Lord Shiva

[RongzomFan]

But why is "defeating these Hindus" so important? Is that part of your Buddhist mission? To arrogantly go forth and convert the Hindus?

 

 

Its still sad that you conceive of Buddhism and Hinduism as separate.

 

You do realize that Vajrayana has Ganesha, Brahma, Sarasvati, all the vedic deities etc. right?

Edited March 4, 2013 by alwayson

[Simple_Jack]

Your favored David Gordon white is also mentioned here. I was personally involved with invading the sacred and put their website up for them. I am indebted to these individuals for their work (some whom I had the good fortune to interact with - rajiv Malhotra, antonio de Nicholas primarily but had a couple of phone conversations with Krishnan as well).

Just watching the first 40 minutes of this, I was like "WTF ...." I did not know that these kind of distortions and attitudes were prevalent in Western scholarship.

 

 

These are not some rabble rousing riffraff who can be brushed aside as blood-thirsty savage right wing Hindus..they are eminent scholars and professionals.

I thought that Gulabchand, Malhotra and the older woman at the end had the most balanced perspectives. I think they had it right, when they summed up the blame as ultimately falling on the Indians for letting things get that way in the academic study of their culture.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

You will learn with time...there are geopolitical motivations behind keeping dates skewed...the status quo isn't always right

I think that this can apply to human cultural developments as a whole and not just one particular civilization.

 

 

Why do you even bother to come and try to elicit responses?

I know you do it because you want to feel important. But why is "defeating these Hindus" so important? Is that part of your Buddhist mission? To arrogantly go forth and convert the Hindus?

Since you brought up Buddhism: What do have to say about the actual causes of Buddhism's disappearance from India? You know like the instability of the post-Gupta period and the Muslim invasions of the 13th century?

 

How prevalent is the idea that Shankara defeated the Buddhists in debate and chased them and their ideology out of the Indian sub-continent? Just asking because we both know that it's common to hear things like Buddha being an avatar of Vishnu: Who came to correct mistaken teachings/practices that became prevalent in India or other nonsense that has been propagated and widely believed by "Hindus."

[3bob]

Any mental knowledge that can be gained can also be lost...(granted it has a time, place and a great many uses)

 

but Lord Shiva shares knowledge working through Sat Guru that is beyond mental, thus priceless - never to be bought, sold or sullied.

 

Om

[dwai]

I think that this can apply to human cultural developments as a whole and not just one particular civilization.

 

 

Since you brought up Buddhism: What do have to say about the actual causes of Buddhism's disappearance from India? You know like the instability of the post-Gupta period and the Muslim invasions of the 13th century?

 

How prevalent is the idea that Shankara defeated the Buddhists in debate and chased them and their ideology out of the Indian sub-continent? Just asking because we both know that it's common to hear things like Buddha being an avatar of Vishnu: Who came to correct mistaken teachings/practices that became prevalent in India or other nonsense that has been propagated and widely believed by "Hindus."

 

Buddhism's decline in India is directly a result of Islamic invasions and the fact that there were "power centers" of Buddhism at that time.

 

There were entire universities and monasteries wiped out during Islamic invasions (the early waves). Hinduism did not suffer the same plight because there were no power centers to attack...

 

Long story and background needed. What shankara did was not direct cause of Buddhism's decline. What he did was responsible for re-ascendancy of Sanatana dharma...

[dwai]

 

Its still sad that you conceive of Buddhism and Hinduism as separate.

 

You do realize that Vajrayana has Ganesha, Brahma, Sarasvati, all the vedic deities etc. right?

 

I do. They are different...they are however fingers pointing to the same moon...so to speak. I dont have anything against buddhists either...i admire and repect a lot of them. However the sectarianism passing off at buddhism here at times is unpalatable. Its better to discuss vedanta, astika darshanas here and leave the buddhism forum for those who want to discuss buddhism. Attempts to promote a healthy environment for buddhist, taoist snd hindu thoughts to co-exist amidst a mutually respectful forum seems to have failed here on ttb in face of massive egos and hard-nosed opinions being passed off as gospel truth...

