[QUOTE=Indra Deva;45418]Buddhism may be called a religion, and schools of Mahayana Buddhism talk about “gods” and “deities”, but if the earlier founded Theravada Buddhism is truly “religion” on par with Hinduism, Islam & Christianity, then it’s about the most un-religious religion I’ve ever heard of. Of course, knowing this actually requires study & not just opinion.
edit: this is replying to no one in particular[/QUOTE]
Yeah thats what I was thinking too.
In my experience, Buddhism, either as a thought or religious practice is a ‘mistake’. I shall explain: Buddhism in general is against the desires that keep the all life going, and it dictates that desires should be abandoned immediately if self-realization is to be attained. It makes you to sit on meditation immediately, without ever allowing you to catalyze your emotions to elevate your consciusness!
In my experience, Buddhism is also a very depressing way of life. This has much to do with the way it rejects desires. It also lacks certain precepts to be acknowledged as universal. It is against embodiment, which is one of the essential qualities of man. It is a resignation from life and withdrawal into a symbolic realm of spirituality, where spirituality is not ‘experienced’ but ‘anticipated.’ In other words, Buddhists are not experiencers of spirituality, but the ‘anticipators’ of it.
Buddhism has become a religion with the establishments of Sanghas. And such estabishments are not Buddhist, but cultural extensions - intimately related to South-Asian cultures’ way of life. There can’t be such a thing as Western Buddhist, due to the simple fact that South-Asian cultures are not Western Cultures!
In short, Buddhism’s intention is good, but the way it presents itself is a mistake. Why need Buddhism anyway, while you have Patanjali and his brilliant Yoga Sutras, the scientific, non-religious methods to attain spirituality! More logical, more hands-on scientific approach, and it never promotes the swift abandonement of desires!
[QUOTE=High Wolf;46448]In my experience, Buddhism, either as a thought or religious practice is a ‘mistake’. I shall explain: Buddhism in general is against the desires that keep the all life going, and it dictates that desires should be abandoned immediately if self-realization is to be attained. It makes you to sit on meditation immediately, without ever allowing you to catalyze your emotions to elevate your consciusness!
In my experience, Buddhism is also a very depressing way of life. This has much to do with the way it rejects desires. It also lacks certain precepts to be acknowledged as universal. It is against embodiment, which is one of the essential qualities of man. It is a resignation from life and withdrawal into a symbolic realm of spirituality, where spirituality is not ‘experienced’ but ‘anticipated.’ In other words, Buddhists are not experiencers of spirituality, but the ‘anticipators’ of it.
Buddhism has become a religion with the establishments of Sanghas. And such estabishments are not Buddhist, but cultural extensions - intimately related to South-Asian cultures’ way of life. There can’t be such a thing as Western Buddhist, due to the simple fact that South-Asian cultures are not Western Cultures!
In short, Buddhism’s intention is good, but the way it presents itself is a mistake. Why need Buddhism anyway, while you have Patanjali and his brilliant Yoga Sutras, the scientific, non-religious methods to attain spirituality! More logical, more hands-on scientific approach, and it never promotes the swift abandonement of desires![/QUOTE]
I agree on most counts.
I just recently watched a new, & allegedly award winning documentary called “The Buddha” and it claimed that Siddhartha studied all Indian religions and philosophies, all forms of Yoga and achieved the highest attainments in all of them, he was some kind of super-mystic yogi. However, he was still unsatisfied, still experienced suffering, so he dropped them all and invented Buddhism.
I find this state of affairs highly implausible.
Siddhartha left very insightful teachings, especially on morals, some of which are universally [I]felt[/I] by all people - such as the power of compassion. However, if there is a map for attaining higher layers of Self, the best available source seems to be Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras. It is so intricate that perhaps Siddhartha himself had studied it. Yet his teachings do not really overlap with the scientific account of Yoga Sutras in terms of intricate and implicit character of the Self. It is likely that Siddhartha followed a rather different Yogic path; as you implied, and I will add, there is no proof of the undertaking that he mastered all styles of Yoga. After all Buddhists are not really good researchers, but good faith worshippers.
