Dependent Origination

[ralis]

The original Upanishads were forrest hindu teachings pryer to the Buddha and these people weren't interested in the big cities where the Brahmins were rulers of spirituality.

 

You know... the first thing the Buddha did was go to the forrest and learn forrest hinduism from two masters of samadhi in the tradition? He learned the formless jhana states from these forrest hindu masters.

 

The term and meaning of karma is a Vedic invention having to do with the Vedic Sanskrit period which is anywhere from 2,000 BC to 1,000 BC pryer to Panini the famous sanskrit grammarian. It might even be earlier as some place the Vedas in the 4,000's BC.

 

Are you really an Indian? Seriously Alwayson... how old are you?

 

Vedas will in no way predate Sanskrit since the origin of Sanskrit is circa 1500 BCE.

[Vajrahridaya]

First....what upanishads before the Buddha?

 

There was a thread about 2 years ago where we confirmed that the academic consensus was that all the Upanishads are post Buddha.

 

Actually, no, I didn't agree with that conclusion in total, as only the newer Upanishads are post Buddha and one can tell by the content and style. There are obviously some upanishads that are pre-Buddha, called the Mukhya upanishads. The ones that we know are pre-Buddha are the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, Chāndogya Upanishads which are pre-Panini dating to the Vedic Sanskrit period, and Panini who was a contemporary of the Buddha, or there abouts was the famous grammarian of early sanskrit. The Vedas are long pryer to the Buddha and the concept of Karma is vedic in origin. Karma is well known to be a pre-Buddha term and concept. I ask your age, because I'm surprised you don't know this as someone who is Indian? Aren't you from India? I'm 35 and grew up my entire life Hindu, but in America though I'm not Indian. Specifically I grew up in Tantric Shaivite in the Trika or Kaula style and Advaita Vedanta style Hinduism of Shankaracharya. I studied all the available texts I could on these traditions, well lots more traditions as well. But anyway... I am well read in Hinduism. I attended Yajnas with real Brahmin priests from India, and grew up chanting the Shree Rudram from the Rigveda, as well as the Hanuman Chalisa, the Bhagavad Gita... and other Gitas... etc. etc. Before coming to Buddhism.

 

Secondly.....Buddha learned from Shramana masters, not Hindu.

 

Thirdly.....What the fuck are you talking about?

 

Shramana just means a wandering ascetic and could be Buddhist, Hindu or Jain, or even Ajivika. Because Mahavira was a contemporary of the Buddha, they were either Ajivika shramana or Hindu shramana traditions that he first learned from. They were most likely Upanishad Hindu based due to the way his first teachers are talked about and what they taught the Buddha as recorded in the Pali Suttas are prominent Hindu ideas that appear in the early Upanishads.

[RongzomFan]

you keep saying that karma is a vedic concept, but its not. Not even in the slightest.

[RongzomFan]

Shramana just means a wandering ascetic and could be Buddhist, Hindu or Jain, or even Ajivika.

 

 

no it doesn't.

 

Shramana was a movement that predated hinduism, buddhism and jainism.

 

By your logic, you could become shramana in 2011

 

LOL

Edited February 8, 2011 by alwayson

[Vajrahridaya]

Vedas will in no way predate Sanskrit since the origin of Sanskrit is circa 1500 BCE.

 

No, the origin of sanskrit can be earlier than that by either double to 500 years. It supposedly comes from the North and enters into India at the time that you stated, but it could very well be older. It was called "Aryan Speech" or "arya vac" before it was called Sanskrit or Chandasa by Panini.

 

Anyway...

[ralis]

Actually, no, I didn't agree with that conclusion in total, as only the newer Upanishads are post Buddha and one can tell by the content and style. There are obviously some upanishads that are pre-Buddha, called the Mukhya upanishads. The ones that we know are pre-Buddha are the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, Chāndogya Upanishads which are pre-Panini dating to the Vedic Sanskrit period, and Panini who was a contemporary of the Buddha, or there abouts was the famous grammarian of early sanskrit. The Vedas are long pryer to the Buddha and the concept of Karma is vedic in origin. Karma is well known to be a pre-Buddha term and concept. I ask your age, because I'm surprised you don't know this as someone who is Indian? Aren't you from India? I'm 35 and grew up my entire life Hindu, but in America though I'm not Indian. Specifically I grew up in Tantric Shaivite in the Trika or Kaula style and Advaita Vedanta style Hinduism of Shankaracharya. I studied all the available texts I could on these traditions, well lots more traditions as well. But anyway... I am well read in Hinduism. I attended Yajnas with real Brahmin priests from India, and grew up chanting the Shree Rudram from the Rigveda, as well as the Hanuman Chalisa, the Bhagavad Gita... and other Gitas... etc. etc. Before coming to Buddhism.

