Advaita and Buddhism are the Same After All

[nac]

So Hari can get away with his opinions and a lay Indian cannot because he is not Buddhist?

V isn't a Buddhist master, he's a lay Buddhist. He has been a Buddhist for about as long as I have. Where did I say that non-Buddhists aren't entitled to their opinions? Evidence please. If you're complaining because I didn't make fun of V's paper, that's because I'm out of energy ATM. Maybe later?

 

So which "Hindu Master" claims of these unlike the "Buddhist Masters"?

What does that mean? Are Hindu claims more outrageous than Buddhist claims? What, in average? In general? Or are you asking which claim is more outrageous, this thread or V's paper? I'm a science fan, so I have to go with the paper, but both are equally preposterous and neither are based on their respective doctrinal tradition.

 

And the sample of Indians you refer to having those fancy pastimes, they represent all Hindus?

V may seem like most Buddhists of the world all at once to the regulars of this forum, but I assure you he's not.

 

Hinduism is not even one homogenous system to make such a foolish assumption.

What assumption? I was talking about most Indians in my experience and never claimed otherwise. I have never seen a Hindu speak out against reasoning like that, not even dwai. As for Buddhists, I hereby speak out against V's embarrassment of a paper. Seriously though, you know about movements like Western Buddhism & co, right? I've never seen anything like that for Hinduism, except the Advaitins in this forum: http://www.freeratio.org/forumdisplay.php?f=22

 

Talk of hypocrisy!

You sir, exhibit a very black and white mind. I have no intention of insulting you. Take this as an unbiased observation.

[nac]

And where is the guy who started this thread? Disappeared? Is this one of those pseudo bashing threads that were so frequent on the now gone (thank GOD lol) infamous Buddhist forum? Someone would start a thread trying to harmlessly compare two systems, often sounding sympathetic to the non-Buddhist system but the intention was clear. Everyone had decided they knew Buddhism was the only way and it was just a pastime to bash and grade other systems. An inner need to constantly seek confirmation for their own Buddhist practice could have been a probable reason. But yeah, this does seem one such thread...no drama, so start a thread and toss a bone to the debating Buddhists. Daniel I's forum (or Kenneth's) forum is the only one where I haven't seen such wasteful pastime.

Really? And you knew they knew that, huh?

[dragonfire45]

Really? And you knew they knew that, huh?

 

 

Oh yeah

 

Like this attitude is going to get you chicks! Well, you probably hold that chicks are suffering and conditioning of mind...never mind

[nac]

Speaking of lay Buddhists, have you any idea what most lay Hindus are like? If you don't, don't bother trying to become better acquainted with their pet theories. Trust me, you'll live to regret it.

Edited May 19, 2010 by nac

[ralis]

V isn't a Buddhist master, he's a lay Buddhist. He has been a Buddhist for about as long as I have. Where did I say that non-Buddhists aren't entitled to their opinions? Evidence please. If you're complaining because I didn't make fun of V's paper, that's because I'm out of energy ATM. Maybe later?

 

 

What does that mean? Are Hindu claims more outrageous than Buddhist claims? What, in average? In general? Or are you asking which claim is more outrageous, this thread or V's paper? I'm a science fan, so I have to go with the paper, but both are equally preposterous and neither are based on their respective doctrinal tradition.

 

 

V may seem like most Buddhists of the world all at once to the regulars of this forum, but I assure you he's not.

 

 

What assumption? I was talking about most Indians in my experience and never claimed otherwise. I have never seen a Hindu speak out against reasoning like that, not even dwai. As for Buddhists, I hereby speak out against V's embarrassment of a paper. Seriously though, you know about movements like Western Buddhism & co, right? I've never seen anything like that for Hinduism, except the Advaitins in this forum: http://www.freeratio.org/forumdisplay.php?f=22

 

 

You sir, exhibit a very black and white mind. I have no intention of insulting you. Take this as an unbiased observation.

 

 

Did Vajraji post a paper?

 

 

ralis

[nac]

Oh yeah

 

Like this attitude is going to get you chicks! Well, you probably hold that chicks are suffering and conditioning of mind...never mind

Hey, don't blame me! Drew tends to rub off on you.

[dragonfire45]

V isn't a Buddhist master, he's a lay Buddhist. He has been a Buddhist for about as long as I have. Where did I say that non-Buddhists aren't entitled to their opinions? Evidence please. If you're complaining because I didn't make fun of V's paper, that's because I'm out of energy ATM. Maybe later?