 

Anyhow i wont go into that any more...it should suffice for me to state that i respect and admire the buddha and nagarjuna.

[RongzomFan]

I do. They are different...

 

Now they are, because Hinduism became homogenized with the orientalists.

[RongzomFan]

How prevalent is the idea that Shankara defeated the Buddhists in debate and chased them and their ideology out of the Indian sub-continent?

 

 

Most Hindus never heard of Shankara.

[Simple_Jack]

I do. They are different...they are however fingers pointing to the same moon...so to speak. I dont have anything against buddhists either...i admire and repect a lot of them. However the sectarianism passing off at buddhism here at times is unpalatable. Its better to discuss vedanta, astika darshanas here and leave the buddhism forum for those who want to discuss buddhism. Attempts to promote a healthy environment for buddhist, taoist snd hindu thoughts to co-exist amidst a mutually respectful forum seems to have failed here on ttb in face of massive egos and hard-nosed opinions being passed off as gospel truth... Anyhow i wont go into that any more...it should suffice for me to state that i respect and admire the buddha and nagarjuna.

 

It was bound to fail, especially on a forum where people's proclivities are so diverse. What "Buddhism" teaches, goes against everything that most people here believe in. No matter how much you try to subvert that by saying "all paths lead to the One."

 

"Hindus" in India knew that. Though, we can't say that "Hindus" are able to actually comprehend what Buddha was getting at. The ones that did converted.

 

I think we can respect each other, instead of just merely tolerating each other.

[RongzomFan]

There were entire universities and monasteries wiped out during Islamic invasions (the early waves).

 

This is my understanding. Maybe you can correct it if I am wrong.

 

"Hinduism" was like a high school degree. "Buddhism" was like PhD.

 

They were not different religions per se.

[dwai]

 

This is my understanding. Maybe you can correct it if I am wrong.

 

"Hinduism" was like a high school degree. "Buddhism" was like PhD.

 

They were not different religions per se.

 

They were PhDs or high school diplomas depending on the students level

[RongzomFan]

What I'm saying is that many Brahmins etc. went to these universities that you cited to get an advanced education, as "Buddhist" philosophy is admittedly complicated.

 

Again I have to reiterate, that even Madhyamaka texts have what are now considered "Hindu" deities.

 

Dwai, are you familiar with this work?

 

http://www.ambedkar.org/Tirupati/

[dwai]

What I'm saying is that many Brahmins etc. went to these universities that you cited to get an advanced education, as "Buddhist" philosophy is admittedly complicated.

 

Again I have to reiterate, that even Madhyamaka texts have what are now considered "Hindu" deities.

 

Dwai, are you familiar with this work?

 

http://www.ambedkar.org/Tirupati/

 

Traditional Hindu education was in the gurukula format. The reason Hindu dharma did not methodically get exterminated by the invaders is precisely because there was no seats of power and education

 

Consider that while Buddhist scholars studied in universities their Hindu counterparts were interning with masters of their respective philosophies.

 

We must be careful to not get anachronistic at this point because that would be simply silly

 

[RongzomFan]

Consider that while Buddhist scholars studied in universities their Hindu counterparts were interning with masters of their respective philosophies.

 

What I'm saying is that "Buddhism" is the advanced PhD degree above "Hinduism", and the division between the two as separate religions is recent thing.

[dwai]

What I'm saying is that "Buddhism" is the advanced PhD degree above "Hinduism", and the division between the two as separate religions is recent thing.

 

I disagree. Buddhism has borrowed a lot of not only theory but also terminology from samkhya and vedanta. And buddhism in its simplest/purest form (of shakyamuni) was not a formal subject of study. It was simply a way to avoid conflict and avoid polarity or learn to reoncile polarity in one's life. None of which is without a counterpart in vedanta.

 

This is why dates beome so imporant to people -- to try and show that somehow, someway buddhism is "higher" (to be able to "prove" that so-called buddhist concepts are more original than upanishads etc).