[QUOTE=High Wolf;46479]Siddhartha left very insightful teachings, especially on morals, some of which are universally [I]felt[/I] by all people - such as the power of compassion. However, if there is a map for attaining higher layers of Self, the best available source seems to be Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras. It is so intricate that perhaps Siddhartha himself had studied it. Yet his teachings do not really overlap with the scientific account of Yoga Sutras in terms of intricate and implicit character of the Self. It is likely that Siddhartha followed a rather different Yogic path; as you implied, and I will add, there is no proof of the undertaking that he mastered all styles of Yoga. After all Buddhists are not really good researchers, but good faith worshippers.[/QUOTE]
I don’t believe that the Patanjali Yoga Sutras had been cataloged that early. & I agree, if you want “researches” go with Theravada, if you want Buddhist “Religion” go with Mahayana. To me, the older Theravada is a much more simple and pragmatic tradition over all the mysticism of the Mahayana, & I prefer things simple and pragmatic. The [B][I]Pali Canon[/I][/B] is great reading! (though, Thich Nhat Hanh’s [B][I]Diamond Sutra[/I][/B] & Sheng-yen’s [B][I]Sutra of Complete Enlightenment Commentary[/I][/B] are excellent, don’t get me wrong…)
[QUOTE=Indra Deva;46497]I don’t believe that the Patanjali Yoga Sutras had been cataloged that early. & I agree, if you want “researches” go with Theravada, if you want Buddhist “Religion” go with Mahayana. To me, the older Theravada is a much more simple and pragmatic tradition over all the mysticism of the Mahayana, & I prefer things simple and pragmatic. The [B][I]Pali Canon[/I][/B] is great reading! (though, Thich Nhat Hanh’s [B][I]Diamond Sutra[/I][/B] & Sheng-yen’s [B][I]Sutra of Complete Enlightenment Commentary[/I][/B] are excellent, don’t get me wrong…)[/QUOTE]
Yes, it didn’t exist that early. But meditation and techniques to attain higher states of being did exist long before the Buddha and were derived from Upanishads and Vedic “Hinduism.” According to Eurocentric versions of Indian history of course.
[QUOTE=Nietzsche;46501]Yes, it didn’t exist that early. But meditation and techniques to attain higher states of being did exist long before the Buddha and were derived from Upanishads and Vedic “Hinduism.” According to Eurocentric versions of Indian history of course.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that was kind of already mentioned in post #283. Thanks. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=kareng;42251]It is the other you want to lose sight of:D[/QUOTE]
Not really, I am trying to resolve the paradox of the ONE and the MANY. I do so by living holistically. Not rejecting a single aspect of my being: social, physical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual. When one has fully integrated all of these aspects they are fully actualized.
I am not a Buddhist. I suppose I could call myself a Hindu, since I do ritual worship. But then I do meditate regularly and in the way mandated by the Yoga Sutras not on any of the Hindu Gods and my core belief is in the Paramatman as envisaged by the Vedanta and Patanjali. Does that make me any less a Hindu ? Is being a Hindu incompatible with meditation on the Paramatman ?
Buddhist meditation is not too different except that it has a few facets of metta and so on. For that matter Zen meditation may also be similar (I am ready to stand corrected here ).
Ultimately whether one is Christian or Hindu or Muslim or whatever, the path to realisation would lie in being able to be one with the Universal Life force call it Paramatman or Christ or Krishna or any of the million names (gods) by which this force is worshipped.
[U]My two bits for consideration of all.[/U]
[QUOTE=High Wolf;46479]. After all Buddhists are not really good researchers, but good faith worshippers.[/QUOTE]
I think one could view Buddhadharma as both a religion and spiritual practice - or not. The same with any other religious system. Maybe so.
[QUOTE=High Wolf;46448]In my experience, Buddhism, either as a thought or religious practice is a ‘mistake’. I shall explain: Buddhism in general is against the desires that keep the all life going, and it dictates that desires should be abandoned immediately if self-realization is to be attained. It makes you to sit on meditation immediately, without ever allowing you to catalyze your emotions to elevate your consciusness!
In my experience, Buddhism is also a very depressing way of life. This has much to do with the way it rejects desires. It also lacks certain precepts to be acknowledged as universal. It is against embodiment, which is one of the essential qualities of man. It is a resignation from life and withdrawal into a symbolic realm of spirituality, where spirituality is not ‘experienced’ but ‘anticipated.’ In other words, Buddhists are not experiencers of spirituality, but the ‘anticipators’ of it.
Buddhism has become a religion with the establishments of Sanghas. And such estabishments are not Buddhist, but cultural extensions - intimately related to South-Asian cultures’ way of life. There can’t be such a thing as Western Buddhist, due to the simple fact that South-Asian cultures are not Western Cultures!
In short, Buddhism’s intention is good, but the way it presents itself is a mistake. Why need Buddhism anyway, while you have Patanjali and his brilliant Yoga Sutras, the scientific, non-religious methods to attain spirituality! More logical, more hands-on scientific approach, and it never promotes the swift abandonement of desires![/QUOTE]
Yoga Sutras were written post Siddhartha Gautama.
These truths are without time or creed.
