[QUOTE=ray_killeen;80857]It seems no one is being rewarded or punished for anything, things are simply happening for no apparent reason.[/QUOTE]
David HUME? 
No connection between cause and effect?
Is things happening? or that too an illusion like the reason?
My view on that:
i see things happening, i am not sure they are really happening. But my perception is true for me. And it is vald for me. And I see reasons for cause and effect.(may be i am in the trap of predictability)
Well, Dualism, Non-Dualism. Monism…Atma/Paramaatma/Super Atma etc…!!!
Well, all these are, to me, like Newton’s three laws of physics. One can derive each one from other two. However, Newton proposed (and got acceptance) three laws to burden physics learners. :-0
If one reads the writings of Adi Shankara (who has written about Advaita (non-Dualism)), and takes a paper and pencil and draws quick Set Diagrams (elementary Set theory…Venn Diagrams), one can “logically” say that Dualism, non-Dualism, Monoism are all the same stuff. However, much like Newton’s threee laws, one percieves them to be separate.
And the reason, that I think, so many things are proposed is the urge on part of religious preachers of all colors to project themselves as separate and fool the majority of ignorant populations of their time.
Budhism and Hinduism share many things and differ on many others. However, there were improvements and changes inspired by each other (Example: Nagarjuna, who was born Hindu Brahmin, went onto became a Budhist Monk and proposed Madhya Maarga (middle-path)).
[QUOTE=chadayan;80859]David HUME? No connection between cause and effect?
Is things happening? or that too an illusion like the reason?
My view on that:
i see things happening, i am not sure they are really happening. But my perception is true for me. And it is vald for me. And I see reasons for cause and effect.(may be i am in the trap of predictability)[/QUOTE]
Who’s in control of cause and effect, predicting the future is not something I?ve been successful at, I am that I am, the world is, it seems as if any notion in human consciousness is of ignorance, just be.
[QUOTE=yaram;80860]Budhism and Hinduism share many things and differ on many others. However, there were improvements and changes inspired by each other (Example: Nagarjuna, who was born Hindu Brahmin, went onto became a Budhist Monk and proposed Madhya Maarga (middle-path)).[/QUOTE]
It seems all recordings of spirituality (spirituality=Truth) are simply pointers to question only you yourself alone can answer.
Why cause and effect? there are two arguments in India.
Who does the change? Yoga tells the Rajas. It is the matter have the intelligence. Not the soul(purusa). The matter manifest itself, according to Yoga/samkhya.
What do i believe? The buddhis view. There is no cause. there is no effect. what is there is the momentory existance.
[QUOTE=chadayan;80864]Why cause and effect? there are two arguments in India.[/QUOTE]
There are many more than two arguments in India.
[QUOTE=chadayan;80864]What do i believe?[/QUOTE]
I?m not sure what seems more silly to believe something or to disbelieve something, both are illusional beliefs in human consciousness, I?m not this momentary existence.
[QUOTE=ray_killeen;80865]silly to believe something or to disbelieve something, both are illusional beliefs in human consciousness[/QUOTE]
I feel this is a belief.
[QUOTE=chadayan;80867]I feel this is a belief.[/QUOTE]
It seems more like a happening of verification that arose innately after momentary eruptions of conceptual nonsense in self-inquiry.
[QUOTE=Karma Senge;80858]In that case I wish you the best on your path. We simply do not agree (and I will say that Buddhist philosophy does not agree either).
Thank you for a thoughtful engagement. 
[/QUOTE]
It is not a case of not agreeing or disagreeing, it is a case that you are wrong 
As somebody who has studied Indian philosophy quite extensively, I know what I am talking about. Buddhism is neither a dualist or a non-dualist philosophy, Buddhism is a non-substance philosophy, according to Buddhism no substances as such exist, but aggregates of a cluster of qualities are falsely called substances by us, but which really have no definable locus. This is known as anatta and shunya vada the doctrine of nothingness and momentariness.
It’s ok we get a lot of arrogant people on this forum pretending to know Indian philosophy, when they know next to nothing.
