Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am open to evidence. And science, on the cutting edge of the physical and metaphysical is always, as they say, changing its' mind. But the materialist/skeptical position is not only more in line with logic and evidence, but is a more logically and mentally stable position as one does not go to pieces when it decides something in the text books needs to be rethought, whether it is a cosmic mind, revelationary experience or reincarnation/rebirth but also we do not get hostile and aggrieved if evidence and reason should cut across previous beliefs.
I still have a liking for Buddhism. That I doubt its' teachings and even the widely accepted and not often questioned acceptance of a historical Buddha makes no difference to that. I can also like Hinduism too, without being asked to take it seriously.
I am rather aware of the connection between Buddhism and Hinduism. Especially though S.E.Asia where, first, pure Theravada (without Buddha images) was around 7th c. Then the Tantric Buddhism with all the semi demi gods you wanted, spilled over from India and rather took over from the 11th to 13th c. when Theravada was reintroduced from Srilanka and it ousted the more Hindu style, except in Java which eventually succumbed to a 'peaceful' Islamic conquest. in the 15th c.
In Thailand of course we had Buddhist Sukhothai and Khmer - Hindu Ayutthaya in rivalry and Thailand has combined popular Buddhism with Hindu kingship.
I do not get into the Hinduisation of India or the Buddhification of Tibet but I am aware that the Tripitaka has the Hindu gods in it but participating in helping Buddha to undermine the religion that worshipped them. How about that? But as in Christianity, the Book can be written to make it seem that the Jewish people and the Jewish God, worked to pretty much delete the creed that YHWH had been pushing up to the appearance of Jesus.
Sorry to get off the subject of the Self, but one has to understand the origin and evolutionary change of these religions before one even considers the doctrines and Dogmas.
I am rather aware of the connection between Buddhism and Hinduism. Especially though S.E.Asia where, first, pure Theravada (without Buddha images) was around 7th c. Then the Tantric Buddhism with all the semi demi gods you wanted, spilled over from India and rather took over from the 11th to 13th c. when Theravada was reintroduced from Srilanka and it ousted the more Hindu style, except in Java which eventually succumbed to a 'peaceful' Islamic conquest. in the 15th c.
In Thailand of course we had Buddhist Sukhothai and Khmer - Hindu Ayutthaya in rivalry and Thailand has combined popular Buddhism with Hindu kingship.
I do not get into the Hinduisation of India or the Buddhification of Tibet but I am aware that the Tripitaka has the Hindu gods in it but participating in helping Buddha to undermine the religion that worshipped them. How about that? But as in Christianity, the Book can be written to make it seem that the Jewish people and the Jewish God, worked to pretty much delete the creed that YHWH had been pushing up to the appearance of Jesus.
Sorry to get off the subject of the Self, but one has to understand the origin and evolutionary change of these religions before one even considers the doctrines and Dogmas.
Actually, that's a very good 'in a nutshell' summary of the situation. I appreciate it.
Thank you my dear Phet. In the 80's I travelled SEA a lot, studying the history, and became very much aware of the history of pure Theravada in Dvaravati (with only footprints and wheels and deer as symbols of the Buddha) and Hinduism through the Khmer empire, and in Burma (as it was before they 'corrected' the name) the temple art of the 11th c showed the ideological struggle between Tantric and Theravada under king Kyanzittha, who favoured Indian-tantric Buddhism.
In Java I saw the mix of Tantric Buddhism and Hinduism as in the statuary of Prambanan, where Tantric Buddhist figures and Hindu ones look the same, and the signs of Hindu and Buddhist kings in the later Khmer empire hacking out imagery from Temples. Of course Syamwong (from Srilanka) did for Tantric Buddhism other than in Tibet, and Tantricism seems to have allowed Hinduism to come back in India.
And we mustn't forget the powerful popular culture of Hinduism where the Ramayana is celebrated by everyone from Hindu India through Buddhist Myanmar to Islamic Malaysia (1). Despite attempts to sell the Jataka stories as popular culture, they never caught on and Hinduism is still a cultural thing and underpins Kingship, where there still is kingship.