 

 

What does that mean? Are Hindu claims more outrageous than Buddhist claims? What, in average? In general? Or are you asking which claim is more outrageous, this thread or V's paper? I'm a science fan, so I have to go with the paper, but both are equally preposterous and neither are based on their respective doctrinal tradition.

 

 

V may seem like most Buddhists of the world all at once to the regulars of this forum, but I assure you he's not.

 

 

What assumption? I was talking about most Indians in my experience and never claimed otherwise. I have never seen a Hindu speak out against reasoning like that, not even dwai. As for Buddhists, I hereby speak out against V's embarrassment of a paper. Seriously though, you know about movements like Western Buddhism & co, right? I've never seen anything like that for Hinduism, except the Advaitins in this forum: http://www.freeratio.org/forumdisplay.php?f=22

 

 

You sir, exhibit a very black and white mind. I have no intention of insulting you. Take this as an unbiased observation.

 

 

Your intentions are pretty black and white and it will take more than a Buddhist to insult me

 

By the way let's not talk of Hindus across the world. Let's talk of this forum. Buddhists have repeatedly posted so-called scientific quack papers like the one above. If a Hindu had done that, I would have kicked his ass too like I am trying to do in your case. Was there an instance? If not, why talk of the world? Let's keep our attention to this forum. And I have not seen you speak up before! Vajra has done this for pages and pages. About how only true Dharma is remnant of older Buddhas, how enlightened beings if at all in any culture are followers of Buddha on other realms etc. etc. I have not seen your rationality alert go on ever! And now it does finally, when someone actually lists an example and you talk of generalizations. Lame comeback

Edited May 19, 2010 by dragonfire45

[dragonfire45]

Speaking of lay Buddhists, have you any idea what most lay Hindus are like? If you don't, don't bother trying to become better acquainted with their pet theories. Trust me, you'll live to regret it.

 

 

Another sure sign of Moslem mentality huh? Need more proof?

 

So, on a related notem are you a practicing Moslem? How does Hinduism compare to Islam? Don't brush this off as irrelevant. I will explain its significance once I hear your position.

 

Also, lay people are lay. Be it Hindu, Buddhist or Christian. They are just that. Of course, you can try to project your prejudice against Hindus particularly - probably stemming from a Moslem upbringing but it is rather ridiculous.

 

How do you know I am not a lay Hindu myself?

 

In India probably it might make some sense as Buddhism is not a prevalent religion but a choice. Someone who adopted as sophisticated a philosophy as Buddhism (or Advaita) would probably not be as lay as another Hindu who really was born a Hindu, knows nothing about his religion and metaphysics or spiritual inquiry is of no importance to him. Move to provinces of China, the lay Tibetans, Sri Lanka etc. where Buddhism is a religion in the sense Hinduism is in India and you will find the lay persons there as "lay" or even more "lay" than the Hindus. I believe you have no real basis for comparison based on your living in India where Buddhism is hardly lay. I hope you will not pont towards online communities to make your point here

Edited May 19, 2010 by dragonfire45

[nac]

Your intentions are pretty black and white and it will take more than a Buddhist to insult me

See? I'm afraid I know you're mistaken, but I cannot convince you. A pity, really. Unskillful actions cause minds to narrow and harden, but there's nothing I can do about V and company either. May the wisdom mind of the three kayas protect us.

 

By the way let's not talk of Hindus across the world. Let's talk of this forum. Buddhists have repeatedly posted so-called scientific quack papers like the one above. If a Hindu had done that, I would have kicked his ass too like I am trying to do in your case. Was there an instance? If not, why talk of the world? Let's keep our attention to this forum.

Please go on bashing all quacks, by all means. You'll be doing them (and me) a favor.

[dragonfire45]

Hey, don't blame me! Drew tends to rub off on you.

 

 

That's a blessing! Imagine, if you or vaj rubbed off on me. I would only be debating in bedroom and the chick would find a virile Taoist.

[dragonfire45]

May the wisdom mind of the three kayas protect us.

 

 

What does that mean? Some higher mind in a Buddhist heaven? Seriously I don't get it! Only philosophy and no science here I guess? Protection as in bodyguard?

