What an image Flexpenguin! Love it!
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34392]I have studied a large majority of it, yes. In Western Philosophy I have Western philosophy from the Greeks to contempoary philosophy. In Eastern Philosophy I have studied the origins of Philosophy from the Vedas to contempoary Eastern philosophy, including various subtraditions within that line Taoism, Confuncianism, Buddhism, Jainism, Charvaka, Sikhism, Tantra.
I know the fundamental and general differences between the Eastern mind and the Western mind. The Eastern mind is holistic and the Western mind is divisive.[/QUOTE]
I am not sure you understand the western philosophy you have read, that or you read it with a preconception as to see what you wanted to see.
Ever studied Legalism? It’s eastern.
Ever read the Koran?
Ever read the Bible?
Ever read the Tibetan Book of the Dead?
And there are those that will argue (both eastern and western) that Buddhism (they are generally referring to Tibetan Buddhism) is Nihilistic
As to western Philosophy being divisive meaning creating disunity or dissension
I’m not sure Aristotle or Kant or any other number of Western Philosophers would agree
To quote a Western Philosopher
Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves. (Carl Jung)
We cannot change anything unless we accept it. Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses. (Carl Jung)
But this is going way off topic and IMO a thing for another post, my apologies to the OP
Ever studied Legalism? It?s eastern.
Ever read the Koran?
Ever read the Bible?
Ever read the Tibetan Book of the Dead?
Yep, all of those. I have a copy of the bible and the Tibetan book of the dead(Bardo) I have also read the Koran. I have looked at Legalism.
And there are those that will argue (both eastern and western) that Buddhism (they are generally referring to Tibetan Buddhism) is Nihilistic
No, they are referring to othodox(Theravada) Buddhism which is nihlistic and they are right.
As to western Philosophy being divisive meaning creating disunity or dissension
I?m not sure Aristotle or Kant or any other number of Western Philosophers would agree
Yes they would, because Aristotle and Kant were the most divisive of them all by separating the natural world and studying it in isolation they set up the scene for a complete materialist and reductionist worldview. Kant very famously ridiculed metaphysics and said that we cannot know anything about the world beyond the empirical world.
The separation of mind from matter is largely thanks to Western philosophers like Aristotle, Descartes and Kant. So yes it is divisive. It is reflected in the scientific method which is about isolating certain aspects of the world and studying them and in medicine which is about isolating only symptoms. In contrast, Eastern philosophy is holistic because it makes no distinctions between mind and matter, it sees them as a continuum and as a web of relationships. This is reflected in the Eastern scientific method which is directly experiencing the world and Eastern medical systems which are about treating disease at the level of mind-body and spirit simultaneously.
To quote a Western Philosopher
Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves. (Carl Jung)
We cannot change anything unless we accept it. Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses. (Carl Jung)
I am not being irritated by by Western philosophy. I have no emotional reaction to it. I know, however, it is wrong and it is inferior to Eastern philosophy. Even Western philosophers have admitted that.
Western civilisation in general is backwards compared to Eastern civilisation. Eastern civilisation is far older and wiser.
Surya-
The Buddha taught to avoid extremes. He denied Eternalism and Nihilism. Therefore not even the orthodox do not consider themselves nihilistic. Don’t know where you got your info. It doesn’t matter. There are many out there who believe Zen Buddhists are nihilistic. Again, they are not. This is just something that people like yourself keep perpetuating.
I know what Buddha taught. However, what the sanghas later interpreted was not what he taught.
He did not teach that there was no self. However, the later Buddhists interpreted his teachings as such and the natural result of such a self-denying and life-denying philosophy is nihilism.
I know somebody who has spent 6 months in a Zen Buddhist monestary and who is full of respect for Buddhism and he also told be how life denying it is.
Surya Deva
You have read all that and yet you do not understand it… interesting… you have a rather interesting, albeit skewed and somewhat and somewhat nationalistic view (to put it nicely) of things and any further discussion on this would be a waste of time for us both as well as way off topic and at this point a thread hijack – again my apologies to the OP
Thank you for the discussion
I will leave you with this,
The closed mind, if closed long enough, can be opened by nothing short of dynamite. - Gerald W. Johnson
A closed mind is like a closed book, just a block of wood. - Chinese proverb
A closed mind is a dying mind. - Edna Ferber
We cling to our own point of view, as though everything depended on it. Yet our opinions have no permanence; like autumn and winter, they gradually pass away. - Chuang Tzu
Open your hand and all the sand of the desert will run through your fingers.