Thing is, Buddhism has never denied the gods, but just removed them from doctrines, rather as Christianity uses the OT where convenient as in prophecy-material or quotes to mine, but the authority was changed from Jewish law to Christian forgiveness, because the Greek Christians wanted itso, just as I reckon the Khshatrya wondered why they, the rulers and nobles, still were letting Brahmins have authority and get all the Gifts of merit - making. I reckon Buddhism was devised to do one thing - eliminate Brahmins as the intermediaries of escape from the wheel of Karma. Just as Christianity was designed by Paul to do one thing - eliminate the Mosaic law from God -worship.
Once one realised that the Buddha figure was (probably) invented to provide screenplay ( ) for the necessary doctrine, the fanciful tales and bald setting ("Ananda,let us go to Adityavidiyapatha" and they did and he sat down and taught them the dogma) of teachings (much like John's endless sermons, none of which shows up in the synoptic gospels) becomes obvious, really. I can see (and others must judge) how the story was written and added to in order to turn an invented dogma into a narrative of a supposedly real person, teacher and religious founder.
Now, there may have been a real Gotama and I think there was a real Jesus, but the factual setting of the doctrine is 'screenplay'.
So the Self. I should leave this up the experts (which i am not) but somehow the idea of a self or soul which the (Hindu) gods judge and punish, is eliminated in Buddhism. Perhaps because the input of gods has to be eliminated and the individuals work out their own escape from the wheel of Karma. As i say, I see a soul as essential for the doctrine, as if there is no self after death, who cares what happens the pile of merit or evil deeds? When you die, the garbage on the pavement and the pile of washing - up in the sink is no longer your problem.
Logically, Buddhism needs a soul, Self and Id to work, but for some reason, they decided to do away with it.
(1) where archaeology shows that everything not Islamic was systematically and totally smashed down to the foundations.
Thank you my dear Phet. In the 80's I travelled SEA a lot, studying the history, and became very much aware of the history of pure Theravada in Dvaravati (with only footprints and wheels and deer as symbols of the Buddha) and Hinduism through the Khmer empire, and in Burma (as it was before they 'corrected' the name) the temple art of the 11th c showed the ideological struggle between Tantric and Theravada under king Kyanzittha, who favoured Indian-tantric Buddhism.
In Java I saw the mix of Tantric Buddhism and Hinduism as in the statuary of Prambanan, where Tantric Buddhist figures and Hindu ones look the same, and the signs of Hindu and Buddhist kings in the later Khmer empire hacking out imagery from Temples. Of course Syamwong (from Srilanka) did for Tantric Buddhism other than in Tibet, and Tantricism seems to have allowed Hinduism to come back in India.
And we mustn't forget the powerful popular culture of Hinduism where the Ramayana is celebrated by everyone from Hindu India through Buddhist Myanmar to Islamic Malaysia (1). Despite attempts to sell the Jataka stories as popular culture, they never caught on and Hinduism is still a cultural thing and underpins Kingship, where there still is kingship.
Thing is, Buddhism has never denied the gods, but just removed them from doctrines, rather as Christianity uses the OT where convenient as in prophecy-material or quotes to mine, but the authority was changed from Jewish law to Christian forgiveness, because the Greek Christians wanted itso, just as I reckon the Khshatrya wondered why they, the rulers and nobles, still were letting Brahmins have authority and get all the Gifts of merit - making. I reckon Buddhism was devised to do one thing - eliminate Brahmins as the intermediaries of escape from the wheel of Karma. Just as Christianity was designed by Paul to do one thing - eliminate the Mosaic law from God -worship.
Once one realised that the Buddha figure was (probably) invented to provide screenplay ( ) for the necessary doctrine, the fanciful tales and bald setting ("Ananda,let us go to Adityavidiyapatha" and they did and he sat down and taught them the dogma) of teachings (much like John's endless sermons, none of which shows up in the synoptic gospels) becomes obvious, really. I can see (and others must judge) how the story was written and added to in order to turn an invented dogma into a narrative of a supposedly real person, teacher and religious founder.
Now, there may have been a real Gotama and I think there was a real Jesus, but the factual setting of the doctrine is 'screenplay'.
So the Self. I should leave this up the experts (which i am not) but somehow the idea of a self or soul which the (Hindu) gods judge and punish, is eliminated in Buddhism. Perhaps because the input of gods has to be eliminated and the individuals work out their own escape from the wheel of Karma. As i say, I see a soul as essential for the doctrine, as if there is no self after death, who cares what happens the pile of merit or evil deeds? When you die, the garbage on the pavement and the pile of washing - up in the sink is no longer your problem.
