There is no self

[RongzomFan]

Do not act like this is the first time you have invoked middle age myth in the support of your position. It was getting tiring

 

I doubt you are really Indian, because you would know how many bullshit myths we have.

 

It is nothing to take offense over!

 

It is a fact that all this stuff was invented in the middle ages. Ever heard of the Puranas?

Edited April 16, 2010 by alwayson

[dwai]

I dare to say (as in over-reaching?) that the "Buddha" many speak of is really described (as best as possible) in the following verse beyond just the limits of time, place and even the historic names given: (thus the particular times, places, names and forms are not really the main point of importance or as is sometimes heard in the Zen school: "miss the mark".

 

"There is monks, an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated. If there were not that unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born - become - made - fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, emancipation from the born - become - made - fabricated is discerned." (Nibbana Sutta, Ud 8.3)

 

Further, my interpretation of this verse is, (that) - this realizes this - and at that point and in doing so even the great raft of Buddhism has to be set down by the bank. (so to speak)

 

Om

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

[RongzomFan]

I did not cite that all Upanishad came after the Buddha.

 

Your quote:

 

Bronkhorst argues that the Upanishads in fact postdate the Buddha and that the only influences on him were non-Brahmanical.

 

 

Again I do not think you even read what you quoted. The whole article is against your position.

 

Why don't you read it? A novel idea....

Edited April 16, 2010 by alwayson

[3bob]

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.

 

hmm, did you click on the wrong post Dwai, I'm not very involved in the heated debates, I'm more into correlations. 3bob

[dwai]

Your quote:

 

Bronkhorst argues that the Upanishads in fact postdate the Buddha and that the only influences on him were non-Brahmanical.

 

 

Ok, even if this is not the case, you will agree that most upanishads came after the Buddha?

 

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)

 

Edited April 16, 2010 by dwai

[RongzomFan]

I wasn't quoting Bronkhorst, but presenting Wynne's thesis (a bad review of it, nonetheless).

 

 

 

RIGHT FINALLY

 

It was a review that trashes Wynne's thesis

 

Congrats

[RongzomFan]

dwai

 

Do you really believe in the historicity of the horse headed avatars?

 

I mean all these myths have a definite history. These are not ancient myths you know!

 

A vedic-age ritualist would be like "What the f*** are you talking about?"

Edited April 16, 2010 by alwayson

[hajimesaito]

Dwai,

 

Mahabharata as it exists today was written over a period of a millennium or two. Naturally, things changed while it was being edited and modified. The puranas, which are much more recent, claim Magadha to be ruled by non-Vedic kings. You can search "Magadha" in wikipedia and confirm this yourself.

 

All scholars agree that original Mahabharata consisted only around 1100 verses. It was only modified later on. Especially the character Krishna didn't exist in the original story. That is why his position is so ambiguous in Mahabharata as well as his puranic tales. I have explained this earlier as well. The Brahmins wanted to invent their own mythical hero (Krishna) so as to oppose the growing popularity of Gotama "the contemplative" (Gautama Buddha). That is why Krishna was added in Mahabharata as a chariot driver of Arjuna to give his existence a legitimacy. Later Bhagwad Gita was written after taking many concepts from the Buddhist doctrine, and given Vedic twist to it.

[RongzomFan]

BTW, historicity is a real word

 

A lot of idiots think its not. I am always shocked by that since it used all the time in academia.

[philbowser]

Dwai,

 

Mahabharata as it exists today was written over a period of a millennium or two. Naturally, things changed while it was being edited and modified. The puranas, which are much more recent, claim Magadha to be ruled by non-Vedic kings. You can search "Magadha" in wikipedia and confirm this yourself.

 

All scholars agree that original Mahabharata consisted only around 1100 verses. It was only modified later on. Especially the character Krishna didn't exist in the original story. That is why his position is so ambiguous in Mahabharata as well as his puranic tales. I have explained this earlier as well. The Brahmins wanted to invent their own mythical hero (Krishna) so as to oppose the growing popularity of Gotama "the contemplative" (Gautama Buddha). That is why Krishna was added in Mahabharata as a chariot driver of Arjuna to give his existence a legitimacy. Later Bhagwad Gita was written after taking many concepts from the Buddhist doctrine, and given Vedic twist to it.

