There is no self

[philbowser]

FINALLY

 

Some logic.

 

Thats all I wanted. Congrats.

 

Now you just have to acknowledge that "India" was buddhist at one point.

 

BTW, that article is the biggest load of crap I have read in a long time.

 

 

India was many more things, was Islamic, was Brahminical and many more things. If it was Buddhist at one point, so what? That was a small passing phase like many others.

 

I have not found much reason in anything you have written so far, so I will not argue about the crap part. Your post describes itself. I am a member of many other forums on which you run similar tirades and troll and I realize the futility of arguing with you. I would rather do something worthwhile. My post was intended for someone balanced and non-juvenile with a reasonable capability to think, articulate and carry on a meaningful conversation.

Edited April 15, 2010 by philbowser

[RongzomFan]

Buddhism was a small passing phase? It was the biggest and longest phase.

 

I guess you really don't have a clue.

 

Hinduism today is full of Mahayana elements. There are ancient temples in India today where the Shiva lingas are actually old Ashoka pillars.

Edited April 15, 2010 by alwayson

[dwai]

India was many more things, was Islamic, was Brahminical and many more things. If it was Buddhist at one point, so what? That was a small passing phase like many others.

 

I have not found much reason in anything you have written so far, so I will not argue about the crap part. Your post describes itself. I am a member of many other forums on which you run similar tirades and troll and I realize the futility of arguing with you. I would rather do something worthwhile. My post was intended for someone balanced and non-juvenile with a reasonable capability to think, articulate and carry on a meaningful conversation.

 

I guess since "Alwayson" doesn't exist, no one was trolling and what (not)s/he/it posited is also nothing.

On the other hand, thanks for sharing those articles.

 

 

 

[dwai]

FINALLY

 

Some logic.

 

Thats all I wanted. Congrats.

 

Now you just have to acknowledge that "India" was buddhist at one point.

 

BTW, philbrowser, that amateur discussion is the biggest load of crap I have read in a long time.

 

 

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").

[RongzomFan]

The statement that majority of India was Buddhist is simply imagined.

 

 

 

No it is definitely true for many areas like Andhra. Thats why I asked which part of India you are from. Why do you think Vaishnavism is so prevalent in India? Ever heard of buddhistic vaishnavism? All the buddhists became Vaishnava.

 

I even see this fact detailed in books such as the The Alchemical Body by David Gordon White, as if it is common knowledge in academia, which it is.

 

I would love for you to explain all the Mahayana elements in Hinduism. Where did idol worship come from?

Edited April 15, 2010 by alwayson

[contrivedname!]

When do people release this insipid intellectualism.. Pretending your own wisdoms by parroting the words of past experiencers, while too timid or too lame to explore your own existence.. when do you stop playing word-games, as if Awareness were anything other than the messenger of a reality you haven't the courage to embrace.. Individual persons, bantering their deep understandings of "what they want to hear themselves say", and tacitly approving of each other's pretensions by engaging in the nuance of the pretension, rather than rebuking its absurdity.. no different in its pretentiousness than the cultivated etiquette of social nobility, yet so much more sinister in its influence over the impressionistic minds of the sincerely curious..

 

and then

 

Life is an elegant simplicity, it is experienced by a unique individualized Self, plainly obvious without resorting to conceptual constructions that conflict with the basic function of awareness, to observe.. The absence of faith in one's own existence, or the belief in 'no-self' by self, is hardly the criteria for posting advice about, or 'pointing to', 'self-formed' opinions regarding a reality with which you have no familiarity.. Liberation is experienced when there is no need to define 'self/no-self', that need is unmanifested due to the self-evident nature of observing your existence without 'expectations'.. 'expectations' that are constructed by attaching to belief systems, programming, gurus of choice, or the unfounded fears of 'self' passing into non-existence.. it is the latter, the fear of 'self' passing into non-existence, that inspires the belief in 'no-self', which ironically, is a deep attachment to self.. as if by pretending there is 'no-self' then it can't pass.. Self is constant, eternal, and merely changes perspectives to accomodate its own existence and the evolution of its self-awareness..

