RongzomFan Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) Read page 35-38 of Philosophy of Indian Sociology By G.S. Ramesh, especially page 38 I win. EPIC FAIL Edited February 8, 2011 by alwayson Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aaron Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) Hello folks, What I find interesting about India is that until Islam was introduced, the people of India were able to live side by side without feeling the need to teach each other that what they believed was right. Even now they are able to do this. The only thing that seems to cause discord and debate is this idea that someone must be right and someone must be wrong. If I know I'm right, then why must I prove I'm right? If I am God, the source, Brahma, or whatever you call it, then why must I prove it to you? Is it not simply enough to explain it and let it be? The first instinct we have when we are pushed is to push back. The problem for the one who is pushing comes when the person he's pushed doesn't push back, but rather falls to the ground and refuses to get up. The pusher has won and in winning lost. Aaron Edited February 8, 2011 by Twinner Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted February 8, 2011 Read pages 35-38 of Philosophy of Indian Sociology By G.S. Ramesh I win. EPIC FAIL The problem with scholars is that they all disagree. The older Upanishads if you read them, all seem to be pre-Buddha to me, so I'll agree with those scholars. You can have your win in your world, that's fine by me. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goldisheavy Posted February 8, 2011 The term kamma meant nothing like what we talk about karma. Just the word, doesn't mean shit. Right. It's as if you didn't bother listening to anything anyone other than you said. Everyone admits that Buddha has changed the meaning of the terms somewhat. He didn't change it radically, like giving it the opposite of the previous meaning. But he did adjust it and clarified it. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sunya Posted February 8, 2011 Read pages 35-38 of Philosophy of Indian Sociology By G.S. Ramesh I win. EPIC FAIL ok, I guess you do. You win the sandbox battle. Time for your nap now. Run off now and let the adults talk 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goldisheavy Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) Hello folks, What I find interesting about India is that until Islam was introduced, the people of India were able to live side by side without feeling the need to teach each other that what they believed was right. Even now they are able to do this. The only thing that seems to cause discord and debate is this idea that someone must be right and someone must be wrong. If I know I'm right, then why must I prove I'm right? If I am God, the source, Brahma, or whatever you call it, then why must I prove it to you? Is it not simply enough to explain it and let it be? The first instinct we have when we are pushed is to push back. The problem for the one who is pushing comes when the person he's pushed doesn't push back, but rather falls to the ground and refuses to get up. The pusher has won and in winning lost. Aaron It sounds like you're taking the battle to a different level or to a higher plane, but you haven't ended the battle altogether. You're still thinking about the situation in terms of one-upmanship. Consider the following analogy. When you see one hand striking another, it looks like they are fighting. But if you know that both hands belong to the same person, that one bit of contextual knowledge changes fighting into a clapping applause, which has almost the opposite meaning. So are we fighting? Or are we applauding? Edited February 8, 2011 by goldisheavy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sunya Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) The first instinct we have when we are pushed is to push back. The problem for the one who is pushing comes when the person he's pushed doesn't push back, but rather falls to the ground and refuses to get up. The pusher has won and in winning lost. Aaron Awesome.. I really like that. thanks Gold, I think certainly here as of late there's been a lot of one-upping going on. For the most part, it certainly is good sometimes to have a philosophical debate about the beliefs and values and interpretations of experiences that we hold to be true, and maybe even joust a bit. But there are certain individuals who joust for the sake of jousting. I don't want to clinically analyze those people, but how they ended up on a spiritual forum is beyond me. Edited February 8, 2011 by Sunya 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted February 8, 2011 Right. It's as if you didn't bother listening to anything anyone other than you said. Everyone admits that Buddha has changed the meaning of the terms somewhat. He didn't change it radically, like giving it the opposite of the previous meaning. But he did adjust it and clarified it. No Vaj was claiming karma was from the Vedas. Lets keep it fucking real bro. Secondly, again I said from the beginning that Buddha invented the concept of karma as we know today, which I was right. And fuck I even mentioned Shramana precursors five pages ago. What more do you want? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) ok, I guess you do. You win the sandbox battle. Time for your nap now. Run off now and let the adults talk You are an ***. You can just spout off all sorts of idiocy, and when you are proven wrong you can patronize them. Nice tactic. **** ***. Edited February 8, 2011 by Apech Mod Action - personal insult Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted February 8, 2011 No Vaj was claiming karma was from the Vedas. Lets keep it fucking real bro. Secondly, again I said from the beginning that Buddha invented the concept of karma as we know today, which I was right. And fuck I even mentioned Shramana precursors five pages ago. What more do you want? The Upanashads are Vedic, so are the Brahmins, the Rishis and plenty of the Shramanas were Vedically inclined too, but just interpreted differently. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goldisheavy Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) No Vaj was claiming karma was from the Vedas. Lets keep it fucking real bro. Secondly, again I said from the beginning that Buddha invented the concept of karma as we know today, which I was right. And fuck I even mentioned Shramana precursors five pages ago. What more do you want? I know what I want. I remember why this discussion started. I wanted people to stop praising and otherwise morally supporting the practice of secrecy. I then gave a series of different arguments why secrecy around the liberative teachings is a very bad idea, and why ending secrecy is a very good idea. Edited February 8, 2011 by goldisheavy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sunya Posted February 8, 2011 You are an ass. You can just spout off all sorts of idiocy, and when you are proven wrong you can patronize them. Nice tactic. Fuck you. Calm down before you get banned. What idiocy and when did you prove anything wrong? All I see is a child having temper tantrums 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted February 8, 2011 You are an ass. You can just spout off all sorts of idiocy, and when you are proven wrong you can patronize them. Nice tactic. Fuck you. Looks like your talking to yourself again, and about yourself even... cool. