Yoga, Hindusim and Buddhism

Yoga Discussion General Yoga
#1

I’ve been wondering about how yoga and Buddhism works out together, if you practise both. And trying to understand, I came upon some parts that I found to be at odds with one another. I share these questions in the hope that someone more knowledgeable than me can share some insight.

Yoga, as I know it, strives to connect with ones Self. As I know Buddhism it generally rejects the Self of and emphasizes the non-Self. It says that there is no Self in anything and therefore that the Self is merely a fiction of the mind.

The yoga tradition, again as I know it, also recognises a “Jiva” that is reborn, whereas Buddhism says that rebirth is just the continuance of a stream of karma, not any real entity. As Buddhism does not recognise this “Jiva”, there is no Moksha, as there would be no soul to liberate.

I realise that this will differ great between great between different yoga and Buddhist traditions and teachings, and that this is a gross simplification, no offence intended.

I also want to point out that I do not question or criticise anyone who practise both.
I have spent most of the day reading up on Indian, Hindu and yogic history and philosophy, and find it fascinating, and like to hear what someone else might know about it.

Edit: Maybe this should have gone in the off topic section, as it is not really about yoga. Sorry about that.

#2

From the Shrimad Bhagavatam Canto 1, chapter 3 verse 24 . . .

“then in the beginning of the kali yuga the supreme Lord Krishna will appear as Buddha, the son of Anjana, in the provence of Gaya, for the purpose of deluding the atheists who are envious of the faithful theists.”

So yeah . . . I dunno.

#3

Many Theories.

Buddha was an avatar as any fully enlightened being is an avatar. A son or daughter of God.

I personally see no contradiction between buddhadharma and the adviata/vedas/brahmainism/hinduism. But thats just me. How I look at it.

#4

Sure, there is contradictions between them, but only if you take them both as a religion. Some people are Christians, and do Yoga. There is a contradiction between those two as well. If you take them as religion, they don’t fit together, but if you just use aspects of them, there’s no problem. I do asana, and pranayama (even though I don’t think pranayama really does anything), and I do Buddhist meditation and use a lot of Buddhist philosophy, because I really love what they have to say about compassion and mindfulness. So they work fine together as long as you don’t follow them both as a religion.

#5

Many say Buddhadharma is science of mind.

Many say Buddhadharma is religion.

Many say Buddhadharma is bunk.

Adam…do you in your mind go for refuge?

#6

[QUOTE=Tangle;33727]Yoga, as I know it, strives to connect with ones Self. As I know Buddhism it generally rejects the Self of and emphasizes the non-Self. It says that there is no Self in anything and therefore that the Self is merely a fiction of the mind. [/QUOTE]

what does Self means? can you explain what is this Self & how is non-self different from the state I am in my deep sleep?

c/p from some other thread:

“When you learn about non-Western concepts … do not try to understand them using your Western background. If you do you will most definitely misunderstand them”

& some Sanskrit terms (concepts) can’t be translated into English.

#7

[QUOTE=PatR;33766]
“When you learn about non-Western concepts … do not try to understand them using your Western background. If you do you will most definitely misunderstand them”

& some Sanskrit terms (concepts) can’t be translated into English.[/QUOTE]

This is very very true, and that’s exactly why I am asking.

And as I have no pretence to understand the Sanskrit words, I used the English attempts at translations. Anyway, the Self would be an attempt to translate Atma or Purusha and the non-Self Anatman.

YogaAdam. Yes, I am comparing them both as religions.

Again, just to be clear, I am asking about this in an attempt to understand it better, not criticise.

#8

Just realised that by comparing them as “Religions”, I am comparing them trough a very Westernised approach.

#9

Buddhism and Hindusim are definitely mutually opposed. Hinduism accepts the Atman and Buddhism rejects it. This makes for a radically different philosophy.

Mahayana Buddhism is more of a middle-way between Buddhism and Hinduism. So if you are interested in syncretic approach that combines the best of Buddhism and Hinduism then this is the best approach.