I wasn’t asking you to agree with me, I was telling you a fact you would know yourself if you read the Yogasutras:
These powers are impediments to samadhi, although in normal life they are powers(YS 3.38 )
By destruction of the seeds of bondage and renunciation of even these powers, comes eternal emancipation(YS.3.51)
When approached by celestial beings, there should be neither attachment nor surprise, because one can again enter into bondage(YS.3.52)
Now as to the reasons why Patanjali mentions the siddhis, it is because these are the effects of practice and they also signposts on the way that indicate to the practitioner how far the have got. Siddhis are also described by the Buddha and the Buddha himself is claimed to have performed many siddhis.
Is the 10 commandments of the Bible are moral law? I think so. If you do something you will be rewarded with something else(heaven in the case of Bible, Material benefits in the case of Yama-Niyama. For example, Sutra 36 of the second chapter SadhanaPada tells, if you practice Satya-truthfulness you will be rewarded with 'whatever is willed”)
Apples and oranges. The 10 commandments are absolute moral laws imposed from without by God, who will punish you or reward you with hell or heaven for how well you follow his moral laws - one of those laws is “Thou shalt not have any gods before me” and another is “Thou shalt not hold service on Sunday” In contrast, the Yamas and Niyamas are not absolute moral laws, there is no God to punish you or reward you and you will not go to hell or heaven for it.
Yamas means “control” and niyamas means “regulation” as self control and regulating ones behaviour/habits. Like with all Indian religions, the bad habits are seen as greed, lust, stealing, violence and lying and in terms of personal lifestyle: discontentment, impure lifestyle, diet and thinking, lack of humility and surrender, laziness. By practicing good habits one enjoys obvious mental and social benefits, but also spiritual benefits. Those benefits as per the Yoga sutras are
No Greed: Such a person becomes free of possession, of ego and personality, that they become aware of their past and future lives
No Lust: Such a person retains their vitality, intelligence, valour and energy comes to them
No Lying: Such a person’s words carry energy and power, that whatever they say can manifest
Non violence: Such a person loses their aggressive nature and becomes serene, that others become pacified in their presence, even animals
Non stealing: Such a person never has to beg or ask for anything, gifts come his way all the time
Contentment: Such a person develops a joyous consciousness
Purity of mind and body: Such a person develops dispassion for contact with sense objects and attains deeper focus in their inner self.
Self-Study: Such a person attains union with their object of study
Humility and surrender: Such a person easily achieves Samadhi
Austerity/Intensity: Such a person burns away their impurities and kindles the sparks of divinity
So my view is Metaphysically and Ethically both yoga and Buddhism is different.
I already told you Buddhism and Yoga are based on different metaphysics. The ethics are identical though. There is no significant variation in the ethical doctrines of the Dharmic religions, they also recognize the five major vices of anger, lust, greed, pride, ignorance as the obstacles and all advise self-control and the means of Yoga to put them in check.
It’s ok we get a lot of arrogant people on this forum pretending to know Indian philosophy
There is nothing wrong in that in my view. If Sankara can get Buddhism wrong(his understanding of Buddhism is completly wrong in the Brahma-sutra bhashya, it is again debatable, he did it intenstionaly or with ignorance), We can get the indian philosophy wrong. And that is the freedom we have. That is how Indian philosphy(if it is a philosophy) grow.
And i don’t concider this as a Hermeneutical Violence.
[QUOTE=chadayan;80854]According to Nagarjuna, there is nothing called liberation(nirvana-nibbana). That is why he brings the idea of Sunya-sunya(nothingness of nothing or nothing-nothing). And I believe which is the original understanding of Buddha himself.
There is no Atman. Anatmavada(or anatta in pali). Atman is a myth and it create more problems than it helps. The idea of self don’t have any use.[/quote]
Yep, that’s orthodox Buddhism(Although Mahayana Buddhism differs and later admits of an ultimate mind-field substance of dharmakaya)
So in my view there is no place for yoga in the original yoga(both the Samkya-yoga and Advaita-yoga). There is nothing to re-unite. There is nothing to realize. There is nothing to separate(prakrti and purusa according to Patanjali).