 

so the above is true wisdom and isn't insipid intellectualism? its not a 'bantering [of] their deep understandings of "what they want to hear themselves say"'?

 

i think most of the discussion on this site is what you termed 'bantering [of] their deep understandings of "what they want to hear themselves say'. If someone else's experience is of no help why discuss anything? should we not agree where we agree and disagree where we disagree?

 

how can someone have no familiarity with reality, its right in front of your face, just because we use our conceptual filter to self-define reality doesnt mean it isnt experienced; our view is biased and defined by said filters, but reality is still experienced, however narrow, skewed, or delusional the view. in fact i would hold that we use our subjective experiences of reality to form these filters, or what i call our experiential lens. after a time our experience of reality is filtered through

these narrow paradigms nearly automatically. by clinging to our own narrow experiential paradigms we begin filtering reality through so many different filters that 'reality' could become indistinguishable from said filters/lens'/paradigms. These filters are useful, when not clung to as absolute reality, when they are clung to...

 

that said i will partake in pretension and posit that i agree with much of what you said... except the absurd parts which i rebuked (damn that paradigm!)

[contrivedname!]

Blah Blah Blah Vedanta is older. Blah blah blah Buddhism is older.

 

a lot of this discussion seems to be going down the line of my religions dick is bigger than yours. scratch that. its more like my religion's dick is older than yours, and we all know how well old men's dicks work

 

i can really see how this discussion raises the general conciousness

[RongzomFan]

it is about the history of India, not spirituality or dick measuring

 

thanks

[dwai]

No it is definitely true for many areas like Andhra. Thats why I asked which part of India you are from. Why do you think Vaishnavism is so prevalent in India? Ever heard of buddhistic vaishnavism? All the buddhists became Vaishnava.

 

I even see this fact detailed in books such as the The Alchemical Body by David Gordon White, as if it is common knowledge in academia, which it is.

 

I would love for you to explain all the Mahayana elements in Hinduism. Where did idol worship come from?

 

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.

 

 

 

[hajimesaito]

I had been quite busy for these two days so couldn't furnish a reply for the posts raised against mine (although I did make an attempt to read them in a hurry). It will take a great effort indeed to reply to all that now. All I want to say is that those Hindus who are trying to co-opt Buddhism into their fold, are completely motivated by their nationalistic and religious biases.

 

The posts by Philbowser are especially propagandistic in nature. Overall its a great attempt to give all the credit and glory of Buddha and Buddhism to the respected Brahmins (the priestly class) of India, but it is completely contradictory to reality. On the basis of philosophy alone, Brahmanism shares very little with Buddhism, and on a political scale the two had almost always been in conflict. Sankara, the proponent and founder of Advaita was especially zealous in eradicating Buddhism from India and to establish the Brahmanic supremacy through the Brahmanic caste system in the society.

 

Here is a poem written in one of the Jatakas where the Brahmins and their activities are described very nicely. I am not claiming that to have any basis in real history, but it certainly depicts the perception the Buddhists (the ones who compiled such texts) towards the Brahmins to say the least.

Here a Bodhisattva is supposed to be replying critically to the false claims of the sacrosanct nature of the Vedas by the Brahmins (and also their attempt of laying the venomous caste system on their "Naga society"):-

 

These Veda studies are the wise man's toils,

The lure which tempts the victim whom he spoils;

 

A mirage formed to catch the careless eye,

But which the prudent passes safely by.

 

The Vedas have no hidden power to save,

The traitor or the coward or the knave;

 

The fire, though tended well for long years past,

Leaves his base master without hope at last.

 

Though all earth's trees in one heap are piled

To satisfy the fire's insatiate child,

 

Still would it crave for more, insatiate still ,--

How could a Naga hope that maw to fill?

 

Milk ever changes,-- thus where milk has been

Butter and curds in natural course are seen;

 

These Brahmins all a livelihood require,

And so they tell us Brahma worships fire;

 

Why should the increate who all things planned

Worships himself the creature of his hand?