In any case as a Hindu I would one steer one away Buddhism because it is a nihilisitic and atheist religion that

  1. Rejects our potential and reduces us to nothing more than nothingness.
  2. It preaches that desire is the root of suffering and evil and expects us to live boring and simple lives devoid of colour, festivity and celeberation.

I was quite accepting of Buddhism in the past but now I see it as a rather insidious and life denying belief system. It is tamasic. It dulls life. It’s just
as bad as Christianity in some respects. In fact Christianity seems to have a huge influence of Buddhism.

In any case I think the original historical Buddha and the original historical Jesus were realised yogis and did not teach the nonsense their followers later
interpreted and institutionalized.

#10

You do not need to practice anything else other than Yoga. Pick your Yoga that suits your temperament(Hatha/Kriya/Kundalini/Raja/Jnana/Bhakti/Karma/Laya/Nada) or a combination that works(I have been largely Jnana and Raja for a long time) and you will reach the highest goal of Yoga which is nothing other than self-actualization. Full realization of your potential.

Buddhism and Yoga do not go together. I mean how can it when it rejects atman and the whole purpose of Yoga is to unite with Atman. So what are Buddhists uniting with? Nothingness?

#11

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;33920] So what are Buddhists uniting with? Nothingness?[/QUOTE]

For me, I’m uniting with the moment. The living event. That’s it! The moment, plus nothing else. Very very easy to comprehend, I would have thought.

#12

[QUOTE=YogiAdam;33925]For me, I’m uniting with the moment. The living event. That’s it! The moment, plus nothing else. Very very easy to comprehend, I would have thought.[/QUOTE]

Yeah but in this case there is an “I” there to unite with the moment. In Buddhist philosophy there is no such “I” It is rather pointless then to do anything. I mean if there is no “I” how are you doing it for?

#13

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;33946]Yeah but in this case there is an “I” there to unite with the moment. In Buddhist philosophy there is no such “I” It is rather pointless then to do anything. I mean if there is no “I” how are you doing it for?[/QUOTE]

In Buddhism, there is an ‘I’ in conventional terms, however there is no ‘I’ ultimately existing in and of itself. ‘I’ exists through independent origination, and not inherently in and of itself. Contrary to saying there is no ‘I’ to unite with the moment, Buddhism would assert that NOTHING EXISTS, BUT THE MOMENT. So there is much importance placed on being connected with the moment, because that is our reality. The past doesn’t exist, and the future doesn’t exist, from our experiential point of view. This is how Buddhists see it anyway.

#14

[QUOTE=YogiAdam;33947]In Buddhism, there is an ‘I’ in conventional terms, however there is no ‘I’ ultimately existing in and of itself. ‘I’ exists through independent origination, and not inherently in and of itself. Contrary to saying there is no ‘I’ to unite with the moment, Buddhism would assert that NOTHING EXISTS, BUT THE MOMENT. So there is much importance placed on being connected with the moment, because that is our reality. The past doesn’t exist, and the future doesn’t exist, from our experiential point of view. This is how Buddhists see it anyway.[/QUOTE]

The momentary “I” is no I. This is because there is a fallacy in the Buddhist moment philosophy. How do you define a moment? Is 1 day a moment? Is 1 hour a moment? 1 minute? 1 second? 1 milli second? 1 nanosecond? 1 picto second? As soon as you define a moment a finer division is possible and hence an infinite regression.

The second fallacy in the momentary “I” is that if the old I is destroyed the next moment and replaced with the new I, then it is pointless for the old I to do anything because whatever actions it does, it does not have to face the consequences, the new “I” will face the consequences. This makes Buddhist so-called compassionate displays a farce. Why bother at all?

The third fallacy building on this further is the old “I” cognizer who has memories, hopes and aspirations is destroyed by the new “I” that is an entirely new cognizer. Then how can the new cognizer say, “I remember myself”?

This is why Buddhist anatman philosophy is fallacious. It is a nihilistic and life denying religion.

#15

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;33948]The momentary “I” is no I. This is because there is a fallacy in the Buddhist moment philosophy. How do you define a moment? Is 1 day a moment? Is 1 hour a moment? 1 minute? 1 second? 1 milli second? 1 nanosecond? 1 picto second? As soon as you define a moment a finer division is possible and hence an infinite regression.