 

I find the more elaborate and convoluted logic in many buddhist interpretations/extrapolations after shakyamuni infantile and laughably useless.

 

Eg., drone-like insistence of anatta, alaya vijana to explain unity consciousness, yet trying to retain the dependent origination thery, whose role is relevant in the phenomenological realm alone and so on.

 

Although im not sure why you want to discuss these topics on a thread dedicated to Lord Shiva...i do sense some "baiting" underway...

 

[RongzomFan]

I disagree. Buddhism has borrowed a lot of not only theory but also terminology from samkhya and vedanta.

 

This is news to me.

 

Maybe you meant that both Upanishads and Buddhism have a common origin in the Sramana religion, whose closest living descendant is Jainism.

Edited March 5, 2013 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

I find the more elaborate and convoluted logic in many buddhist interpretations/extrapolations after shakyamuni infantile and laughably useless.

 

According to the Indian masters Atisha, Kamalashila etc., the only Buddhist philosophy that is definitive is Madhyamaka And thats as simple as Advaita.

 

Madhyamaka: Nonarising/illusion because dependently originated phenomenon do not arise in the first place.

 

Advaita Vedanta : Nonarising/illusion since Brahman never displays as anything other than Brahman.

[dwai]

According to the Indian masters Atisha, Kamalashila etc., the only Buddhist philosophy that is definitive is Madhyamaka And thats as simple as Advaita.

 

Madhyamaka: Nonarising/illusion because dependently originated phenomenon do not arise in the first place.

 

Advaita Vedanta : Nonarising/illusion since Brahman never displays as anything other than Brahman.

And I have the greatest respect for Madhayamaka. It teaches at one level non-attachment to all things since all things in the phenomenal realm are empty of self-nature (svabhava shunya).

 

The practitioner-philosopher-physicist who's works have influenced me and taught me a great deal -- Dr. Ramakrishna Puligandla syncretizes Madhyamaka and Advaita Vedanta beautifully in his book titled "Jnana Yoga - The Way of Knowledge" (http://www.amazon.com/Jnana-yoga-The-Life-Ramakrishna-Puligandla/dp/0875730914)

[3bob]

"There the eye goes not, nor words, nor mind. We know not. We cannot understand how He can be explained. He is above the known, and He is above the unknown (Sama Veda, Kena U. 1.3)."

[adept]

Om Namah Shivaya

 

http://cyberyoga.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/om-namah-shivaya-meaning-significance-of-shiva-mantra/

 

http://www.rudraksha-ratna.com/articledt.php?art_id=279

Edited March 5, 2013 by adept

[Simple_Jack]

I disagree. Buddhism has borrowed a lot of not only theory but also terminology from samkhya and vedanta.

FYI, Buddha refutes the views of Samkhya in the Mulapariyaya Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html:

"He directly knows water as water... the All as the All...

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has known that delight is the root of suffering & stress, that from coming-into-being there is birth, and that for what has come into being there is aging & death. Therefore, with the total ending, fading away, cessation, letting go, relinquishment of craving, the Tathagata has totally awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening, I tell you."

That is what the Blessed One said. Displeased, the monks did not delight in the Blessed One's words."

 

 

I find the more elaborate and convoluted logic in many buddhist interpretations/extrapolations after shakyamuni infantile and laughably useless. Eg., drone-like insistence of anatta, alaya vijana to explain unity consciousness, yet trying to retain the dependent origination thery, whose role is relevant in the phenomenological realm alone and so on

In Yogacara, 'alaya-vijnana' is impermanent and differentiated, not a 'universal consciousness.'

 

You see! This is why we can't get along on this forum!

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[RongzomFan]

D.O. fulfills the same purpose as Brahman though. Both get you nonarising/illusion. The philosophies are similar.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[RongzomFan]

Not really. I could cite Malcolm or Michael Comans. I would rather have Advaita Vedanta than many other Buddhist philosophies.