Logically, Buddhism needs a soul, Self and Id to work, but for some reason, they decided to do away with it.
(1) where archaeology shows that everything not Islamic was systematically and totally smashed down to the foundations.
Very interesting post for me. You started your journeys in the area (although I concentrated primarily on Thailand, along with more limited experiences in Burma, Malaysia, Singapore, and Jakarta...I simply got hooked on Thai culture). I suppose you got to one place I have always regretted not visiting -- Borobudur.
I had an interesting experience once regarding the Ramayana (or, in Thailand, the Ramakien). I had been over to Thailand several summers in a row and one September one of the English teachers in the middle school where I was then the vice principal was doing a unit on international fables. She asked if I could come in and do a lesson on some fable from Thailand. So I put together a lesson on the Ramakien. We had a fairly diverse student body that included a few embassy kids from various countries, as well as immigrant families, and SE Asia was fairly well represented. The first class of the day we did my lesson that was a very abbreviated/simplified story of the Ramakien. When we discussed the fable one of the students from Burma raised his hand and said, "You're wrong, Mr. Victor. That story is not from Thailand, that's from my country, Burma". Another period, the reaction was similar, except then we had a student who said, "No, that's from my country -- India". In fact, in every class period, some student from some other Southeast Asian country explained that the story was from their country...but all that really varied was who was 'the good guy' versus the 'bad guy'. For example, the Burmese boy said Ravanna (the bad guy) was Siamese, where in Thailand the bad guy was Burmese).
Yes, it is confusing to people who visit Thailand to see depictions of 'gods' in temple murals, but to then learn that Thai Buddhism does not celebrate a creator-god, and that gods are a bit of a different concept. And that gets mixed up more with the influence on Hinduism on the kings of Ayutthaya (versus Sukhothai), for example.
I'm quite satisficed that there was a Buddha and a Jesus. But, as I think you are saying (or at least as I say, they were men...teachers...but the stories about them are just that...stories. Cecil D. DeMille would have been proud of them. LOL.
I tend to follow Theravada Buddhism, but I wrote the word 'tend' very deliberately. I think that there are concepts in Buddhism -- such as 'the self' and even 'enlightenment and 'nibanna' -- that difficult to grasp and cause much confusion...and to a degree don't matter match to the typical Buddhist person. At "my Thai Buddhist temple" in Colorado after my ultimate return to the States (all Thai Buddhist monks sent here temporarily), after a chanting/meditation session, I once asked the four monks if they would reach nibanna at the end of this lifetime. They all chuckled and said, 'no, maybe twenty thirty lifetimes from now'. What human being can even grasp that concept; we have trouble grasping something coming up a month from now.
The bottom line in Buddhism for me is the basic principles -- The Four Noble Truths, The Noble Eightfold Path, and the Five Precepts. If I can just work on those...I'll be doing good. Enlightenment and Nibanna...that's for a "Chances Are" type of scenario.
Thing is, Buddhism has never denied the gods, but just removed them from doctrines, rather as Christianity uses the OT where convenient as in prophecy-material or quotes to mine, but the authority was changed from Jewish law to Christian forgiveness, because the Greek Christians wanted itso, just as I reckon the Khshatrya wondered why they, the rulers and nobles, still were letting Brahmins have authority and get all the Gifts of merit - making. I reckon Buddhism was devised to do one thing - eliminate Brahmins as the intermediaries of escape from the wheel of Karma. Just as Christianity was designed by Paul to do one thing - eliminate the Mosaic law from God -worship.
Can you expand on the underlined? What was the Jewish law and how did it change to Christian forgiveness? And how evolved of Greek Christians to want it so! It must have been the influence of the religion and culture they practiced before being forced to accept Christianity, and the kind of minds it
had fostered!Their amazing mythologies and the Goddess worship echoes Hindusim as well.
I don't believe Kshatriyas ever envied the Brahmins. They both pretty much stuck to their lanes. The Brahmins endowed them with their favored God's blessings so they could go plunder and collect other kingdoms. Everybody got merits if they stuck to their Dharma, Krishna promised. I think you endow Brahmins with way more power than they actually had.
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
(1) where archaeology shows that everything not Islamic was systematically and totally smashed down to the foundations.