Close your hand and you will only grasp a few grains of sand.
And lastly
The closed mind can listen only to that which supports it. The closed mind has only one dimension open, that is: everything that supports it is allowed in, welcomed in. All other dimensions are kept closed because there is fear. Things may enter you which may shake up your belief system, disturb your so-called peace of mind; they may sabotage your faith. No person who is a believer can afford to be open. - Osho
The one scriptural passage where Gautama is asked by a layperson what the meaning of anatta is as follows: [Samyutta Nikaya] At one time in Savatthi, the venerable Radha seated himself and asked of the Blessed Lord Buddha: “Anatta, anatta I hear said venerable. What pray tell does Anatta mean?” “Just this, Radha, form is not the self (anatta), sensations are not the self (anatta), perceptions are not the self (anatta), assemblages are not the self (anatta), consciousness is not the self (anatta). Seeing thusly, this is the end of birth, the Brahman life has been fulfilled, what must be done has been done.”[1
Anatta is the equivalent of “non self”. (from the Doctrine of Anatta)
So as you can see, no one misinterpreted anything. This is what the Buddha taught.
As far as life denying…His opinion. I haven’t experienced that at all.
[QUOTE=lotusgirl;34413]Surya-
The Buddha taught to avoid extremes. He denied Eternalism and Nihilism. Therefore not even the orthodox do not consider themselves nihilistic. Don’t know where you got your info. It doesn’t matter. There are many out there who believe Zen Buddhists are nihilistic. Again, they are not. This is just something that people like yourself keep perpetuating.[/QUOTE]
I have family that are Chan Buddhist and they are not at all nihilistic, to say they are is a gross misunderstanding of what Cahn Buddhism is…and since Zen comes from Chan and I am currently studying Zen I must say I agree with you
[QUOTE=Yulaw;34417]Surya Deva
You have read all that and yet you do not understand it… interesting… you have a rather interesting, albeit skewed and somewhat and somewhat nationalistic view (to put it nicely) of things and any further discussion on this would be a waste of time for us both as well as way off topic and at this point a thread hijack ? again my apologies to the OP[/quote]
That entire post was nothing more than rheotric Yulaw. You claim that I have misunderstood what I have read, but do not care to demonstrate what has been misunderstood. You are the claimant so the burden of proof lies with you.
I would advise you not to make any statements if you are not going to demonstrate it with a reason.
Yulaw-
Thanks! I was beginning to feel alone out here! Buddhists are not nihilistic. Period.
But you must forgive my double negative in my above post. Oops!
[QUOTE=lotusgirl;34418]Anatta is the equivalent of “non self”. (from the Doctrine of Anatta)
So as you can see, no one misinterpreted anything. This is what the Buddha taught.
As far as life denying…His opinion. I haven’t experienced that at all.[/QUOTE][/quote]
Nope, the above does not say there is no self. The above says that self is not the forms, nor the sensations, nor the perceptions, nor the assemblages, nor our individual consciousness.
He does not reject that the self exists. He rejects what we think to be the self. This is identicial with the neti-neti doctrine of Hinduism where everything is denied to be the self but ultimately what remains is the true self.
So what Buddha is saying is not contradicting Hindusim at all but affirming it.
The Buddhists on the other hand have misinterpreted Buddha’s teachings and created the doctrine of no self. This is why it is life denying, because if you deny the self, everything else becomes completely pointless. As I said before if you do not exist then why do anything if there is nobody there to reap the rewards of the actions?
Such a perverted doctrine can be used to justify the most henious of crimes. I could go and rape and somebody and later say, “It was not me who did it” Technically I would be right according to Buddhism.
Teaching people such doctrines is nihilstic, irresponsible and dangeorus.
Non self, or self without the forms in the Buddhist tradition mean void of reality, non existence. The self is associated with “I”. Buddhism teaches us to transcend beyond the self to the self without forms. No, he has never said the self doesn’t exist. That was not what I said or inferred.