[dragonfire45]

A pity, really. Unskillful actions cause minds to narrow and harden, but there's nothing I can do about V and company either.

 

 

I have to give you one for this. Nandasena, apparently from Bengal, explains the same in his gloss on the Hevajra tantra using some old school Mimamsa analogies. Makes the same point with colorful examples and for his skill, his apabhramsha of Sanskrit can be possibly forgiven.

 

But, does this mean your actions by way of your posts have been skillful or more skillful than V and his troupe? And the indication of that would be widened and softened minds here, like mine?

Edited May 19, 2010 by dragonfire45

[nac]

Another sure sign of Moslem mentality huh? Need more proof?

Ask dwai if you don't believe me.

 

Dwai, what do you think of the pet theories lay Hindus come up with in modern India?

 

So, on a related notem are you a practicing Moslem? How does Hinduism compare to Islam? Don't brush this off as irrelevant. I will explain its significance once I hear your position.

Nope, I respect medieval Islamic culture for it's contribution to human knowledge, but we've become fundamentalist savages these days. These are our dark ages, after a golden age during the dark ages of Europe. Did you know the scientific method (experimentation; observation; inference) was discovered by Arab and Persian alchemists? Plus, I don't believe the irrational doctrines of Islam either. I'm a philanthropist first, and Buddhist second.

 

Also, lay people are lay. Be it Hindu, Buddhist or Christian. They are just that. Of course, you can try to project your prejudice against them probably stemming from a Moslem upbringing but it is rather ridiculous.

What's ludicrous is you projecting your prejudices onto my words every step of the way.

 

How do you know I am not a lay Hindu myself?

Black and white again, see? Riddle me this: Are you or are you not, most lay Indian Hindus?

[nac]

But, does this mean your actions by way of your posts have been skillful or more skillful than V and his troupe? And the indication of that would be widened and softened minds here, like mine?

With any luck, they will soften someone.

[Vajrahridaya]

Buddha's refusal to comment on the existent vs non-existent doesn't count as denial.

 

You haven't read enough of the Pali Cannon to know that he didn't answer one time, but he answered at other times. The Pali Cannon clearly subverts Vedic authority. He doesn't consider the Vedas as the authority for liberation from Samsara. There is no way to reconcile this fact in a way that could lead to an idea that the Buddha taught the same liberation as the Upanishads, because it is clear that he did not think this and he did not teach this. I've quoted endless articles of proof from the Pali Cannon in previous discussions.

 

I would encourage you to read "Introduction to Indian Philosophy" by Dr Ramakrishna Puligandla. I haven't found a more lucid and brilliant introductory course yet.

 

Both Shankara and Ramakrishna feel that Brahman is real and stands on it's own and is the real nature of everything the true Self of everything. They reify Brahman, over and over again, and by this standard, it is not the same realization as Buddhadharma.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[dragonfire45]

Ask dwai if you don't believe me.

 

Dwai, what do you think of the pet theories lay Hindus come up with in modern India?

 

 

Nope, I respect medieval Islamic culture for it's contribution to human knowledge, but we've become fundamentalist savages these days. These are our dark ages, after a golden age during the dark ages of Europe. Did you know the scientific method (experimentation; observation; inference) was discovered by Arab and Persian alchemists? Plus, I don't believe the irrational doctrines of Islam either. I'm a philanthropist first, and Buddhist second.

 

 

What's ludicrous is you projecting your prejudices onto my words every step of the way.

 

 

Black and white again, see? Riddle me this: Are you or are you not, most lay Indian Hindus?

 

 

Well talking of bias, you make repeated points about Hindus being pseudo-intellectual etc. when their scientific contributions are much more than Persians or Arabs. While you refer back to "Medieval" times to find an excuse to express your appreciation for Islam, you speak as though all Hinduism is - is just a bunch of lay people believing in fantastic stories or pseudo-intellectuals. Where is the middle-way that you Buddhists so attest for in your observations?

 

So Buddhists have no pet theories like Hindus? Moslems have no pet, unscientific theories? Is there a census which proves Hindus to have considerably more such theories than the other two? What is your point here?

 

All I am trying to point out is that no ism is better than the other, no matter how hard you try to prove here otherwise.

[nac]

Note that it's not my intention to convert anyone to Buddhism. I'm here to end delusion, both yours and mine.