I don’t think Yoga Sutras were written post Siddharata Gautama. This is the view of Western scholars, who have played all kinds of mischief with Indian history in order to denigrate its Vedic culture. I have yet to see any evidence for the arbitrary dates they assign to Patanajli and other major Indian sages. The view of Indian scholarship on this matter is that the Sutra literature was composed during the mature period of the Indus valley and Buddha came much later in 1700BCE. This earlier date for Buddha is supported by the geneologies presented in India’s historical records and by Chinese records.
The often cited view by Western scholars that Patanjali borrows from Buddha is completely devoid of evidence. It is very clear for anybody who reads the Yoga Sutras and the Buddhist texts that they are based on different philosophical systems. Patanjali does not mention any of the Pali terms, makes no reference to Buddha or Buddhism, but rather makes significant references to the older philosophy of Samkhya. On the other hand, Buddha makes many allusions to Patanjali’s Yoga concepts and a lot of the terminology he uses is cognate with Yogic terms.
[QUOTE=The Scales;46858]Yoga Sutras were written post Siddhartha Gautama.
These truths are without time or creed.[/QUOTE]
So some say. Yet I can’t find a firm evidence for that but speculations and romantic yearnings bereft of a scientific method.
[QUOTE=High Wolf;46864]So some say. Yet I can’t find a firm evidence for that but speculations and romantic yearnings bereft of a scientific method.[/QUOTE]
Ah, another person who sees the flaws in Indian history. I praise you for your open mindedness and your ability to see past Eurocentric dogma. If only more people were like you…
It would be best if those who are fluent in an Indian language and have knowledge of Sanskrit, or the vernaculars of those times in India, actually read the scriptures and make decisions on their linguistic aspects. No need to bring in European scholars to make decisions on the dates and historicity of our writings (or lack thereof, since India had no written language until much later on).
Buddha before yoga sutras.
Sorry.
Fella.
[QUOTE=Nietzsche;46888]Ah, another person who sees the flaws in Indian history. I praise you for your open mindedness and your ability to see past Eurocentric dogma. If only more people were like you…
It would be best if those who are fluent in an Indian language and have knowledge of Sanskrit, or the vernaculars of those times in India, actually read the scriptures and make decisions on their linguistic aspects. No need to bring in European scholars to make decisions on the dates and historicity of our writings (or lack thereof, since India had no written language until much later on).[/QUOTE]
Yes, Indian history and the dating of it is a blasthemy and it is a shame on Western scholarship that the dates that have been assigned to important periods and figures in Indian history have not been revised, especially considering how they were arrived at! Do you know how the dates were arrived at? It went a bit like this:
A date for the arrival of the Aryans into India were sought. The scholar who originally proposed it Max Muller(a Christian missionary) stated that the arrival of the Aryans into India was 1500BC, by backdating from 4004BCE as the creation of the world and Noah’s flood, and then calculating how long it would take for the waters to subside and land to be fertile again. Then he guessed 1500BCE as the start of the Vedic civilisation! Ironically, in later life when he actually became a lover of Vedic philosophy, he admitted he was guessing and the Vedas could be as old as 15,000 years!
But despite the obvious unscientific method used to arrive to the start of Vedic civilisation. This date has been maintained and never revised. In the time frame of 1500BCE to 500AD, the 10,000 year recorded history of India has been condensed and fitted in arbitarily. Almost all dates have been fabricated.
The actual history of the Vedic civilisation as attested by India’s own historical records, the Greek records, Chinese records and the archealogical evidence begins approx 10,000 years ago.
7000BCE: The first settments in India
5000-4000BCE: The Vedas are composed
3000BCE: The Mahabharata and the birth of Krishna. It is believed that the Vedic philosophical schools, including the upa-vedas like Ayurveda and grammar, jyotish were established around this time.
1700BCE: The birth of Buddha
1500BCE: The rise of the Maurayan empire
300BCE: The rise of the Gupta empire
[QUOTE=High Wolf;46448]In my experience, Buddhism, either as a thought or religious practice is a ‘mistake’. I shall explain: Buddhism in general is against the desires that keep the all life going, and it dictates that desires should be abandoned immediately if self-realization is to be attained. It makes you to sit on meditation immediately, without ever allowing you to catalyze your emotions to elevate your consciusness!
In my experience, Buddhism is also a very depressing way of life. This has much to do with the way it rejects desires. It also lacks certain precepts to be acknowledged as universal. It is against embodiment, which is one of the essential qualities of man. It is a resignation from life and withdrawal into a symbolic realm of spirituality, where spirituality is not ‘experienced’ but ‘anticipated.’ In other words, Buddhists are not experiencers of spirituality, but the ‘anticipators’ of it.
Buddhism has become a religion with the establishments of Sanghas. And such estabishments are not Buddhist, but cultural extensions - intimately related to South-Asian cultures’ way of life. There can’t be such a thing as Western Buddhist, due to the simple fact that South-Asian cultures are not Western Cultures!