 

 

 

 

Shramana just means a wandering ascetic and could be Buddhist, Hindu or Jain, or even Ajivika. Because Mahavira was a contemporary of the Buddha, they were either Ajivika shramana or Hindu shramana traditions that he first learned from. They were most likely Upanishad Hindu based due to the way his first teachers are talked about and what they taught the Buddha as recorded in the Pali Suttas are prominent Hindu ideas that appear in the early Upanishads.

 

If you don't read and understand Sanskrit then making definitive statements is futile. Chanting is not the same.

[Vajrahridaya]

no it doesn't.

 

Shramana was a movement that predated hinduism, buddhism and jainism.

 

By your logic, you could become shramana in 2011

 

LOL

 

You need to study more. Yes, I can become a shramana right now!

 

definition of shramana

 

You can just google the term and correct yourself of course... I really wonder how old you are because you act young and you really aren't all that knowledgeable enough to be belittling your elders who know much more than you about these topics.

[Vajrahridaya]

If you don't read and understand Sanskrit then making definitive statements is futile. Chanting is not the same.

 

I don't read Devanagari but I do understand many of the terms in transliteration. I have a lot of friends who are sanskrit scholars, quite a few in fact.

 

Anyway... why not just look some things up, go google for a while if you're curious.

Edited February 8, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

No, the origin of sanskrit can be earlier than that by either double to 500 years. It supposedly comes from the North and enters into India at the time that you stated, but it could very well be older. It was called "Aryan Speech" or "arya vac" before it was called Sanskrit or Chandasa by Panini.

 

Anyway...

 

You keep assigning arbitrary time frames to prove a point you know nothing about. You are not a scholar.

[RongzomFan]

You need to study more. Yes, I can become a shramana right now!

 

definition of shramana

 

You can just google the term and correct yourself of course... I really wonder how old you are because you act young and you really aren't all that knowledgeable enough to be belittling your elders who know much more than you about these topics.

 

 

Dude are you seriously dyslexic or something?

 

How can you be a sramana now?

[Vajrahridaya]

you keep saying that karma is a vedic concept, but its not. Not even in the slightest.

 

 

 

From Wiki: Origins: A concept of karma (along with samsara and moksha) may originate in the shramana tradition of which Buddhism and Jainism are continuations. This tradition influenced the Brahmanic religion in the early Vedantic (Upanishadic) movement of the 1st millennium BC. This worldview was adopted from this religious culture by Brahmin orthodoxy, and Brahmins wrote the earliest recorded scriptures containing these ideas in the early Upanishads. Until recently, the scholarly consensus was that reincarnation is absent from the earliest strata of Brahminical literature. However, a new translation of two stanzas of the Rig Veda indicate that the Brahmins may have had the idea, common among small-scale societies around the world, that an individual cycles back and forth between the earth and a heavenly realm of ancestors. In this worldview, moral behavior has no influence on rebirth. The idea that the moral quality of one's actions influences one's rebirth is absent from India until the period of the shramana religions, and the Brahmins appear to have adopted this idea from other religious groups.

[RongzomFan]

From Wiki: Origins: A concept of karma (along with samsara and moksha) may originate in the shramana tradition of which Buddhism and Jainism are continuations. This tradition influenced the Brahmanic religion in the early Vedantic (Upanishadic) movement of the 1st millennium BC. This worldview was adopted from this religious culture by Brahmin orthodoxy, and Brahmins wrote the earliest recorded scriptures containing these ideas in the early Upanishads. Until recently, the scholarly consensus was that reincarnation is absent from the earliest strata of Brahminical literature. However, a new translation of two stanzas of the Rig Veda indicate that the Brahmins may have had the idea, common among small-scale societies around the world, that an individual cycles back and forth between the earth and a heavenly realm of ancestors. In this worldview, moral behavior has no influence on rebirth. The idea that the moral quality of one's actions influences one's rebirth is absent from India until the period of the shramana religions, and the Brahmins appear to have adopted this idea from other religious groups.

 

 

So you are proving my point?

 

Ok thank you.

Edited February 8, 2011 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

Dude are you seriously dyslexic or something?

 

How can you be a sramana now?

 

I ask this again

[Vajrahridaya]

You keep assigning arbitrary time frames to prove a point you know nothing about. You are not a scholar.

 

Dude... You can look up this information on google and find out for yourself. Plus, friends who I grew up with chanting in sanskrit are now PHD's in sanskrit. So... you can go read about it.

 

These dates are not arbitrary... you can even wiki them right now and find out. In fact.