 

Doctrine and rules of their own, absurd and vain,

Our sires imagined wealth and power to gain;

 

'Brahmans he made for study, for command

He made the Khattiyas; Vessa plough the land,

 

Suddas servants he made to obey the rest,

Thus from the first went forth his high behest?'

 

We see these rules enforced behind our eyes,

None by the Brahmins offer sacrifice,

 

None by Khattiya exercises sway,

The Vessas plough, the Suddas must obey.

 

These greedy liars propagate deceit,

And fools believe the fiction they repeat.

 

He who has eyes can see the sickening sight;

Why does not Brahma set his creature right?

 

 

[ Refer to this link for more

 

 

This is the opinion of Buddha about Brahmanism:-

 

 

O Vasettha, those brahmins who know the three Vedas are just like a line of blind men tied together where the first sees nothing, the middle man nothing, and the last sees nothing

Does it not follow, this being so, that the talk of the Brahmans, versed though they be in the Three Vedas, turns out to be foolish talk.

`Therefore is it that the threefold wisdom of the Brahmans, wise in their Three Vedas, is called a waterless desert, their threefold wisdom is called a pathless jungle, their threefold wisdom is called perdition!'

(Tevijja-Sutta, Dighanikaya, 13:15)

 

 

I think this should be enough to burst the bubble of those Hindu disinformation agents trying to include Buddhism into "Hinduism" as their nationalistic agenda. As for Sankara, the history of Buddhism written by Taranatha from Tibet mentions that when Sankara used to approach a Buddhist monastery for debate, all the monks used to run hell pell in fear while the earth and monastery shaked. Of course this is just exaggeration, but it does show that Sankara was not really so equanimous towards the Buddhists as his followers make him out to be. His sole agenda was to revive Brahmanism and exterminate both Buddhism and Jainism.

[contrivedname!]

it is about the history of India, not spirituality or dick measuring

 

thanks

 

right and buddhism and vedanta have nothing to do with spirituality. and there is no possiblity of personal biases playing into this discussion of history, none.

[RongzomFan]

dwai,

 

I don't know who those two other authors are, but I really don't have a problem with David Gordon White. He is a fine scholar in my opinion.

 

Are you basing this opinion on a couple of bad amazon reviews? If I was a New Age tantrist I would probably give him a bad review too! His books are scholarly, not meant to provide some manual on yoga as it seems some people wanted!!

Edited April 15, 2010 by alwayson

[dwai]

I had been quite busy for these two days so couldn't furnish a reply for the posts raised against mine (although I did make an attempt to read them in a hurry). It will take a great effort indeed to reply to all that now. All I want to say is that those Hindus who are trying to co-opt Buddhism into their fold, are completely motivated by their nationalistic and religious biases.

 

The posts by Philbowser are especially propagandistic in nature. Overall its a great attempt to give all the credit and glory of Buddha and Buddhism to the respected Brahmins (the priestly class) of India, but it is completely contradictory to reality. On the basis of philosophy alone, Brahmanism shares very little with Buddhism, and on a political scale the two had almost always been in conflict. Sankara, the proponent and founder of Advaita was especially zealous in eradicating Buddhism from India and to establish the Brahmanic supremacy through the Brahmanic caste system in the society.

 

Here is a poem written in one of the Jatakas where the Brahmins and their activities are described very nicely. I am not claiming that to have any basis in real history, but it certainly depicts the perception the Buddhists (the ones who compiled such texts) towards the Brahmins to say the least.

Here a Bodhisattva is supposed to be replying critically to the false claims of the sacrosanct nature of the Vedas by the Brahmins (and also their attempt of laying the venomous caste system on their "Naga society"):-

 

These Veda studies are the wise man's toils,

The lure which tempts the victim whom he spoils;

 

A mirage formed to catch the careless eye,

But which the prudent passes safely by.

 

The Vedas have no hidden power to save,

The traitor or the coward or the knave;

 

The fire, though tended well for long years past,

Leaves his base master without hope at last.

 

Though all earth's trees in one heap are piled

To satisfy the fire's insatiate child,

 

Still would it crave for more, insatiate still ,--

How could a Naga hope that maw to fill?