In short, Buddhism’s intention is good, but the way it presents itself is a mistake. Why need Buddhism anyway, while you have Patanjali and his brilliant Yoga Sutras, the scientific, non-religious methods to attain spirituality! More logical, more hands-on scientific approach, and it never promotes the swift abandonement of desires![/QUOTE]
In what way do you mean that buddhism asks you to swiftly reject desire in 20 years of being a buddhist I have never come across this teaching , Yes desire causes suffering , but it is a heavy thing to expect anyone to instantly let go of , although there is of course the possibility for the few. My understanding is that we are looking to cultivate positive emotional states
and to promote metta to ourselves and others , In fact loving kindness , a cultivation of friendship is one of the foundations of Buddhadharma ,thus the three jewels ,buddha ,a man who overcame what we can overcome ,the dharma , the way to freedom from the bonds that cause suffering and of course Sangha the fellowship of one another , that sangha is all those who have sought refuge in the three Jewels , Im not sure that the creation of a sangha is anything to do with religion , although I can see how it could lead to ossification if not lovingly challenged , not healthy. THe Buddha taught that friendship was everything, specifically spiritual friendship .
I cant see why sangha should only be south east asian , to follow that line , christianity came from the east , yet seems to have established itself in the west as you like to draw your lines on the map of this small planet. was christianity not first in India anyway (Kerala ) I have heard this from Indians
perhaps they were misleading me and rewriting history , which of course all nations are prone to do, which is why Im personally not a great fan of nationalism, in the old cliche it is often the refuge of the ignorant, Im no expert on christianity either.
I have found little to trouble me with the noble eightfold path of buddhadharma and my practise of yoga and the Ashtanga pantajali yoga ,THey seem close in what they are saying. I used to be troubled by the concept of iswara , but its all good now , as i understand Iswara is not a single creator God. I have to say that I have met Impressive people in the Buddhist world , and a few in the yoga world , Although Im not overly concerned about putting those people into seperate boxes ,Yogi/yoginis do seem to be on a more singular path than most Buddhists , possibly due to a lack of sangha or an emphasis on the individual, although I have not hung with the Theravadins , and am more drawn to Mahayana , vajryana teachings . Buddhism and yoga seem to be for me ultimately about energy , that is not fixed , not having fixed views , ie not having desire to be right , to be happy , to be sad ,to be rich , handsome its all impermanent and the trying to fixate on these states will lead to despair and frustation anyway, rather just flowing freely in the moment , and being connected to those around us using the balance of wisdom and compassion that we cultivate in our practise so that we may be that joy , and what emanates from that joyfull experience , being creative rather than reactive . I have to say that I have seen the Joy of a roomful of genuine Buddahdharma followers , I more often than not dont see it in a roomful of yogins , but of course glimpses are felt , and I have met depressed Buddhists I sometimes feel depressed types are drawn to the Buddha dharma . Buddhism says that we are living in the mundane and that there are supra realities , different realms we could exist in now , If you are right why dont we (Buddhists) just shoot ourselves and surely that would bring an end to suffering , maybe some of them are dwelling in extremely positive mental states and they are actually enjoying the blessing of life .
I mean does the dalai lama look depressed ? would you say that was his modus operandi ? Is that what comes through for you ?
I am not a scholar and do not wish to enter into debate , but would rather occasionally dip in to the religous forum as I very much support the necessity of good debate , ie that carried out with intelligence and decency . it is of course big in Buddhism and a good training ground for the intellect , no doubt traditional and around long before Buddhism , but I find it rather dry , and not a little depressing , unless done with wit , intelligence , and with the possibility of movement occasionally , which does sometimes happen.
I also hear your experience ,and respect that this is how you experienced your time practising Buddhadharma, I just wanted to share mine , and the deep gratitude I have for the Sakyamuni Buddha , just as I have for the teachers / Gurus who have shared the knowledge of Pantajali yoga . My mind has wrestled with these teachings but nowadays I seem to be letting go of the desire to wrestle , sometimes I just dont know , and that feels fine, and releasing, energetically , free from the desire of certainties , trusting my experiences , and being engaged and fully present , on the odd occasion.
as an aside I have always understood that patanjalis yoga sutras came after the Historical Buddha although that does not necessarily mean that they, the teachings do not predate the Buddha , but I heard it here first , that it could be a conspiracy ! To what end Im not sure.
OM AH HUM VAJRA GURU PADMA SIDDHI HUM
Well said Charliedharma. Well said.
for those of you who support unity over division, you should enjoy these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7bwqTY0fCw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akd7V-0JI6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcc5_R9415Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04gdsFt_zDY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOAlyl7u2dw
Of course yes!!