You are so unfamiliar with the doctrine I will no longer debate. Gotta get ready for a party.
No the anata self is associated with I am-that-ness. Which is identical with the ahamkara in Hinduism(false ego) The “I am” is the true self. The Atman.
Buddhism teaches there is no self and this automatically then makes it a nihlistic religion and you cannot defend Buddhism from this charge. The effects Buddhism has had on its country of birth have been awful. It was due to Buddhism that Indian society degenerated and then later fell prey to invasions, ascetism and superstition. Thanks to Sankara we were able to almost purge our society of Buddhism and restore Indian religion to Hinduism. Buddhism was widely rejected in India eventually. That is saying a lot.
Let’s face it is a life denying, non-progressive and nihilistic religion. In many respects its just as bad as Christianity.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34427]Let’s face it is a life denying, non-progressive and nihilistic religion. In many respects its just as bad as Christianity.[/QUOTE]
… yet Buddhist and Christians are far more kind, compassionate, tolerant, rational, humble, and WAY more secure and confident than yourself. Your very inadequate, and really need a girlfriend. Go out and live life before it passes you by.
[QUOTE=YogiAdam;34473]… yet Buddhist and Christians are far more kind, compassionate, tolerant, rational, humble, and WAY more secure and confident than yourself. Your very inadequate, and really need a girlfriend. Go out and live life before it passes you by.[/QUOTE]
My friend, sounds dogmatic…
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34420]That entire post was nothing more than rheotric Yulaw. You claim that I have misunderstood what I have read, but do not care to demonstrate what has been misunderstood. You are the claimant so the burden of proof lies with you.
I would advise you not to make any statements if you are not going to demonstrate it with a reason.[/QUOTE]
First it is spelled Rhetoric, but more on that later
I feel there is no burden of proof on me what so ever and your request for it does not produce a desire in me to provide it so… However if you whish to maintain your elitist and somewhat bigoted views then so be it, one cannot argue with a close mind, and I do very much recommend that you read, without prejudgment, the link I supplied in my previous post since I do believe you are very muck working form fear.
Also what I posted was not rhetoric.
Rhetoric is defined as (in English)
- (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.
- the art or science of all specialized literary uses of language in prose or verse, including the figures of speech.
- the study of the effective use of language.
- the ability to use language effectively.
- the art of prose in general as opposed to verse.
- the art of making persuasive speeches; oratory.
- (in classical oratory) the art of influencing the thought and conduct of an audience.
- (in older use) a work on rhetoric.
I was presenting you with quotes from the vary philosophy you have claimed to have read and understood, And you expect me to take at your word that you have actually read or understood any of it, which if you have read it you most certainly do not understand it.
However I do like the way you pick a choose what to respond in order to dismiss people so you can maintain your flawed position
As for proof, you are the one making the accusations without any listed source so if you like provide them go ahead
But to the rest of my post you failed to notice with a bit of a change
you have more slightly racist and religious supremacist view of things and any further discussion on this would be a waste of time for us both
Your view is flawed or to be more to the point wrong and it is not my job to educate you since it would be a waste of time since you are already certain you know more than anyone else on the subject.
And lastly Hinduism is a cast system where by you are born into the cast ad you are suppose to stay there, is this not true… historically and religiously speaking? That to me does not sound perfect at all, but this is my opinion. Frankly I find the Hindu religion fascinating but, like many religions far from perfect
I shall waste no more time here, like I said, you can’t argue with a closed mind
[QUOTE=lotusgirl;34422]Yulaw-
Thanks! I was beginning to feel alone out here! Buddhists are not nihilistic. Period.
But you must forgive my double negative in my above post. Oops![/QUOTE]
You might want to pick up some of the books by John Daido Loori, that is if you have not already read them
Namaste Yulaw,
One of the greatest acts of rhetoric is pointing out somebodies spelling/typos online rater than addressing whatever point they are making.
Furthermore, a closed mind is also a mind that assumed the others mind is closed and makes no attempt to even find out if it is or not.
And lastly Hinduism is a cast system where by you are born into the cast ad you are suppose to stay there, is this not true… historically and religiously speaking?