 

"In order to explain the common features shared by Sanskrit and other Indo-European languages, many scholars have proposed migration hypotheses asserting that the original speakers of what became Sanskrit arrived in what is now India and Pakistan from the north-west some time during the early second millennium BCE.[10] Evidence for such a theory includes the close relationship of the Indo-Iranian tongues with the Baltic and Slavic languages, vocabulary exchange with the non-Indo-European Finno-Ugric languages, and the nature of the attested Indo-European words for flora and fauna.[11]

The earliest attested Sanskrit texts are Hindu texts of the Rigveda, which date to the mid-to-late second millennium BCE. No written records from such an early period survive. However, scholars are confident that the oral transmission of the texts is reliable: they were ceremonial literature whose correct pronunciation was considered crucial to its religious efficacy.[12] However, it needs to be pointed out that several features of the language used in the Rigveda can be shown to be present in Prakrit, which underlines the long-held scholarly position that the Prakrits derive from Vedic, not from Panini's Sanskrit. "

[RongzomFan]

By the way wikipedia is absolute garbage. But as long as wikipedia is supporting my arguments, which so far it is, its OK with me

Edited February 8, 2011 by alwayson

[Vajrahridaya]

I ask this again

 

Because it merely means a wandering monk. So yes... I can be one now. I've actually met a couple of shramanas in Berkley in both the Hindu and Buddhist tradition.

 

"A shramana (Sanskrit śramaṇa श्रमण, Pāli samaṇa) is a wandering monk in certain ascetic traditions of ancient India in Jainism, Buddhism, and Ājīvika religion (now extinct). Famous śramaṇa include religious leaders Mahavira and Gautama Buddha."

[Vajrahridaya]

By the way wikipedia is absolute garbage. But as long as wikipedia is supporting my arguments, its OK with me

 

I read academic books written by phD's.

 

Unfortunately I just borrow them through interlibrary loan, so I don't have them handy for quotes.

 

Wiki is not supporting your arguments.

 

Neither do I because I know that wiki is right as I've studied this stuff with passion since 1990 and have been around this information my entire life, which is longer than yours. I was born in 1975.

[Vajrahridaya]

So you are proving my point?

 

Ok thank you.

 

You don't read well do you? It's saying that the term Karma finds it's origins in the Brahmanic religions or even the Shramanas of the forrest traditions pryer to the advent of the Buddha.

[ralis]

By the way wikipedia is absolute garbage. But as long as wikipedia is supporting my arguments, which so far it is, its OK with me

 

Wikipedia is not peer reviewed and generally is revisionist.

[RongzomFan]

Wiki is not supporting your arguments.

 

Neither do I because I know that wiki is right as I've studied this stuff with passion since 1990 and have been around this information my entire life, which is longer than yours. I was born in 1975.

 

 

How is wikipedia not supporting my arguments?

 

"The idea that the moral quality of one's actions influences one's rebirth is absent from India until the period of the shramana religions, and the Brahmins appear to have adopted this idea from other religious groups."

 

Dude like I said before, you are not knowledgeable about anything, especially buddhism.

 

"A concept of karma (along with samsara and moksha) may originate in the shramana tradition of which Buddhism and Jainism are continuations. This tradition influenced the Brahmanic religion in the early Vedantic (Upanishadic) movement of the 1st millennium BC. This worldview was adopted from this religious culture by Brahmin orthodoxy, and Brahmins wrote the earliest recorded scriptures containing these ideas in the early Upanishads."

[Vajrahridaya]

Am I seriously having an argument with a 12 year old here?

 

Does anybody know the true age of alwayson?

[RongzomFan]

It's saying that the term Karma finds it's origins in the Brahmanic religions

 

 

Where does it say that?

 

Dude you are clueless.

[Vajrahridaya]

How is wikipedia not supporting my arguments?

 

"The idea that the moral quality of one's actions influences one's rebirth is absent from India until the period of the shramana religions, and the Brahmins appear to have adopted this idea from other religious groups."

 

Dude like I said before, you are not knowledgeable about anything, especially buddhism.

 

"A concept of karma (along with samsara and moksha) may originate in the shramana tradition of which Buddhism and Jainism are continuations. This tradition influenced the Brahmanic religion in the early Vedantic (Upanishadic) movement of the 1st millennium BC. This worldview was adopted from this religious culture by Brahmin orthodoxy, and Brahmins wrote the earliest recorded scriptures containing these ideas in the early Upanishads."

 

The early Upanishads pre-date the Buddha. So do the Hindu Shramana traditions and so do the Rig Vedas.

 

So yes, you are just not reading properly because I think you might actually be 12 years old and hopped up on candy bars and gummy bears right now?

[goldisheavy]

My God, if I ever go into a monastery or philosophy group that I really don't like, this thread has shown me what to do.

 

Whisper the words 'Dependent Origination' then run out before the fur starts flying.

 

Well... yes! Debating on this topic is not some new fad. It's been going on for practically ever.

 

http://www.rinpoche.com/quotes/quote72.htm

[RongzomFan]

Am I seriously having an argument with a 12 year old here?

 

Does anybody know the true age of alwayson?

 

 

Dude seriously, you must be dyslexic. You are utterly clueless.