 

Gosh, you sure live ina world of Buddhist fantasy. Everything is a Brahminical conspiracy against the Buddha. So blame the economy on Brahmins too? Seriously, do you guys realize how ridiculous you sound to a non-Indian considering you are all Indian? You seem to know very little of your own history! And I am not even talking about Alwayson (shouldn't that be Alwaysoff?) lol

 

Seriously, time to think with your tainted Buddhist lens off like Mikaelz would advice every one else, himself sitting behind his own thick lens lol! And get your asses up from below the Bodhi tree and stop pretending to be neither there and not there. You may get fired at work

Edited April 16, 2010 by philbowser

[RongzomFan]

The ironic thing is I am a brahmin LOL

[dwai]

Dwai,

 

Mahabharata as it exists today was written over a period of a millennium or two. Naturally, things changed while it was being edited and modified. The puranas, which are much more recent, claim Magadha to be ruled by non-Vedic kings. You can search "Magadha" in wikipedia and confirm this yourself.

 

All scholars agree that original Mahabharata consisted only around 1100 verses. It was only modified later on. Especially the character Krishna didn't exist in the original story. That is why his position is so ambiguous in Mahabharata as well as his puranic tales. I have explained this earlier as well. The Brahmins wanted to invent their own mythical hero (Krishna) so as to oppose the growing popularity of Gotama "the contemplative" (Gautama Buddha). That is why Krishna was added in Mahabharata as a chariot driver of Arjuna to give his existence a legitimacy. Later Bhagwad Gita was written after taking many concepts from the Buddhist doctrine, and given Vedic twist to it.

 

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

[RongzomFan]

dwai,

 

You accept midddle age myth as history

 

How are we the delusional/imaginative ones?

 

Seriously, you are a hindu nationalist with an agenda. You don't even read the articles you cite.

 

And I am the troll? Go ahead and call me a troll. I would rather be a troll than whatever disorder you have.

 

I AM DONE WITH THIS THREAD except for one thing.

 

When I get a buddhist population percentage at the peak, I will update.

Edited April 16, 2010 by alwayson

[dwai]

dwai,

 

You accept midddle age myth as history

 

How are we the delusional/imaginative ones?

 

Seriously, you are a hindu nationalist with an agenda. You don't even read the articles you cite.

 

And I am the troll? Go ahead and call me a troll. I would rather be a troll than whatever disorder you have.

 

I AM DONE WITH THIS THREAD except for one thing.

 

When I get a buddhist population percentage at the peak, I will update.

 

 

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.

[3bob]

The Buddhist teaching below also has correlations to the teachings of yama in Hinduism:

 

RIGHT SPEECH (Samma Vacha)

 

"This contains four aspects.

(a.) Abstinence from false speech, that is, from lying - instead making an effort to speak truthfully.

(b.) Abstinence from slanderous speech, statements intended to divide or create enmity between people. Instead the follower of the path should always speak words which promote friendship and harmony between people.

(c.) Absinence from harsh speech, from speech which is angry and bitter, which cuts into the hearts of others. Instead one's speech should always be soft, gentle and affectionate.

(d.) Abstinence from idle chatter, from gossip. Instead one should speak words which are meaningful, significant and purposeful.

 

The above show the tremendous power locked up in the faculty of speech. The tongue may be a very small organ compared to the body. But this little organ can do immense good or immense harm depending on how it is used. Of course, what we really have to master is not the tongue but the mind which makes use of the tongue."

 

briefly:

"Yama, yoga consists of 5 things that a yogi should not do if he wants to get anywhere with his yoga.

1. Don't hurt anyone (includes thoughts and words as well as physical actions)

2. Don't lie for personal gain (also includes thoughts)"

 

Om

Edited April 16, 2010 by 3bob

[RongzomFan]

Tried to use only non-orientalist Indian sources...I have some preliminary info in bold:

 

Chinese pilgrim who witnessed state of buddhism in India first hand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xuanzang

 

"Modern Hinduism is largely Pauranika, that is, post-Buddhistic in origin." Swami Vivekananda

 

"Buddhism and Vaishnavism are not two different things. During the decline of Buddhism in India, Hinduism took from her a few cardinal tenets of conduct and made them her own, and these have now come to be known as Vaishnavism." Swami Vivekanada

 

Moritimer Wheeler says "we cannot treat Buddhism merely as a heresy against a prevailing and fundamental Brahmanical orthodoxy."