I don't know about other places, a lot of masjids and minarets that the Moghuls built, and other Islamic institutions are still there, well preserved and maintained all over India. The Babri Masjid is the single notorious destruction. Both Hindu and Muslim kings routinely plundered temples in their escapades.
Very interesting post for me. You started your journeys in the area (although I concentrated primarily on Thailand, along with more limited experiences in Burma, Malaysia, Singapore, and Jakarta...I simply got hooked on Thai culture). I suppose you got to one place I have always regretted not visiting -- Borobudur.
I had an interesting experience once regarding the Ramayana (or, in Thailand, the Ramakien). I had been over to Thailand several summers in a row and one September one of the English teachers in the middle school where I was then the vice principal was doing a unit on international fables. She asked if I could come in and do a lesson on some fable from Thailand. So I put together a lesson on the Ramakien. We had a fairly diverse student body that included a few embassy kids from various countries, as well as immigrant families, and SE Asia was fairly well represented. The first class of the day we did my lesson that was a very abbreviated/simplified story of the Ramakien. When we discussed the fable one of the students from Burma raised his hand and said, "You're wrong, Mr. Victor. That story is not from Thailand, that's from my country, Burma". Another period, the reaction was similar, except then we had a student who said, "No, that's from my country -- India". In fact, in every class period, some student from some other Southeast Asian country explained that the story was from their country...but all that really varied was who was 'the good guy' versus the 'bad guy'. For example, the Burmese boy said Ravanna (the bad guy) was Siamese, where in Thailand the bad guy was Burmese).
Yes, it is confusing to people who visit Thailand to see depictions of 'gods' in temple murals, but to then learn that Thai Buddhism does not celebrate a creator-god, and that gods are a bit of a different concept. And that gets mixed up more with the influence on Hinduism on the kings of Ayutthaya (versus Sukhothai), for example.
I'm quite satisficed that there was a Buddha and a Jesus. But, as I think you are saying (or at least as I say, they were men...teachers...but the stories about them are just that...stories. Cecil D. DeMille would have been proud of them. LOL.
I tend to follow Theravada Buddhism, but I wrote the word 'tend' very deliberately. I think that there are concepts in Buddhism -- such as 'the self' and even 'enlightenment and 'nibanna' -- that difficult to grasp and cause much confusion...and to a degree don't matter match to the typical Buddhist person. At "my Thai Buddhist temple" in Colorado after my ultimate return to the States (all Thai Buddhist monks sent here temporarily), after a chanting/meditation session, I once asked the four monks if they would reach nibanna at the end of this lifetime. They all chuckled and said, 'no, maybe twenty thirty lifetimes from now'. What human being can even grasp that concept; we have trouble grasping something coming up a month from now.
The bottom line in Buddhism for me is the basic principles -- The Four Noble Truths, The Noble Eightfold Path, and the Five Precepts. If I can just work on those...I'll be doing good. Enlightenment and Nibanna...that's for a "Chances Are" type of scenario.
I did visit Borobudur (and Angkor Wat - twice) and you may have visited a place I regret missing - Sigyria. I did a lot of Burma because I got a girl there and she latter came over married. In my early days there the Ramayana (Yama Zatdaw) was obsolete but I was pleased to see they started it again. Interesting they all said 'that ours' as now they have Ramayana festivals where all the countries perform scenes from their versions.
"No Mr Aditya, we have five versions of the golden Deer already, pick something else"
just for fun the hotel scene for the tourist s. in Javanese Majapahit costume - in Indonesia, largest Muslim population in the world.
As for the Method. Nothing wrong in following something intended to still the mind and do no harm. I still maintain a shrine (for ambience) and do meditations but I happen to think that atheism gives us Nibbana for free. Funny that Christianity regards Oblivion as something so awful we must all rush to Jesus to avoid it, whereas Buddhism desires it so much we have to give up all the fun stuff to try to earn it, which the Monks cheerfully say will take them twenty lifetimes. Atheism offers it as a free gift.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-01-2023 at 11:20 AM..
Can you expand on the underlined? What was the Jewish law and how did it change to Christian forgiveness? And how evolved of Greek Christians to want it so! It must have been the influence of the religion and culture they practiced before being forced to accept Christianity, and the kind of minds it
had fostered!Their amazing mythologies and the Goddess worship echoes Hindusim as well.
