There is no self

[rain]

When you strip away everything that is "Not Self", what is left is the Self, the indivisible, the constant. Like I have mentioned earlier. I is not a thought. I is that indivisible, constant, eternal, unchanging. The trick is that everything is "I". What is a thought, a phenomenon, is the "I am this" or "I am that". The Subject pure is "I", the predicate is the phenomenon. When one realizes that, they realize that what they consider the "I" is really not the "I". The Real "I" is objectless Consciousness.

 

Seems so.

[RongzomFan]

dwai

 

your criticism of hamije doesn't make sense

 

The buddhist scriptures talk about Brahma not Brahman. Yes Brahma the creator deity. That was his entire point.

 

And then you criticized him for not knowing what he is talking about?

Edited April 15, 2010 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

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.

 

 

Not true. I don't even really think you believe it. Even Vajrayana does not reject Theravada as being untrue.

[dwai]

dwai

 

your criticism of hamije doesn't make sense

 

The buddhist scriptures talk about Brahma not Brahman. Yes Brahma. That was his entire point.

 

And then you criticized him for not knowing what he is talking about?

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

[dwai]

Not true. I don't even really think you believe it. Even Vajrayana does not reject Theravada as being untrue.

 

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

[RongzomFan]

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

 

 

 

Are you now saying the Buddha STUDIED Vedanta and Sankhya personally? There is no indication of this at all in the Pali canon! I have read as much critical edition of the Pali canon as I could. Thats how I know Buddha practiced kechari mudra. That is why I said that online discussion was bullshit!

 

Buddha's gurus were mystics. That is all you can say about them, without being a deluded hindu nationalist.

Edited April 15, 2010 by alwayson

[lifeforce]

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

 

Finally, some sense is spoken.

These endless debates about religious preferences are using up waaaay too much space on TB.

[RongzomFan]

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

 

 

Schools do not reject other schools. Some theravadins have even adopted Madhyamkia, which is simply a return to the message of the Pali canon after abhidharma

Edited April 15, 2010 by alwayson

[dwai]

Schools do not reject other schools. Some theravadins have even adopted Madhyamkia, which is simply a return to the Pali canon after abhidharma

 

 

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).

 

 

 

There are significant differences between the two main movements of the current Buddhism, Mahayana and Theravada. Among them some are particularly important to understand, how these divisions mutually exclusive contrast between them. Before addressing these specific differences however we must be made clear that the main and fundamental divergence between the two groups, from which it can be concluded that all remaining derived, is that the practice Mahayana emphasizes an inclusiveness that presents itself as the antithesis Theravada doctrine of preservation. While the adaptability of the Mahayana has attracted new practitioners and amended on itself to adjust to modernity, the Theravada shows a strong resistance to change that allows it to remain faithful as a container of thoughts Buddhists original, questioned yet preserved front of two millennium process.

 

Continuing with this view, one of the most visible examples of flexibility or, a more critical, revisionism of the Mahayana doctrine has been the adoption of the Bodhisattva ideal way to describe the most desirable in the quest for illumination. The model of sacrificial Bodhisattva coexists well with the Western perceptions of the qualities that one should be above have - compassion in the form of the figure of Christ and altruism. Although there is little emphasis on responsible postponement of Nirvana in the early Buddhist teachings, this heroic concept, which resounds well with newer members, has become one of the lifting of the Mahayana tradition. So, while the Mahayana Buddhists preach a magnificent rejection of personal salvation and make it their ultimate goal, discipline in Theravada great effort that is reserved only for the most capable. It can therefore conclude that the customs Mahayana were trained in large part for the needs of religion in attracting new members in accordance with the specific realities of the past.

 

Strengthening this argument is the classical incongruity between the Mahayana and Theravada perspective on the nature of Buddha, or innate human potential for lighting. For the theologians of the Mahayana, humanity is endowed with an unquestionable ability to achieve an exit from the cycle of rebirth. This positive perspective is easier to understand when imposed on the philosophy Theravada, a much less pleasant, that human nature is an obstacle to be surpassed in search of transcendence. In short nature of humanity of the Mahayana is in conflict with the Theravada idea of human nature of the Buddha because for a human nature naturally leads to freedom, while for the other it provides obstacles. Therefore, a Buddha-nature-of flourishing, even in the absence of this self-realization, the idea to which the followers of the Mahayana join, is a philosophy attractive cosmopolitan which has a capacity to attract converted much larger than the description of Theravada fire-and-sulfur to the human condition. It should not surprise that the interpretation Mahayana, optimistic and receptive, is the target of many objections among the Theravadins, who suspect that the truth is being exchanged for larger numbers.