No place for yoga in yoga? Non sequiter if there ever was one. The oldest texts we have for original Yoga are the Upanishads, and they contain a mixture of Samkhya and Advaita versions of Yoga, which predate Buddhism.
Buddha heavily critiques the upanishads and Samkhyans. (later Gaudapada make an attempt to bring both the upanishads and Buddhism together. According to Gaudapada Buddhism is in upanisats. The cometary to 12sutras of Mandukya explains this.)
Can you cite these critiques, I hear Buddhists claim all the time that Buddha was anti-Hindu, anti-Vedas, anti-Upanishads, anti-Yoga, but I have never actually seen a single one yet produce a citation straight from the mouth of the man himself. I think it is most likely Buddhist propoganda.
Now Buddhism is obviously heavily based on Samkhya philosophy, a fact recognized virtually universally by scholars - it uses the same tattva schemes more or less - developed by Samkhya and the same theories of suffering, the cause of suffering due to ignorance, and antidote to suffering discrimination and awareness and non-identification with desires through meditation.
Buddhism does not predate Yoga. In fact Jainism predates Buddhism(as per their own records) and Jainism itself is based on Yoga.
[QUOTE=chadayan;80873]There is nothing wrong in that in my view. If Sankara can get Buddhism wrong(his understanding of Buddhism is completly wrong in the Brahma-sutra bhashya, it is again debatable, he did it intenstionaly or with ignorance), We can get the indian philosophy wrong. And that is the freedom we have. That is how Indian philosphy(if it is a philosophy) grow.
And i don’t concider this as a Hermeneutical Violence. ;)[/QUOTE]
It is debatable whether Sankara got Buddhism wrong In any case we can’t compare Sankara to an ignorant Westerner who thinks he knows Indian philosophy now because he’s attended a few classes of Ashtanga. It’s a common sight on this forum to see arrogant Westerners like this thinking they know Indian philosophy - when they don’t even know the basic abc. You at least sound like you have some grounding in it, but I think your knowledge is Buddhism specific, and you have not studied the other systems well enough.
I agree by the way it is not really “Philosophy” They are rational systems built on epistemology like modern sciences - each with a different viewpoint.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;80872]
I already told you Buddhism and Yoga are based on different metaphysics. The ethics are identical though. There is no significant variation in the ethical doctrines of the Dharmic religions, they also recognize the five major vices of anger, lust, greed, pride, ignorance as the obstacles and all advise self-control and the means of Yoga to put them in check.[/QUOTE]
I am not sure you have got my point.
I agreed with you that Budhha was practicing supernatural powers. But according to the teachings of buddhism, there is no use of them.
Ethically Yoga and Buddhism are different. (which you disagree as a statement, but you did not understad my reasons).
I don’t see for a moral law we need God(like the comandments). It is just Psychology. Riding on the left side of the road is a charvaka-dharma(moral law) l according to my understanding.
But buddhist ethics you won’t get anything in return. Not even Nirvana according to Nagarjuna.
Buddhism don’t have any metaphysics, I argue, the so called reality of Dependent araisen(Pratyacca-samupada) is an ethical code not a metaphysical reality(yes i know most of the scholars won’t agree with me on this).
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;80874]No place for yoga in yoga?[/QUOTE]
Sorry typo. No place for Yoga in Buddhism
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;80874]
Can you cite these critiques, I hear Buddhists claim all the time that Buddha was anti-Hindu, anti-Vedas, anti-Upanishads, anti-Yoga, but I have never actually seen a single one yet produce a citation straight from the mouth of the man himself. I think it is most likely Buddhist propoganda.
[/QUOTE]
There is point in your agrument, Buddhism is a political movement than a philosophical movemnt.
What kind of referene you want?
I have not seen Buddha quote Upanishats and be critique to it. But he is cretique to the upanishadic ideas like Atamam. Purusa-Prakriti of Sankhya.
I am not sure you have got my point.