 

Milk ever changes,-- thus where milk has been

Butter and curds in natural course are seen;

 

These Brahmins all a livelihood require,

And so they tell us Brahma worships fire;

 

Why should the increate who all things planned

Worships himself the creature of his hand?

 

Doctrine and rules of their own, absurd and vain,

Our sires imagined wealth and power to gain;

 

'Brahmans he made for study, for command

He made the Khattiyas; Vessa plough the land,

 

Suddas servants he made to obey the rest,

Thus from the first went forth his high behest?'

 

We see these rules enforced behind our eyes,

None by the Brahmins offer sacrifice,

 

None by Khattiya exercises sway,

The Vessas plough, the Suddas must obey.

 

These greedy liars propagate deceit,

And fools believe the fiction they repeat.

 

He who has eyes can see the sickening sight;

Why does not Brahma set his creature right?

 

 

[ Refer to this link for more

 

 

This is the opinion of Buddha about Brahmanism:-

 

 

O Vasettha, those brahmins who know the three Vedas are just like a line of blind men tied together where the first sees nothing, the middle man nothing, and the last sees nothing

Does it not follow, this being so, that the talk of the Brahmans, versed though they be in the Three Vedas, turns out to be foolish talk.

`Therefore is it that the threefold wisdom of the Brahmans, wise in their Three Vedas, is called a waterless desert, their threefold wisdom is called a pathless jungle, their threefold wisdom is called perdition!'

(Tevijja-Sutta, Dighanikaya, 13:15)

 

 

I think this should be enough to burst the bubble of those Hindu disinformation agents trying to include Buddhism into "Hinduism" as their nationalistic agenda. As for Sankara, the history of Buddhism written by Taranatha from Tibet mentions that when Sankara used to approach a Buddhist monastery for debate, all the monks used to run hell pell in fear while the earth and monastery shaked. Of course this is just exaggeration, but it does show that Sankara was not really so equanimous towards the Buddhists as his followers make him out to be. His sole agenda was to revive Brahmanism and exterminate both Buddhism and Jainism.

 

 

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.

 

Edited April 15, 2010 by dwai

[RongzomFan]

Probably neither, since I don't have a teacher or master

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Hi Contrivedname!: Well.. it was intended to be my message in a 'Satire' of the intellectual Buddha Banter prevalent in this 'Taoist' forum..

 

Be well..

[ralis]

How many wars have been waged over petty religious disagreements?

 

No religion is better than any other! Buddhism included.

 

Religion is a crutch that prevents one from direct experience of the universe. Seems to me that what is pawned off as religion is something from the dark ages.

 

Even the Papacy is losing it's foothold. Millions have been sacrificed over the past 2 millenia by Rome's lust for power. They made certain that their view was bigger and better.

 

ralis

[contrivedname!]

Greetings..

 

Hi Contrivedname!: Well.. it was intended to be my message in a 'Satire' of the intellectual Buddha Banter prevalent in this 'Taoist' forum..

 

Be well..

and it was a good one. though i read your point as serious in a playful way.

[hajimesaito]

I have faith in all three vehicles (I won't use the term "believe" because I don't claim to know everything about each of them).

 

 

My last post was only meant to burst the seeds of ludicrous claims of the Hindus that Buddhism borrowed from Hinduism (Vedanta). Buddha was a fully-self-enlightened-one. And according to Buddhist scriptures, the ones adhering to Brahmanic faith in his time believed in Brahma as the creator and the religion revolved around ways to achieve him or worship him. The excerpt from my last post (the poem of the Bodhisattva) further shows what the Buddhists probably thought of the Brahmanic ideology in those regions where they co-existed or where Brahmanism was not quite widespread.

[dwai]

Probably neither, since I don't have a teacher or master

 

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.

[philbowser]

I have faith in all three vehicles (I won't use the term "believe" because I don't claim to know everything about each of them).