This is not true and I think you need to read up more on Hinduism. The caste system is a strawman argument often made by Christian or Muslim critics of Hinduism without really trying to understand what the the caste system is and what Hindus themselves think of it.
The caste system is know as the varnashrama dharma in Hinduism is first mentioned in the Purusha Sukta in the Vedas. It describes society like a human being where its feet are the labourers, its legs are the merchants, it’s arms are the merchants and its head are the intellectuals. It is also described in the Gita where Krishna says that he himself has organized society according to the qualities of beings.
Now at different periods in this Hindu vision of society has been implemented in different ways by different states, and there are several dharma shastras which have recommended different ways to implement it at different times. Some have recommended that ones varna(occupation) should be decided by birth and some say that it should be decided by merit alone. The truth is both versions have been used in Indian history. It also true that the caste system was not rigid and social mobility was possible. It should be understood some of the major Risis who wrote the Vedas came from the families of labourers.
What you need to understand is that ancient India had various states and there was no religious authority to impose any religious order on Indian society such as a Church or a religious clergy.
Now if we are going to compare the varnasharma dharma to other social systems in their time period then it was a lot better. In feudal society for example most people were peasants and the few were were rich and had everything. In comparison in the varnashrama dharama system there were several occupational divisions and each occupation had certain rights. The brahmins who were at the top of society had rights to Vedic education, but they no rights no to owning any money. They lived of donations from the rest of society.
If you look at Indian society as it was during the time of the Mauraya empire there was nothing even comparable to the rights Indian citizens had anywhere in the world. For example women had the right to divorce, remarriage, inheritance of their husbands propety and the right to work and serve in the army.
The criticisms of the caste system, wife burning are frankly made by critics who have not done any homework at all on these issues and just give a knee jerk reaction.
In any case I am not going to claim Indian society is perfect. No society is ever perfect. I do claim however Hinduism is a perfect religion and an exact science, because it is not based on any dogma at all, but pure philosophy of the Vedas. The universalism with which the Vedas speak is not found in any of the Abrahmic religions. It says the entire world is a family, we should speak sweetly and softly to each other, sing together. It says “You are all great, not one of you small” This why it is called Aryan. It is noble and loving.
Now before you say why am I not speaking sweetly and softly then. This is because you are not speaking sweetly and softly with me.
Surya Deva,
A brilliant summation to invalidate ‘hinduism is a caste system’, a reference to a now irrelevant ancient practice that existed in some pockets of India at some point in time used by some people to dwarf the time-less, universal, meta-scientific wisdom of Vedas inherited by Hindus. I second what you say as a born Hindu myself, who has not seen a trace of that ugliness in the modern times. What remains of the caste system today is only its political exploitation (about which less said the better) and its currency as one of the misconceptions initiated by the vested interests and carried by the casual minds.
The caste system is know as the varnashrama dharma in Hinduism is first mentioned in the Purusha Sukta in the Vedas. It describes society like a human being where its feet are the labourers, its legs are the merchants, it’s arms are the merchants and its head are the intellectuals. It is also described in the Gita where Krishna says that he himself has organized society according to the qualities of beings.
Just a small correction there, “It’s arms are the government and civil services”
Surya Deva,
A brilliant summation to invalidate ‘hinduism is a caste system’, a reference to a now irrelevant ancient practice that existed in some pockets of India at some point in time used by some people to dwarf the time-less, universal, meta-scientific wisdom of Vedas inherited by Hindus. I second what you say as a born Hindu myself, who has not seen a trace of that ugliness in the modern times. What remains of the caste system today is only its political exploitation (about which less said the better) and its currency as one of the misconceptions initiated by the vested interests and carried by the casual minds.
Yes, it is a very cheap argument which is basically designed to make Hindus feel apologetic and bad about their religion. However, when a Christian and Muslim says this to me, I simply have to point back at the crusades, holy wars, inquisitions and oppression of women. And the difference is in this case is these were actual acts ordained by their religions. In India there was no body to ordain anything.
It is sad that are so many Western people who just associate Hinduism with caste system, cow worshipping and idol worship without doing any research on its philosophy and history and what its core tenets are. Yoga is very much at the heart of Hinduism.