The second fallacy in the momentary “I” is that if the old I is destroyed the next moment and replaced with the new I, then it is pointless for the old I to do anything because whatever actions it does, it does not have to face the consequences, the new “I” will face the consequences. This makes Buddhist so-called compassionate displays a farce. Why bother at all?

The third fallacy building on this further is the old “I” cognizer who has memories, hopes and aspirations is destroyed by the new “I” that is an entirely new cognizer. Then how can the new cognizer say, “I remember myself”?

This is why Buddhist anatman philosophy is fallacious. It is a nihilistic and life denying religion.[/QUOTE]

Well I guess it’s lucky I’m an Atheist then, isn’t it.

#16

I’ll say it again.

Surya . . . your “off” on this.

“this” being buddhism.

[B]Point to ponder?[/B][B] Take away the maya and what have you?[/B]

Adam I think the Teaching is “Dependent” rather than “Independent” origination.

Which leads me to the point to ponder again? [B] Take away the maya and what have you?[/B]

Surya,
YOU ARE TOTOLY AND CATEGORICALLY 100 PERCENT WRONG ABOUT THE BUDDHADHARMA.

So once again I implore you to get your head out of your ass and do some more looking.

and quit disparaging a system that you don’t know inside and out!

Because then I have to come in here and make a post such as this…

#17

Adam I think the Teaching is “Dependent” rather than “Independent” origination.

No, he’s right. It is dependent origin. All things are contingent on everything else.

Here is what we say to the Buddhism. Yes, you are right that there is no personal self and you are right that everything is of dependent origin and ultimately a process within nature connected with everything else. However, you are wrong that there is no ultimate self and ultimate and changeless reality. Change only belongs to the phenomenal world of maya.

#18

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;33971][B]No, he’s right.[/B] It is dependent origin. All things are contingent on everything else.

[B]For “no, he’s right.” you really meant “No, the scales is right.” Correct? :stuck_out_tongue:
[/B]
Here is what we say to the Buddhism. Yes, you are right that there is no personal self and you are right that everything is of dependent origin and ultimately a process within nature connected with everything else.

However, you are wrong that there is no ultimate self and ultimate and changeless reality.

[B]Show me a sutra where it says this. Plus you need to clarify the expression a little bit. here

Also remove the maya and what have you? [/B]

Change only belongs to the phenomenal world of maya.[/QUOTE]

The message you have entered is too short.

#19

:smiley:

No, I meant that Adam was right. Buddhism is a well established religion and its core tenets are well known. Such as 1) All is Suffering and 2) All is Impermenance/change and 3) No sef. I may not be an expert in Buddhism, but I know the generals very well. I have briefly studied Buddhist philosophy as well and read some of the main texts.

Also remove the maya and what have you?

The Atman.

But the Buddhists say there is no transcendental reality. All is just phenomeon. There is no noumenon in Buddhist philosophy.

#20

Your description of buddhism as nihilistic is extremely lazy and belies a lack of direct experience of the buddahdharma , although the last pope would have agreed with you and he was infallible so you are in good company.
Do you know any nihilistic buddhists ? im sure some exist ,but if they do, they will be missing the point. Remember the buddhahdharma was a direct result of the horrors of the caste system ,where people are branded as untouchable , unhearable and unseeable ,
the Buddha with infinite wisdom and compassion challenged these views precisely because of connection to life rather than disconnection or denial of life, surely.The Buddhah tried the path of austerity feeding himself on a grain of rice a day ,starving himself he realised that denial of life and the body was not the way and was fed by milk and curds which enlivened him. This was not long before enlightement.
Suryadeva i bow to your superior knowledge of hinduism , but your understanding of the buddhadharma can only be true if you have direct experience ,as you realise we can only understand a little by the books
Yogi adam. what does your pranayama practice consist of ,do you have a teacher ?
I acknowledge your experience ,but please know that a regular pranayama practice is extremely powerful and has great effect,of course we can think we are doing pranayama when all we are doing is sitting down and making some funny noises.
Yours in yoga