[Vajrahridaya]

Yes it's totally different! Its not Diet Coke, it's Coke Zero. Color is different, even tastes different if you drink a couple gallons and check, bottle has a slightly different shape and the name is different. The whole concept of coke zero is different. Who says so? The guys who make Coke Zero and it must be true. Diet Coke is all about Atman/Brahman flavor. Coke Zero has different packaging and the text on the bottle clearly says - No Atman/Brahman is in use. Only Anatta used.

 

So they are totally different.

 

Wrong ballpark. Buddhism is saying there is no absolute drinker and Hinduism is saying there is an absolute drinker and thinker of the universe, it's Brahman.

 

Totally different realizing leading to an entirely different way of handling life and existence before and after liberation.

[dragonfire45]

With any luck, they will soften someone.

 

Luck? So luck is acceptable in Buddhism? That is based on Karma or disposed by an intelligent being? Is it coincidence? If the means were skillful, what is the need for luck? The luck is karmic state of the preacher or the listener or both? You cannot make statements without explaining huh?

[dragonfire45]

Note that it's not my intention to convert anyone to Buddhism. I'm here to end delusion, both yours and mine.

 

 

It is your delusion to assume another to be deluded. How can you even know that till you have ended your own delusion? Are your means skillful until you have ended your own self-admitted delusion? Like the Venerable monk Husan Hua says, how can the blind lead another? You think you're capable of that role you want to force yourself upon yourself and the rest here?

 

Ralis gets shouted at for decrying these delusional theories but your kind of attitude of "I will lift you from your delusion" makes every point of his valid. And your attempt at displaying humility by adding "yours and mine" does not help, it only reeks of pretention.

 

And my interest is in the inner three tantras where Tathagatagarbha is not a seed which is to be worked on through ridding of delusions. So even that way, "end of delusion" is not acceptable to my Inner Tantra path.

 

So, statements such as these - I am here to end your delusion - represent skillful means to you? Vajra seems better skilled for he is donning the role of Buddha-prototype Messiah at the least

Edited May 19, 2010 by dragonfire45

[Vajrahridaya]

O.K. so the great "holier than thou" male diatribes continue! haha.

 

All this stuff comes from the Bushmen in Africa btw -- the ORIGINAL humans -- from 100,000 BCE to 10,000 BCE.

 

No, Buddhism comes from beyond this planet even before the Earth took shape. The Bushmen and Aborigines had some spiritual sparks, but they are largely superstitious.

 

You Drew are caught up in the physical sensations, merely first couple Jhanas.

[Vajrahridaya]

I found this post which may be of interest. Vajraji was arguing similar points last year, claiming the Buddha somehow understood Einstein. He went on to claim Einstein's personal beliefs about Buddhism were science. His arguments were bogus!

 

http://mingkok.buddhistdoor.com/en/news/d/2475

 

 

ralis

 

ralis... you have a habit of mis-understanding.

 

I quoted Einstein as saying that Buddhism is a religion of the future, transcending dogmas revolving around a God... etc. I didn't call it science. But, the Buddhas revelation of everything being relative is spoken quite nicely by Einsteins theories. Of course your right brain hasn't opened yet.. only the insult side of the brain. You make no logical arguments, you just throw hate balls.

[Vajrahridaya]

Note that it's not my intention to convert anyone to Buddhism. I'm here to end delusion, both yours and mine.

 

Perfect!

[Vajrahridaya]

Um... philosophical relativism and the theory of relativity are two different things. Hari is entitled to his opinion, but he doesn't speak for all Buddhists. Holy shit, the University of Hong Kong?

 

The Buddha talked about particles. Also, look at Abidharma.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[dragonfire45]

ralis... you have a habit of mis-understanding.

 

I quoted Einstein as saying that Buddhism is a religion of the future, transcending dogmas revolving around a God... etc. I didn't call it science. But, the Buddhas revelation of everything being relative is spoken quite nicely by Einsteins theories. Of course your right brain hasn't opened yet.. only the insult side of the brain. You make no logical arguments, you just throw hate balls.

 

 

This is not just Vaj but many believe so. Some even explain how aliens and other solar systems and galaxies were known to Buddha/Buddhists (Mikalez said that I believe) based on these belief systems. I find this to be a fantastic theory as well. But nac will probably not, for only Hindu theories are fantastic and lay. This is science or cognitive science or something on those lines