 

There are other minor differences between the Mahayana and Theravada, but not enough to separate them so clear as those mentioned above. One small but detectable difference is the role of the sangha, or spiritual community, in practice the faith. The Theravadins, for whom the concept of "being a lamp for itself" has greater significance tend to think of the sangha as a practical tool but not necessarily useful in search of religious fullness. That is a monastic community can be useful for an economic point of view the work of lighting but the presence of others in that environment does not influence the acquisition of enlightenment itself. This idea is opposed to the importance that the Mahayanists often attach to their congregations whose purpose is to provide individual members with encouragement and mutual support over their spiritual journeys. Again you can see that the high esteem that the Mahayana is the Sangha meets the tastes and western confrontations since the religions of the West are often practiced in groups and collectives of comparision does not conflict with this stance. Again the tongue seems to be a priority for Mahayanists and a situation to be avoided for Theravadins.

 

Increasing the list of disparities secondary - yet significant - compared to the two divisions is presented initial inconsistency between schools about how long we must wait after knowing the Dharma until there is the possibility of lighting; Theravadins while accepting the answer Orthodox and canonical "eons" they like many fundamentalists interpret as meaning at least several lives is typical of the Mahayana school or opt for interpret "eons" metaphorically to describe a long period in the life of this practitioner or alternatively by discard the need to wait for complete and declare that the possibility of lighting is immediate. (The latter interpretation of enlightenment "sudden" is of course a belief exclusive of Zen and therefore should not be considered representative of the Mahayana tradition). With such range of possibilities should not surprise the viewer understand that each variety of search engines has a corresponding Buddhist discipline and that the modus of troubled western is easier to adjust the practice Mahayana? The instant gratification that made possible the modern era and that its citizens now hope to have conveniently accessible can explain much of the popularity of Mahayana and especially of Zen in the developed world. Therefore the malleability of Buddhism under the flag of the Mahayana again appears to be open to the new faith though possibly at the cost of undermining its own message.

[dwai]

Are you now saying the Buddha STUDIED Vedanta and Sankhya personally? There is no indication of this at all in the Pali canon! I have read as much critical edition of the Pali canon as I could. Thats how I know Buddha practiced kechari mudra. That is why I said that online discussion was bullshit!

 

Buddha's gurus were mystics. That is all you can say about them, without being a deluded hindu nationalist.

 

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

[RongzomFan]

They were not Vedic/Upanishadic gurus

[RongzomFan]

Of course there are different schools of buddhist teaching.

 

But one school does not reject the other. Ask a Theravidin monk if he rejects Mahayana. He doesn't

[RongzomFan]

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 studied hinduism and buddhism in college a few years ago. I do not know where this info is exaclty from, but I do know that in my part of India, the population was buddhist. So I am restored to the true faith of my ancestors.

 

And also buddhism practically speaking has much clearer texts to understand things than hinduism, which is often full of poetry and bhakti.

Edited April 15, 2010 by alwayson

[Sunya]

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.

 

There is no such thing as Hinduism, its a modern invention. There was no national identity at the time, nor a common belief. Different schools had different opinions.

 

 

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.

 

All schools of Buddhism have the view of impermanence, dependent origination [emptiness] and no-self. There is no disagreement about these 3 which are the foundation of Buddha's teachings.

[Sunya]

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

 

 

Dwai, you say Buddha was influenced by Vedanta, and actually got everything from Vedanta, but its been pointed out to you that Buddha never mentioned Vedanta or Upanisadic thought [and that there's no evidence of him ever even having contact with the Upanishads] but rather he argued against worshiping Brahma. Now you say Brahma was a later development and Buddha was influenced by Vedanta again?

 

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.

 

It's not a belief that the Buddha's teachings were completely unique at the time, radically different then past and present Vedic philosophy. Perhaps you should study Buddhism more extensively rather than through a tainted Hindu lens. The Buddha was not an absolutist and completely rejected the whole ideological framework present in the Upanisads. 'Anatta' and 'dependent origination' are not simply tools to achieve the eternal Self. There is no such goal period and to think so is to be centric in your view of other traditions. The Buddha denied self and Self, there is no objectless consciousness.. that is a jhana of absorption and not the goal of any Buddhist path whether its Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana.

 

This is a good expository on how Buddhism differs completely from Vedanta http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Acharya%20Mahayogi%20Shridhar%20Rana%20Rinpoche

Edited April 15, 2010 by mikaelz

[C T]

"My hut lies in the middle of a dense forest;

Every year the green ivy grows longer.

No news of the affairs of men,

only the occasional song of a woodcutter.

The sun shines and i mend my robe;

When the moon comes out i read Buddhist poems.

I have nothing to report, my friends.

