Buddhists forum vs Vedanta forum

[3bob]

If you have a Buddhist inclination and want to "mull it over" then take it to the Buddhist forum or maybe to the general forum... that would be the Right thing to do imo.

Edited March 25, 2013 by 3bob

[RongzomFan]

You've been trolled by people like xabir who 1) don't understand Buddhism and 2) are not even Indian.

 

I am Indian, raised Hindu. Hindus consider me Hindu.

 

My caste is munnuru kapu. My gothram is Bharadwaja. I've traveled to so many sacred sites in India on so many trips, I can't keep track. And these are not bullshit ashrams.

 

My particular state created Mahayana in the first place (as a response to crypto-realist Abhidharma), and continued to be the preeminent site of Vajrayana.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andhra_Pradesh#Early_history

Edited March 26, 2013 by alwayson

[3bob]

This is not rocket science, my take is that if one now follows Buddhist teachings regardless of which sect it is, or what their past history is then one can call themselves Buddhist... not "Hindu". Granted people of either path may have cross-over interests and share some common ground but there are certain essential or key parts of doctrine and meaning that are different.

Edited March 27, 2013 by 3bob

[RongzomFan]

The dualism between Buddhism and Hinduism is not supported by the facts or history.

 

For starters, there is no Hinduism in the first place.

Edited March 27, 2013 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

Granted people of either path may have cross-over interests and share some common ground but there are certain essential or key parts of doctrine and meaning that are different.

 

Even two 'Hindu' doctrines like Samkhya and Vedanta are different.

Edited April 2, 2013 by alwayson

[idiot_stimpy]

alwayson are you saying only Indians can be true Buddhists? Or only Indians can be true Hindus?

[Tibetan_Ice]

You've been trolled by people like xabir who 1) don't understand Buddhism and 2) are not even Indian.

 

I am Indian, raised Hindu. Hindus consider me Hindu.

 

My caste is munnuru kapu. My gothram is Bharadwaja. I've traveled to so many sacred sites in India on so many trips, I can't keep track. And these are not bullshit ashrams.

 

My particular state created Mahayana in the first place (as a response to crypto-realist Abhidharma), and continued to be the preeminent site of Vajrayana.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andhra_Pradesh#Early_history

[RongzomFan]

alwayson are you saying only Indians can be true Buddhists? Or only Indians can be true Hindus?

 

 

Thats an interesting question. Even in the most analytical Madhyamaka texts, Indian deities pop up. I'm sure non-Indians are more confused.

[FmAm]

If you have a Buddhist inclination and want to "mull it over" then take it to the Buddhist forum or maybe to the general forum... that would be the Right thing to do imo.

 

I have a strong Buddhist inclination. The reason for "mulling it over" on the Vedanta forum is in my (lay) background in Advaita philosophy. I promise I'll take my pondering to the Buddhist/general forum (but I can't promise I'll never write on Vedanta forum).

Edited March 27, 2013 by FmAm

[3bob]

Sounds like a fair deal FmAm.

 

I've done my share of correlating and it can be tricky; below is a saying from the Bible that I'll share on the Vedanta forum since to me it sounds like a universally wise insight and warning:

 

"Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein: and he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him"

 

Proverbs 26:27.

[Boy]

...

Edited March 30, 2013 by Boy

[3bob]

perhaps to some degree, but that is not exactly the way that I'd use the term "wicked"

[Boy]

...

Edited March 30, 2013 by Boy

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[RongzomFan]

Well that may be a specifically a Tibetan Nyingma thing.

 

But indeed I pointed out before that Vajrayana sahanas have Ganesha, Lakshmi, Saraswati, Parvati etc. And all our mantras start with Om too. "Hindu" deities are not really Hindu deities. They are pan-Indic deities.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[RongzomFan]

There were only competing ideologies back in Buddha's day....

 

Oh please. There was no Hinduism back in Buddha's day. The only aspects of 'Hinduism' back then were the Vedas and some Upanishads (themselves derived from Sramana) practiced by a small cult of Brahmins.

 

Moreover if Buddhism in Buddha's day was "competing" with anything, it would be evident in the texts. But its not.

Edited March 27, 2013 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

Brahmanization of India took a long time. There was a good book I read on this a long time ago. Brahmins were successful at converting the masses to Brahmin authority through various strategies, including accommodation of local beliefs.

Edited March 27, 2013 by alwayson

[Simple_Jack]

Oh please. There was no Hinduism back in Buddha's day. The only aspects of 'Hinduism' back then were the Vedas and some Upanishads (themselves derived from Sramana) practiced by a small group of Brahmins. Why do you think Hinduism books start with Buddhism?

 

Moreover if Buddhism in Buddha's day was "competing" with anything, it would be evident in the texts. But its not.

Ok, "competing" was not a good choice of words to use (didn't mean this in a sense of how Westerners would think of it or sense of competing for converts a la Abrahamic religions)...But, there were apparently 96 different schools of thought back in Buddha's day [according to the historical records of the Chinese]; all with their own set of ideals and an 'ultimate goal.'

 

Considering that "Buddhism's" influence spread throughout India, I would say that it was successful at one point.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[RongzomFan]

When Indian culture spread like the Roman empire from northwest Afghanistan to southeast islands, it spread the true Indian religion, Buddhism.

[Simple_Jack]

When Indian culture spread like the Roman empire from northwest Afghanistan to southeast islands, it spread the true Indian religion, Buddhism.

Why would you consider "Buddhism," the true Indian religion?

[RongzomFan]

Because that is what was spread when Indian culture spread like the Roman empire from northwest Afghanistan to southeast islands.

[3bob]

I have some beach front property for sale in the Himalayas, anyone want it "hook, line and sinker"?

(or I might trade for something similar in the French Alps)

Edited March 28, 2013 by 3bob

[Boy]

...

Edited March 30, 2013 by Boy

[RongzomFan]

Why would you consider "Buddhism," the true Indian religion?

 

Because its the original major religion of India. Rajiv Malhotra's favorite scholar says Indian royalty did pujas to the supreme universal deity Buddha, before they shifted to Vaisnava and Saiva rationales.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=RvuDlhpvvHwC&pg=PA12&dq=Buddhist+Vishnu+before+the+eighth+century,+the+Buddha+was+accorded&hl=en&sa=X&ei=41IpUeT_B7G80QHSkoEY&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Buddhist%20Vishnu%20before%20the%20eighth%20century%2C%20the%20Buddha%20was%20accorded&f=true