik Hinduism? Vaishnavism is indeed significantly different from other practices in India. I would even say that Vaishnavism has facets of Christian dogma depending on who you are talking to about Mortimer Wheeler was right on. Buddhism wasn't a heresy against Brahminical (Sankhya, Yoga, Upanishadic (Vedantic) thoughts) Orthodoxy, it borrowed from it, from Jina Philosophy and added unique insights of the Buddha. So it wasn't a heresy but an offshoot. There were influences from both directions. There is no denying that Buddhism positively influenced Hindu Dharma over the centuries. But that doesn't naturally mean that Vedic/Vedantic thought did not influence Buddhism. As we know, a lot of Buddhists were Brahmins.

May I ask what exactly are we categorizing under "Magical" abilities? Is the ability to "Fa Jing" not potentially a "magical" ability that only a few Internal MA can do? Does that mean that Ward off, roll back, press, push, etc are not energies that can projected into the outer world? The Grand Master of my style of TC can stand on one leg, leaning awkwardly off-balance and send a 200 lb man slamming into the wall behind with one finger tip, simply by Fa Jing. There might have been some on this forum who has experienced this. Is it magical? Probably unbelievable from the perspective of "Science and the Scientific Method of Inquiry". But does it mean it cannot be done? Definitely! The proof is in the pudding (and one is not obligated to prove/disprove these things to insignificant individuals like James Randi).

What makes you think I dont? I agree with you about Spiritual Practice.

Agreed...I am learning this slowly with practice. But Humanity does have a role to play, does it not? And the "We/Us" is "me/I". It is also not a phenomenon unique to one but all of humanity. So perhaps the answer lies in understanding the why through like you suggested...is there something basic and primal in human nature that makes us the way we are?

Yes. But after I get it out, how do prevent it from getting back in there? Perhaps knowing it is the best way to get it out and keep it out? I don't know...

hmm...true. I have to think about this...thanks

Tao is beyond polarity...but Polarity rises from Tao and merges into Tao.

You just proved my point about your being a Troll with that diatribe of yours. What middle-aged myth did I show myself as believing? Puranas are not even in discussion here, and except for pointing out that Haji was referring to the wrong "Brahma", I have not cited any puranic references. I do have an agenda, and it is to call out a falsehood as such, when I see it happening before my eyes. And therefore I challenged your level of knowledge. It has been made abundantly clear that you have next to none in this field.

you are so funny! This is all very fanciful employment of the imaginative faculties, for sure!

I wasn't quoting Bronkhorst, but presenting Wynne's thesis (a bad review of it, nonetheless). Like I pointed out, it doens't matter if the remain 98 Upanishads came after the Buddha, because the core content of the Upanishads the same. The treatment of the content in the Upanishads vary since each Upanishad is the narration of the corresponding Rishi's experience. Read A history of early Vedānta philosophy, Part 1 By Hajime Nakamura (http://books.google.com/books?id=BCl0qRJTpHwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=A+History+of+Early+Vedānta+Philosoph.&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false)

I did not cite that all Upanishad came after the Buddha. It would be completely misinformed if someone did. The quote I had posted was a review of a book by a "Western Buddhist". The idea was to highlight the author's thesis and not the biased review of the Buddhist who added commentary at the end of the review. It is obvious Alwayson knows of this. And those who chimed in to claim that Vedanta didn't exist before the Buddha seriously lack in knowledge of Indian History. The Upanishads were clearly and very well established before the Buddha was born and while there were many that were potentially written after Buddha's birth, the 10 most important ones predate the Buddha significantly. This can be proven simply by looking at the language used in the Upanishads.

Go troll somewhere else It is one thing to argue for the sake of argument and another to try and bait someone just to elicit a negative response. If and when you decide to really get educated in Indic history, you will learn that what I have articulated here is all true. All of which I said is well accepted fact in India.

Magadha, Anga, Vanga, etc are all well documented "Arya" lands (meaning non-mleccha) per the Mahabharata (which predates the Buddha by at 2-3 millenia). I will refrain from responding to the "Brahminical conspiracy" theory...those who know enough about the Vedic rishis would know that many of them were non-Brahmins.

You guys claim that The Buddha rejected the Vedic/Vedantic teachings. How exactly did he do that, if he had not learnt them? Surely "watching" someone do an esoteric practice doesn't qualify one to have genuine knowledge of that.

What were they then?

As were the Vedic/Upanishadic rishis...so what are the odds that his Gurus might have actually been Vedic/Upanishadic Rishis?

If you read Buddhist history you will see that there was a distinct chism between groups of Buddhists which led to the Theravadins (and the Vaibhasika and Satrantika schools subdivided there in) and the Mahayana (Yogachara) and Madhyamika. Each of these position in sometimes almost opposite poles of the interpretation of the Buddha's teachings. If they did not, they wouldn't split into these groups (and subgroups further within).