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) Looks like your talking to yourself again, and about yourself even... cool. and ______ too Vaj. Did you even read the the source I posted? Its on google books. Karma as we know the concept today (INCLUDING THE HINDU VERSION) is from the Buddha. Edited February 8, 2011 by cat get a dictionary Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted February 8, 2011 Karma as we know the concept today (INCLUDING THE HINDU VERSION) is from the Buddha. I disagree, the hindu version is different and pre existed the Buddha. This is what I've read, and if I'm wrong, you can go ahead and shot me, ok? I'm with the Buddhist version though... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted February 8, 2011 you should read page 35 of Philosophy of Indian Sociology By G.S. Ramesh Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goldisheavy Posted February 8, 2011 Karma as we know the concept today (INCLUDING THE HINDU VERSION) is from the Buddha. I think the best you can do is argue that Buddha has left his imprint on the idea of karma as we know it today, including the idea of karma that Hindus use. What you can't argue though, is that Buddha has introduced the idea of karma from scratch. You also can't argue that Buddha has radically changed the idea of karma that already existed at the time. So for example, when Buddha has heard about the Atman doctrine, he came up with an Anatman doctrine. That's a pretty radical difference. In this case, I think it's fair to say that Buddha has introduced the concept of anatman because while the idea of anatman depends on the idea of atman in order to make sense, given that the focus of realization is not atman, but is rather anatman, that's a significant enough departure that allows us to grant the status of novelty. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goldisheavy Posted February 8, 2011 you should read page 35 of Philosophy of Indian Sociology By G.S. Ramesh I assume you have the book. In that case, can you please type up a few relevant paragraphs from that page? That would be so much more helpful than just saying "page 35". Thank you in advance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) You also can't argue that Buddha has radically changed the idea of karma that already existed at the time. The scholar I sourced is arguing that pretty convincingly with supporting arguments. So yes he invented the karma concept as we know it today. And it went into hinudism from there. Apparently the upanishads has a couple of vague references to karma, and definitley not the karma concept as we know it today. I don't own the book. Its on google books. Again I never claimed Buddha invented the word karma, only the karma concept, as shared by Hinduism. Buddha was the first one to come up with karma, and he was the first one to tie it to reincarnation. And this is an interesting sentence in wikipedia "Scholarly research and evidences have shown that philosophical concepts considered typically Indian – Karma, Ahimsa, Moksa, reincarnation and like – either originate in the sramana school of thought or were propagated and developed by Jaina and Buddhist teachers." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism Vaj did you even read the Shramana page on wikipedia that ***YOU*** kept referencing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shramana "Because the Sramanas rejected the Vedas...." "Rejection of the Vedas as revealed texts" "Following are the two main schools of Sramana Philosophy that have continued since ancient times in India:" Where the fuck is Hinduism listed? " According to Gavin Flood, concepts like karmas and reincarnation entered mainstream brahaminical thought from the sramana or the renounciant traditions." If you are going to source something, why don't you fucking read it. What a fucking moron. Fuck you Vaj. Edited February 8, 2011 by alwayson Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted February 8, 2011 Holy shit, have you been editing the Shramana wikipedia page? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted February 8, 2011 There are a series of edits made to change the terminology, and not in a correct way, to support Vaj's arguements. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shramana&action=history Compare the last on Feb 7 to Jan 30 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted February 8, 2011 Nevermind, it doesn't really support Vaj's argument, but its still really fishy changing terms to "vedism". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted February 8, 2011 Wow! I've never made any entries to Wiki. You dear sir... are a holder of the crown of fool. You need help, a guru, transmission, meditation... something. Maybe even medication? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devoid Posted February 8, 2011 Hello folks, What I find interesting about India is that until Islam was introduced, the people of India were able to live side by side without feeling the need to teach each other that what they believed was right. Even now they are able to do this. The only thing that seems to cause discord and debate is this idea that someone must be right and someone must be wrong. If I know I'm right, then why must I prove I'm right? If I am God, the source, Brahma, or whatever you call it, then why must I prove it to you? Is it not simply enough to explain it and let it be? The first instinct we have when we are pushed is to push back. The problem for the one who is pushing comes when the person he's pushed doesn't push back, but rather falls to the ground and refuses to get up. The pusher has won and in winning lost. Aaron Very wise words - thanks for posting, Aaron! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) Twinner, on 07 February 2011 - 09:47 PM, said:Hello folks, What I find interesting about India is that until Islam was introduced, the people of India were able to live side by side without feeling the need to teach each other that what they believed was right. Even now they are able to do this. The only thing that seems to cause discord and debate is this idea that someone must be right and someone must be wrong. Aaron Sounds nice, but you're off the mark. Even the Buddha debated against Hindu and Jain ideas. The Hindu/Buddha debate has been going on for a very long time, since before Christ in fact. Edited February 8, 2011 by Vajrahridaya Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