 

"Moral principles and practices, such as ahimsa, karuna,maitri, respect for the guru, control of the mind and the senses of yoga, etc. which Buddhism transmitted to Vaishnavism. The Bodhisattva ideal and the idea of Buddhavatar also became integral parts of Vaishnava theology." Joshi L. M., Studies in Buddhistic Culture page 348

 

"Dharma cult owes many of its elements to that form of later Buddhism, which is known as Mantrayana and latterly and most commonly, as Vajrayana" L. M. Joshi

 

 

"After the fall of Buddhism, what happened to masses who were in majority? ...If proper study is made we feel that it is possible even now to recognize the population groups who converted to Hinduism." Jamanadas

Edited April 16, 2010 by alwayson

[Gerard]

Great documentary about Ramana Maharsi and his self-enquiry practice:

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7390375386934930566&hl=en-CA#

 

 

The Self cannot be investigated. The investigation can only be into the non-self.

 

 

Through silence and practice you will find the answer to the self.

 

 

I highly recommend Buddhist Vipassana practice to find the answer.

[Marblehead]

I highly recommend Buddhist Vipassana practice to find the answer.

 

I highly recommend practicing no-practice and walking no-path.

 

Peace & Love!

[3bob]

I highly recommend practicing no-practice and walking no-path.

 

Peace & Love!

 

a possible problem is that unless we practice in our relationships we will often be walking alone.

[Marblehead]

a possible problem is that unless we practice in our relationships we will often be walking alone.

 

Not really because as long as we remain open there will always be someone who will walk with us for a while. (But your point is well taken and needs be given attention.)

 

Peace & Love!

[dwai]

Tried to use only non-orientalist Indian sources...I have some preliminary info in bold:

 

Chinese pilgrim who witnessed state of buddhism in India first hand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xuanzang

 

"Modern Hinduism is largely Pauranika, that is, post-Buddhistic in origin." Swami Vivekananda

 

"Buddhism and Vaishnavism are not two different things. During the decline of Buddhism in India, Hinduism took from her a few cardinal tenets of conduct and made them her own, and these have now come to be known as Vaishnavism." Swami Vivekanada

 

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

 

 

Moritimer Wheeler says "we cannot treat Buddhism merely as a heresy against a prevailing and fundamental Brahmanical orthodoxy."

 

"Moral principles and practices, such as ahimsa, karuna,maitri, respect for the guru, control of the mind and the senses of yoga, etc. which Buddhism transmitted to Vaishnavism. The Bodhisattva ideal and the idea of Buddhavatar also became integral parts of Vaishnava theology." Joshi L. M., Studies in Buddhistic Culture page 348

 

"Dharma cult owes many of its elements to that form of later Buddhism, which is known as Mantrayana and latterly and most commonly, as Vajrayana" L. M. Joshi

 

 

"After the fall of Buddhism, what happened to masses who were in majority? ...If proper study is made we feel that it is possible even now to recognize the population groups who converted to Hinduism." Jamanadas

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

[Gerard]

I highly recommend practicing no-practice and walking no-path.

 

Peace & Love!

 

So, basically you are saying doing nothing and posting on this forum 24/7.

 

Very lazy and ego-based approach, I would say.

 

What's the end result of this method?

 

I would like to know.

Edited April 18, 2010 by durkhrod chogori

[ralis]

So, basically you are saying doing nothing and posting on this forum 24/7.

 

Very lazy and ego-based approach, I would say.

 

What's the end result of this method?

 

I would like to know.

 

Your posts aren't ego based?

 

ralis

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

What's the end result of this method?

"Doing nothing, all things get done"

"Saying nothing, says it all"

Very lazy and ego-based approach, I would say.

From my perspective, what you "would say", "very lazy and ego-based" sounds a bit judgmental..

 

Be well..

[Marblehead]

So, basically you are saying doing nothing and posting on this forum 24/7.

 

Very lazy and ego-based approach, I would say.

 

What's the end result of this method?

 

I would like to know.

 

Now even you realize how silly your comments are.

 

Where did I ever say to do nothing?

 

Where did I ever say that one should spend their life sitting on their butt posting on various forums?

 

Where did I ever suggest that we should be lazy.

 

Where have I ever presented myself as someone who is here only to gratify my ego?

 

Please do not use me as your mirror. You will get distortion every time.

 

What you failed to understand in what I said in the previous post is that we each should learn and practice our own practice and we should walk our own walk. To imitate others is easy - to be a true and unique person is a bit more difficult.

 

I have never knocked any poster on this forum regarding their practices or their suggestions to others as to what practices they should persue.

 

However, I have always pointed out, if I thought it necessary, that we each are unique and special and what works for one person may well not work for another.

 

So we practice whatever works for us even if we have to create our own technique. And we don't need to follow in the footsteps of someone we deem to be a leader. We can walk our own path - we can even learn how to travel without leaving a single trace that we had ever been there.

 

We each should live our own life not extend the life of someone who is already dead.

 

Peace & Love!