Taoism Vs Buddhism

[Wu Ming Jen]

Buddhism went well into muslim territory Reason for conflict?

[RongzomFan]

http://selfdefinition.org/ramana/Ramana%20Maharshi%20-%20Be%20As%20You%20Are--The%20Teachings%20of%20Sri%20Ramana%20Maharshi--Godman.pdf

 

 

Have you ever read, you know, like a reputable book? Instead of all this dubious crap?

[RongzomFan]

Buddhism went well into muslim territory Reason for conflict?

 

 

Islam is a new religion dude. Mohammed lived around year 600.

[Simple_Jack]

http://selfdefinition.org/ramana/Ramana%20Maharshi%20-%20Be%20As%20You%20Are--The%20Teachings%20of%20Sri%20Ramana%20Maharshi--Godman.pdf

 

This is not relevant to Buddhist practice. Do you really think that Buddha would have gone to all the trouble of refuting the Atman (i.e anatman/anatta) if in fact he was really trying to convey the message of an absolute formless consciousness that we are all "One" with?

[Wu Ming Jen]

Alwayson tell me how it is. Do you know the history of buddhism in your own country? Hindu and buddhist understanding are light years apart if I offend you hindu root let me have it so I can learn wtf is up

[RongzomFan]

Alwayson tell me how it is. Do you know the history of buddhism in your own country? Hindu and buddhist understanding are light years apart if I offend you hindu root let me have it so I can learn wtf is up

 

I don't see them as light years apart. Whats so hard to understand?

[Wu Ming Jen]

This drew back buddhist ground at 600Ad, no grounds for conflict before that. We are getting lost in time current muslim territory was buddhist, blow that statue up.

[voidisyinyang]

This is not relevant to Buddhist practice. Do you really think that Buddha would have gone to all the trouble of refuting the Atman (i.e anatman/anatta) if in fact he was really trying to convey the message of an absolute formless consciousness that we are all "One" with?

Buddha was never a person.

[voidisyinyang]

Have you ever read, you know, like a reputable book? Instead of all this dubious crap?

 

hahah.

 

Hilarious!!

[Wu Ming Jen]

You know way more of the hindu system you are living it. Can it = hindu buddhist be compared to christ coming out of the Hebrew system? Is it Enlightened or divine Humans responsible (Buddhas) or is a higher world responsible (Hindu) for the lower world. Is this not a true division in the two systems?

[RongzomFan]

Regarding your Christ/Hebrew analogy. Yes, Hinduism is based on Buddhism. For example the Upanishads are based on Buddhist philosophy. The Yogas Sutras of Patanjali are based directly on Buddhist ideas. The royalty used to do pujas to idols of Buddha, before Shiva and Vishnu.

 

You noted that Buddhism spread far and wide throughout Asia. This is because Buddhism was the major religion of India. So when Indian culture spread far and wide, it naturally took Buddhism with it.

[voidisyinyang]

Therefore, when Halbfass says that for Bhavya, brahman "ultimately amounts to shunya," this means that the Madhyamaka is saying that ultimately, the "neti, neti" must be turned against the conceptions of brahman and atman. Otherwise, it stops short of its implied goal, and thereby remains inconsistent.

 

http://kelamuni.blogspot.com/2006/07/are-brahman-and-emptiness-same-part.html

[Wu Ming Jen]

Alwayson,That is awesome, I was playing with the "VS" thing, saw this thread come alive. For real I have much respect for all divine knowledge no matter what form it comes In. Have a good night

[voidisyinyang]

For example the Upanishads are based on Buddhist philosophy.

 

http://www.vgweb.org/bsq/upan.htm

 

 

It is generally accepted that the some of the early Upanishads (including the two most important of them, the Bṛihdāraṇyaka and the Chāndogya) came before the Buddha. But unfortunately there is not enough evidence to date these Upanishads more precisely. It is generally believed that they were in existence by 600 BCE. Given that the Buddha’s Enlightenment has been placed about 588 BCE[24] this means that the Upanishadic doctrines were known for at least a century before the Buddha’s time.

With regard to geography there has been some scholarly interest in finding the areas in which the Upanishadic doctrines arose. This has some relevance in establishing links between Upanishad doctrines and those of Buddhism. While it is generally believed that the original Vedic hymns were composed in the region of the Indus basin it is thought that the centre of later Vedic speculation moved eastwards along the Ganges basin. It is of course well known that the cradle of Buddhism was in the middle Ganges basin, particularly the kingdoms of Maghada and Kosala.

It is believed that the early Upanishads were composed in the regions Kuru-Pancāla and Videha. These are well to the east of the Indus river which was the birthplace of the original Vedic hymns and to the west of what was the cradle of Buddhism. So it is quite possible that the Upanishadic teaching originated in the area immediately to the West of the region where Buddhism arose.

With regards to the personalities involved we know next to nothing of the seers mentioned in the Upanshads except the names that were given to them. The Buddhist texts mention the teachers who existed during the Buddha’s time, or immediately prior to it. The question is whether any of them could be identified as followers of the Upanishad teaching. There is a conventional listing of six schools but they were ascetic (samanas) outside the main Brahmanical shools. He names of Brahamins who came to dispute with the Buddha and the arhants are given, but they are not the seers of the Upanishads. Of course those seers, even if they existed, would have died by the time of the Buddha.