- I agreed with you that Budhha was practicing supernatural powers. But according to the teachings of buddhism, there is no use of them.
I don’t remember you saying anything on that matter. I have already shown you Yoga too says there ultimately no use for them, they are to be renounced because they are obstacles on the path.
- Ethically Yoga and Buddhism are different. (which you disagree as a statement, but you did not understad my reasons).
I don’t see for a moral law we need God(like the comandments). It is just Psychology. Riding on the left side of the road is a charvaka-dharma(moral law) l according to my understanding.
But buddhist ethics you won’t get anything in return. Not even Nirvana according to Nagarjuna.
Buddhism don’t have any metaphysics, I argue, the so called reality of Dependent araisen(Pratyacca-samupada) is an ethical code not a metaphysical reality(yes i know most of the scholars won’t agree with me on this).
Yes, the yamas are basically psychologically sound habits that lead to less psychological problems. As you should know Yoga’s aim is still the disturbances of the mind, and obvious the yamas and niyamas make sense as tools to facilitate that. They are roughly the equivalent of the Buddhist “Right view, right livelihood, right living” This is hardly surprising because all dharmic religions have similar ethical principles. They are based on psychological epistemology.
In Buddhism there isn’t any ego to receive the fruits of its actions. The aim of Buddhism is to extinguish ones ego so that ones suffering ends, because our view of ourselves as agents of our actions separate from the objects of our action engenders desire and desire leads to clingingness and that to suffering. When we let go of this ego we surrender ourselves to the flow of nature, no longer resisting it. Is that right? Now, what you don’t know is its identical to Yoga: In Yoga the cause of suffering is ones ignorance which leads to one identifying themselves with mind and body and seeing oneselves as agents(karta) of ones actions(karma) In actual fact, we are not the agents of actions, everything is driven by the natural forces(gunas) Our agency, our egoity(ahamkara) is a false construct or illusion. As long as we identify ourselves as the agents of our actions, we will see ourselves as separate from objects, this engenders desire and desire to attachment(roga) and that to suffering(dukha) and we remain perpetually going round and round in the wheel of samsara. When we relinquish our doership, and act only as per dharma we will flow with nature, no longer resisting it.
I cannot see much difference at all. The reason there is no difference is because both Buddhism and Yoga are based on the same philosophy of Samkhya, which was developed in the Upanishads.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;80874]
Now Buddhism is obviously heavily based on Samkhya philosophy,
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;80874]Jainism itself is based on Yoga.[/QUOTE]
In what way?
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;80875]It is debatable whether Sankara got Buddhism wrong ;)[/QUOTE]
Not only Buddhism, Sankara got all schools wrong if you read the Second chapter of Brahma-sutra Bhashya.
Sankara explain what is samkhya completly wrong and he critque to samkhya. So i feel it is not he got it wrong. He intentionaly put the wrong ideas and critique to them.
Sutra 18 to 27 against Sautrantikas and Vaibhasikas. 28-32 yogacara school.
For example, sutra 28:
Yogachara school says the world is non-existent.
Sakara:
sky lotus is never an object. so it is not like that. It is not like dream too so it is experienced…
Can’t you see how he got it wrong? The only question is it intentional.
What does Sakara wanted to prove?
The world is non-existant because of the Pratyccasamupada.
Sarvada Anuppthesha!!!
Chadayan, I think it is starting to become obvious you have not studied Yoga and Samkhya enough. I advise you study them more, and return to this discussion later. Otherwise you will look ignorant to those of us here are who are familiar with them.
I have already shown you how heavily based on Samkhya Buddhism is, let me summarize:
The only real difference is Buddhism rejects Purusha, the supreme self and Prakriti, the supreme matter, because they are transcendental reality(although not all Buddhist schools do, Mahayana Buddhism accepts a supreme unmanifest Buddha nature) Buddhism does not reject them because it says they do not exist, it rejects them because it thinks they are irrelevant to practice. Buddhism is based on the here and now the phenomenal world - so it does not take a transcendental standpoint like Yoga and Vedanta does.