 

 

My last post was only meant to burst the seeds of ludicrous claims of the Hindus that Buddhism borrowed from Hinduism (Vedanta). Buddha was a fully-self-enlightened-one. And according to Buddhist scriptures, the ones adhering to Brahmanic faith in his time believed in Brahma as the creator and the religion revolved around ways to achieve him or worship him. The excerpt from my last post (the poem of the Bodhisattva) further shows what the Buddhists probably thought of the Brahmanic ideology in those regions where they co-existed or where Brahmanism was not quite widespread.

 

 

Not a sane argument. When the Brahmins and Buddhists were competing with each other, both borrowed from each other. You forget to notice that and stick to your own harp and sing the same tune. You chose to accept only the Buddhist viewpoint, because you want to. Perhaps a personal history of disappointment towards Brahmins? Buddhism has much borrowed from Hinduism (Vedic or Brahminical civilization) and vice-versa. You can stick to the ideas of Buddha being self-enlightened, reviving lost dhamma from another age or planet/world etc. But that is just your belief.

 

Perception of one Buddhist was not the same as another and these changed with times. Warring Buddhist monks aided by local rulers after the last big conference, primarily for control over viharas and secondarily over doctrinal differences is well-documented. So I would not base facts upon perception. Every noted Buddhist accredited with new thoughts apart from Buddha during the crucial phase has been a Brahmin. In fact, Theravadins have criticized Mahayana and Vajrayana for this very fact and accused these schools of being nothing but Brahminical thought disguised as Buddhism. So if you don't like Brahmins, you cannot like much of Buddhism either! A lot of Brahminical ideas have been thoroughly embedded into Buddhism, and may be intentionally so as early Theravadins pointed out! So, the joke is not on the Brahmins really.

 

Are there still people who believe Buddha taught Buddhism and everyone followed and explained it? Do people study history, evolution of thoughts, socio-cultural influences on religion and other such subjects? With words such as Faith, you sound more like Christian than a Buddhist IMO. Time to think beyond the sat under a tree and got enlightened story.

Edited April 15, 2010 by philbowser

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Religion is a crutch that prevents one from direct experience of the universe. Seems to me that what is pawned off as religion is something from the dark ages.

Hi Ralis: Be careful, Clarity is not favored by 'religious types'.. and, you tend to exhibit an abundance..

 

Hi Contrivedname!: i appreciate that you possess the sincere curiosity to actually 'listen'.. agreement is a bonus, the sincerity the issue.. Thanks..

 

Be well..

[RongzomFan]

If David Gordon White is not sufficient....

 

I have to look through my college textbooks and notes to find definitive proof for the percentage/size of the buddhist population in india at its peak. Unfortunately I am away on business.

 

I also emailed a couple of historians. Real ones like David Gray at Santa Clara

 

I just happened to read David Gordon White recently, which is why I mentioned him.

Edited April 15, 2010 by alwayson

[dwai]

I have faith in all three vehicles (I won't use the term "believe" because I don't claim to know everything about each of them).

 

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.

 

 

My last post was only meant to burst the seeds of ludicrous claims of the Hindus that Buddhism borrowed from Hinduism (Vedanta). Buddha was a fully-self-enlightened-one. And according to Buddhist scriptures, the ones adhering to Brahmanic faith in his time believed in Brahma as the creator and the religion revolved around ways to achieve him or worship him. The excerpt from my last post (the poem of the Bodhisattva) further shows what the Buddhists probably thought of the Brahmanic ideology in those regions where they co-existed or where Brahmanism was not quite widespread.

 

 

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?

[philbowser]

You are actually making totally new arguments here. Do you have anything to support these claims?

 

Sorry, no time to respond to one liners. I doubt you have the background to understand any academia, analyze and see objectively. If you do, it has not become evident on this thread. Give me some proof of that and I will take you more seriously and put in some effort answering your question. I believe all you have on this thread are a bunch of statements with no logic, reasoning or even right grammar and punctuation (not mandatory, but helps!)

Edited April 15, 2010 by philbowser

[RongzomFan]

Thats Ok

 

I don't think anyone buys that buddhism was pro-brahminism. Good luck with your trolling.

Edited April 15, 2010 by alwayson