We may finally notice the question posed by scholars whether elements of the Buddha’s doctrine is contained in Upanishadic teaching. These scholars have advanced the view that either the Upanishads contain the central ideas of Buddhism or that Buddhism is itself a development of the Upanishads. Both the Pali texts and the Upanishads came to the attention of Western scholars in the nineteenth century and it was natural to compare them with each other.[25] One of the early Orientalists Max Müller asserted that “The Upanishads are ... the germs of Buddhism, while Buddhism is in many respects the doctrine of the Upanishads carried out to the last consequences...” (Sacred Books of the East, XV, p.li). Far from agreeing with this view it will be shown that Buddhism is in many respects the opposite of what the authors of the Upanishads were talking about. If the Upanishads exerted any influence it was a detrimental one relating to some minor doctrines which the Buddha seems to have tolerated.

[RongzomFan]

There were a couple of Upanishads that came before Buddha. But even these are based on the Sramana religion, which is the predecessor to Buddhism.

[idiot_stimpy]

Buddha was never a person.

 

The enlightened mind?

 

The dakini's the enlightened energy?

[voidisyinyang]

There were a couple of Upanishads that came before Buddha. But even these are based on the Sramana religion, which is the predecessor to Buddhism.

 

 

"It is apparent from the Upanishads that the prestige of the Brahmans was breaking down and their distinctness from the political-military kshatriya caste was crumbling....Certainly, Buddhism was a challenge to the traditional brahmin practices, attacking its rituals and especially its sacrifices by the doctrine of ahimsa, non-harming. But Buddhism should be seen as more of a reform movement within the milieu of the educated religious people - who were mostly Brahmans - rather than a rival movement from outside. Thus, although the Buddha himself was a kshatriya the largest number of monks in the early movement were of Brahman origin. In principle, the Sangha was open to any caste; and since it was outside the ordinary world, caste had no place in it. Nevertheless, virtually all monks were recruited from the upper two classes. The biggest source of lay support, however, the ordinary donor of alms, were the landowning farmers."

 

Randall Collins. The sociology of philosophies: a global theory of intellectual change. Harvard University Press, 2000. P.205:

[RongzomFan]

Are you trying to make some point?

[voidisyinyang]

The enlightened mind?

 

The dakini's the enlightened energy?

 

David Gordon White's book "Kiss of the Yogini" states that the Sanskrit word Dakini originates from the yoginis at the cremation grounds and the yoginis were identified with birds - Dakini literally means "she who flies" -- and so the carrion-eating birds were identified with yoginis in the cremation grounds as "filthy birds of the night."

 

So yes tantra in Buddhism retains a matrifocal focus although the origin is still as a counterculture to the dominant patriarchal culture.

[RongzomFan]

So yes tantra in Buddhism retains a matrifocal focus although the origin is still as a counterculture to the dominant patriarchal culture.

 

 

What "dominant patriarchal culture" are you talking about?

[voidisyinyang]

What "dominant patriarchal culture" are you talking about?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JER0B51aT3Y

 

 

 

Thus in the context of India, brahminical

patriarchy, tribal patriarchy and dalit patriarchy are different from each

other.

 

•

Department of Political Science, Daulat Ram College, University of Delhi.

Foundation Course Human Rights, Gender & Environment

University of Delhi BA P

rogramme II

2

http://www.du.ac.in/fileadmin/DU/Academics/course_material/hrge_06.pdf

Edited May 8, 2013 by pythagoreanfulllotus

[RongzomFan]

I've seen that. I don't see how that's relevant to Indian religions.

[RongzomFan]

 

http://www.du.ac.in/fileadmin/DU/Academics/course_material/hrge_06.pdf

 

It seems they are saying there are some patriarchies of different types.

 

However besides the recent gang rapes and the male Brahmin priests, Indian hindu culture is matriarchal in my experience. There is a strong tradition in parts of India, where the bride keeps her family name. Compare that to the west, where you adopt the groom's family name. The mangalsutra has both families' gothrams on it. There are the female deities, which atleast traditionally were considered the highest deities.

[voidisyinyang]

I've seen that. I don't see how that's relevant to Indian religions.

 

 

 

While in ancient India (Vedic and Epic periods), women were

by and large treated as equal to men, the restrictions on women and

patriarchal values regulating women’s sexuality

and mobility got strengthened in the post-vedic periods (Brahmanical and Medieval

periods) with the rise of private property and establishment of class

society.

Patriarchal constructions of social practices are legitimized by religion and

religious institution as most religious practices regard male authority as

superior and the laws and norms regarding family, marriage, divorce and

inheritance are linked to patriarchal control over property biased against

women.

Edited May 8, 2013 by pythagoreanfulllotus

[RongzomFan]

http://www.amazon.com/Invading-Sacred-Analysis-Hinduism-Studies/dp/8129111829

 

This book documents that there is no basic fact checking in western scholarship on Hinduism.

Edited May 8, 2013 by alwayson