I don't believe Kshatriyas ever envied the Brahmins. They both pretty much stuck to their lanes. The Brahmins endowed them with their favored God's blessings so they could go plunder and collect other kingdoms. Everybody got merits if they stuck to their Dharma, Krishna promised. I think you endow Brahmins with way more power than they actually had.
.
I don't know about other places, a lot of masjids and minarets that the Moghuls built, and other Islamic institutions are still there, well preserved and maintained all over India. The Babri Masjid is the single notorious destruction. Both Hindu and Muslim kings routinely plundered temples in their escapades.
Without spending too long off topic (I went far enough already_) These are my ideas. You may disagree. The Mosaic law is an elaborate system of rules, the top one being circumcision, the next being dietary laws.
My Theory is that Paul as a Pharisee Jew and a Roman citizen, wanted to save his fellow pagans when the Last Days came. They had to convert, but they wouldn't, not with those rules. So he explained them away. And it worked. The Greeks took on God and Jesus and some of the old stories, but scrapped the rules. About half the gospels are about replacing the Mosaic law with play nice and Jesus forgiving sins.
Again, my own idea, The Tripitaka puts the Brahmins rather in the same role as the teachers of the law in the gospels. The bad guys, teaching false doctrine, being defeated in debate, and sometimes trying to get rid of Buddha. It struck met hat it made sense if eliminating the gods also eliminated the authority of the Brahmins. This would enable the Kshatrya caste to pretty much take over the whole religious bal game and all the handouts and authority. Just how it looks to me.
It surprises me how much is left intact. Considering how iconoclasm there has been from Henrey VIII smashing all the catholic art to the Daesh blowing up all the Mesopotamian archaeology.
I haven't seen any connection between Buddhism and Hinduism, but I'm not a religion expert, only a simple Zen practitioner. All religions get to a point where they're arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I like to think of Buddhism as a spiritual path, not a religion, although a lot of people have made it into a religion.
None of this stuff matters anyway, does it? It just becomes one person who has one perspective differing w/ another person who has a different perspective. No truth there. This particular thread has little to do w/ Buddhism.
One of the most important of the 8 Nobel Truths is right view. It's so important that if one has right view the other 7 are automatically contained within it. And of course right view is no view at all. As long as we are hung up on our own particular viewpoints, beliefs, experiences, histories, learnings etc, then we are not present. It's all ego: past experiences and future expectations. Just too much attachment to things no one can grasp because they don't actually exist, they're only illusions in people's minds that they mistake as reality. There a lot of wisdom in putting it all down and letting go. Grasping, we suffer. Letting go we find peace.
I haven't seen any connection between Buddhism and Hinduism, but I'm not a religion expert, only a simple Zen practitioner. All religions get to a point where they're arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I like to think of Buddhism as a spiritual path, not a religion, although a lot of people have made it into a religion.
None of this stuff matters anyway, does it? It just becomes one person who has one perspective differing w/ another person who has a different perspective. No truth there. This particular thread has little to do w/ Buddhism.
One of the most important of the 8 Nobel Truths is right view. It's so important that if one has right view the other 7 are automatically contained within it. And of course right view is no view at all. As long as we are hung up on our own particular viewpoints, beliefs, experiences, histories, learnings etc, then we are not present. It's all ego: past experiences and future expectations. Just too much attachment to things no one can grasp because they don't actually exist, they're only illusions in people's minds that they mistake as reality. There a lot of wisdom in putting it all down and letting go. Grasping, we suffer. Letting go we find peace.
Maybe it's because you're into Zen. I think you would see the connections if you were into (for example) Theravada Buddhism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am rather aware of the connection between Buddhism and Hinduism. Especially though S.E.Asia where, first, pure Theravada (without Buddha images) was around 7th c. Then the Tantric Buddhism with all the semi demi gods you wanted, spilled over from India and rather took over from the 11th to 13th c. when Theravada was reintroduced from Srilanka and it ousted the more Hindu style, except in Java which eventually succumbed to a 'peaceful' Islamic conquest. in the 15th c. 
I should leave this up the experts (which i am not) but somehow the idea of a self or soul which the (Hindu) gods judge and punish, is eliminated in Buddhism. Perhaps because the input of gods has to be eliminated and the individuals work out their own escape from the wheel of Karma. As i say, I see a soul as essential for the doctrine, as if there is no self after death, who cares what happens the pile of merit or evil deeds? When you die, the garbage on the pavement and the pile of washing - up in the sink is no longer your problem.