What does Theravada have to say about Vajrayana and Mahayana? What does it have to say about Madhyamika?

I am saying that this doesn't have anything to do with Vedanta, because Vedanta doesn't talk about Brahma but Brahman. So, the fact that he produced a piece of polemic (which was used extensively as different schools of thought debated through the rich history of India) about the "Buddhists and Brahma" does not have any bearing whatsoever with the fact that Buddha had studied Vedanta (and as phil pointed out, Sankhya and Jina thought as well) before he became The Buddha. Brahma and the Hindu Puranic trinity is a much later, post-vedic development

Well then you have successfully contradicted yourself and potentially run the risk of living in delusion. If you follow Theravada, you are automatically in opposition to Mahayana and Vice versa. If you follow Madhyamika then, well, you don't follow anything since Madhyamika suggests that all systems are inherently flawed and cannot lead a seeker to enlightenment. If you want to fight for Buddhism, first learn about it. Otherwise you might come across as an angry individual who has a chip on his/her shoulder and argumentative for the sake of it. That is just so simplistically naive that I have a slightly sad smile on my face and simply reflects the lack of Purva Paksha (which is the acquisition of a sound knowledge of the opponent's position) on part of those who wrote these accounts. Firstly, Vedanta doesn't take about Brahma (part of the Trinity of Deities which is part of the Puranic tradition). Vedanta/Vedantins refer to a Brahman, which is different from Brahma. Why don't you spend some time reading up on Buddhism first?

Then what is it about Buddhism that you find so fascinating that you claim to be a Buddhist? There must be some "things" that you find attractive.

I think the Buddhist fear of being subsumed by Hinduism is unfounded and a sign of their lack of conviction in their own faith. I am sure the Buddha didn't fear being subsumed by Hinduism. Neither did Nagarjuna. Let us first ascertain what Sect of Buddhism you subscribe to. If it is not clear then perhaps you need to introspect and choose, because The Theravada and Mahayana Schools are often times in direct opposition as far as philosophy is concerned. So are you a Theravadin or do you follow Mahayana? The question is open to Alwayson as well.

I would recommend you stay away from the Wendy Donigers, Sarah Caldwell, DGWhite types of "scholars". To know more about the why, read a book titled "Invading the Sacred" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/8129111829/booksinfo-20/ref=nosim/). This book methodically and scientifically exposes the so-called Scholastic capabilities of these individuals. Also read the "Risa Lila" series by Public domain intellectual Rajiv Malhotra (http://rajivmalhotra.sulekha.com/blog/post/2002/09/risa-lila-1-wendy-s-child-syndrome.htm and http://rajivmalhotra.sulekha.com/blog/post/2003/11/risa-lila-2-limp-scholarship-and-demonology.htm) for further insight into how West Academia works wrt Indology and Indic studies. So, in all, I would suggest you forget anything you might have read (written by such "scholars") if you want to learn about Indic subjects or Indian History. I would suggest that The Mahayana Elements that you see in Hinduism is actually Hindu elements in Mahayana.

Let me expound what Vedanta is. The Vedic literature consists of 4 types, the Aranyakas, The Samhitas, The Brahmanas and the Upanishads. Vedanta is the philosophical/knowledge portion of the Vedas (Jnana Kaanda) , as articulated in the Upanishads. Surely as Buddhism has had many documents and commentaries written on it (and continually so today) through it's history, so have the Vedas. Therefore, it is not improabable to surmise that There were Upanishads that predate The Buddha and there are those that Post-date the Buddha. There are potentially also Upanishads that were composed during Buddha's lifetime as well. Moreover, the content of the Upanishads are often times repetitive, but presented from the experiential perspective of the Rishis around whom they are based (usually in the Question/Answer format). So the fact that certain Upanishads were written after the Buddha's lifetime have no bearing on the content that they discuss, which is the concepts of Jiva, Atman, Brahman and everything that revolves around them. It is also not necessary or correct to suppose that Kevala Advaita Vedanta as presented by Adi Shankara is the only Vedanta. The elements of what Advaita highlights are all present in the Upanishads. Also, I have never denied that there were Buddhists in India, that would be preposterous. I just pointed out to you that the tribals that you mentioned were a small minority (and always have been) of the Indic Society. The statement that majority of India was Buddhist is simply imagined. Historically, the maximum conversions to Buddhism happened during the period of Ashoka's rule, post Kalinga War (265 BC). It would also be interesting to know that Ashoka's Guru and Main advisor was a Brahmin named Kautilya (Chanakya), the author the of book of statecraft titled "Artha Shaastra").