If you want to find the meaning,

stop chasing after so many things."

--- Daigu RYOKAN

(1758 - 1831)

[RongzomFan]

This is a good expository on how Buddhism differs completely from Vedanta http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Acharya%20Mahayogi%20Shridhar%20Rana%20Rinpoche

 

 

Interesting read

[Z3N]

I find it a amazing how you humans all dwell in your little brain box of low capacity flinging mud at each other. I mean in the reality of the Tao there is no such thing as religion. Religion is the product of the self so it is just a concept of the mind therefore a illusion of the thought process. Thoughts are the limited capacity of self not the reality of awareness, how can the self perceive such great insight into the cosmological Tao?

 

Awareness is the unlimited capacity and the mind of Tao this has nothing to do with self nor your brain box or religion for that matter.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

This place is infested with some sort of Buddhist Bacteria.. is there a vaccine or cure? I mean REALLY, aren't there Buddhist Forums where you guys/gals can pretend you don't exist? because your existence here is very noticable.. and, if you care to notice, Taoists really aren't interested in your petty squabbles or self-inflicted paranoias..

 

Be well..

[Sunya]

This place is infested with some sort of Buddhist Bacteria.. is there a vaccine or cure?

 

Yes, there is a cure. Stop being judgmental, arrogant, and pretending that you speak for everyone. If you dislike a thread don't read it, or especially post in it. Anyway I thought everything is your reality? Why are you being such a prick to yourself?

Edited April 16, 2010 by mikaelz

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Yes, there is a cure. Stop being judgmental, arrogant, and pretending that you speak for everyone. If you dislike a thread don't read it, or especially post in it. Anyway I thought everything is your reality? Why are you being such a prick to yourself?

I AM judgemental, i only speak for me, YOU read the title of the Forum, i'll post about Taoist thoughts on this Taoist fourm as i choose, you don't 'think' well, and i'm not a prick, so keep looking..

 

 

WOW!!!!

Edited April 16, 2010 by TzuJanLi

[Sunya]

Greetings..

 

 

I AM judgemental, i only speak for me, YOU read the title of the Forum, i'll post about Taoist thoughts on this Taoist fourm as i choose, you don't 'think' well, and i'm not a prick, so keep looking..

 

 

WOW!!!!

 

:lol: :lol:

 

This place is infested with some sort of Buddhist Bacteria.. is there a vaccine or cure?

 

Love those Taoist thoughts.. keep em coming!

 

Btw, just to remind you here's the info for this forum: Taoist Discussion: Transcendent, mundane, talking through the middle. Taoist, Buddhist, Non-sectarian cultivation discussion

Edited April 16, 2010 by mikaelz

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Love those Taoist thoughts.. keep em coming!

Hi mikaelz : Look, i'm straight-up honest, i occasionally see Life clearly, and i'm not tolerant of pretentious wannabe intellectuals.. Taoist Philosophy, the stuff before 'alchemy' and mystical pretentiousness similar to Buddhist and Hindu fantasy, THOSE "Taoist thoughts" and the inherent Clarity is what interests me.. the insights of Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, and the I Ching.. those are gifts of Clarity that reveal Human nature and its intimate relationship with itself, and with Life..

 

I've 'lurked' this forum long enough to recognize who is or isn't sincere, a quality i respect, and sorry but, you are deficient, not beyond rehabilitation, though.. I have no interest in debates about history, time-lines, and philosophical conceptualities that abandon common-sense in favor of ancient 'Sages' misunderstansings of their own imaginings.. seriously, making-up stories to quell your fears of your 'self' passing into non-existence, is 'nuts' on a personal scale, but.. teaching it as 'Liberation from Suffering', to a gullible audience suffering by their own choices is a crime against Humanity..

 

Life is about Living well, with unconditional sincerity and gusto in an interactive relationship with that very same Life.. the only 'paths' are behind you, because as J Krishnamurthy so Clearly observed, 'Truth' is a pathless land.. Taoist Philosophy is not rituals and rules, its the principles that Liberate us from that bondage of conformity..

 

Unfortunately, it seemed that a direct experience was best suited for this communication, i hope the well-intended sincerity will be appreciated..

 

Be well..

[JazZen]

May this help! Everything we can come up with its not....

 

Who Am I? The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi

 

 

My best for all us to have a direct experience.... away from debates & discussions... Be well!

Edited April 16, 2010 by JazZen

[nac]

Here's why this is an idle topic for a debate: http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5410

 

You can neither win nor lose due to the very nature of metaphysical questions, so everyone just keeps hollering at each other until they get tired and leave. Whether we can directly experience selflessness or not is a different issue, but one which you can only decide for yourself IMO.

Edited April 16, 2010 by nac