Yoga, Hindusim and Buddhism

Yoga Discussion General Yoga
#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

#21

No once again. Its “Dependent origination.” I assure you.

And “emptiness” doesn’t mean nothingness or nihlism.

and buddhadharma doesn’t discuss transcendental realtiy until the End or you’ve at least got a good firm foundation under you. Transcendental realtity can be confusing… Transcendental reality has nothing to do with the aims of the Buddhadharma…until the very end…

So your wrong again…

So you are forth with banned from speaking about buddhadharma!

You said yourself you only know the generals…

The opening volly is simply the opening volly… Not the endgame.

#22

No once again. Its “Dependent origination.” I assure you.

Yes, that’s what I said :smiley:

and buddhadharma doesn’t discuss transcendental realtiy until the End or you’ve at least got a good firm foundation under you. Transcendental realtity can be confusing… Transcendental reality has nothing to do with the aims of the Buddhadharma…until the very end…

I know this was the original aim of Buddha not to get his disciples bogged down with all the metaphysics that Hindus love and to simply practice the techniques and discover in due courses themselves whether the metaphysics was right. This is why I respect Buddha as an enlightened being and an avatar. However, the Buddhism that came later after Buddha, did exactly what Buddha warned against, getting bogged down with the metaphysics and turning Buddha’s teaching of “anata and dukha” into absolutes about reality. Since then Buddhism has become a nihilistic, life-denying religion. It is clear to see this if you look at the South East Asian countries where Buddhism was adopted how it turned everybody to the practical and mundane such as making tea, or doing the gardening, or even fighting with mindfulness, rather than progress. There is no philosophy of progress within Buddhism. This is why it brought these societies to a standstill. The kind of mindlessness that Buddhism engenders has been used to justify all kinds of violence in South East Asia and used to justify irrationality.

The same happened in India as well where Buddhism was eventually rejected. It gave birth to civically irresponsible people who did not carry their weight in society and did not maintain their martial class. As a result India fell prey to invasions. In the past, nobody would dare step an inch on Indian soil, because of the Kshatriyas. Then due to Buddhism we lost the Ksatriyas and India fell prety to invasion. To a large extent Buddhism is the cause of the degeneration of India. Had India not adoped such an impotent religion, India would still be Hindu and prosperous today.

#23

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.

I think the traditional stories of Buddha are highly embellished, romantic and heroic to be taken as literal. Such as the prophecies of his enlightenment, and the attempts by his father-king to hide all suffering from him. Similarly, the stories of him being a rebel agaisnt Hindu caste system are probably just as dubious. I do no deny there was a highly enlightened master called Buddha, just as I do not deny there was a highly enlightened master called Jesus, but the historical Buddha and Jesus are likely to be radically different to what is said about them.

The fact is just as the organized religion of Christianity nothing like the original teachings of Christ, the organized religion of Buddhism is nothing like the original teachings of Buddha. It is a nihilistic, life denying religion that dulls the mind and social life.

It is simply not philosophically defensible because with doctines like no-self nihilism is a natural result. If there is no “me” then why should I do anything? It’s pretty pointless then. There is only a point for “me” to do something if I what I do is going to benefit me either directly or indirectly. Even if I give charity or do some compassionate goods if there is no me to reap the good karma of my actions then there is no motivation for me to do any action.

Who can defend Buddhism from this charge?

#24

You need more study.

#25

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34005]The fact is just as the organized religion of Christianity nothing like the original teachings of Christ, the organized religion of Buddhism is nothing like the original teachings of Buddha. It is a nihilistic, life denying religion that dulls the mind and social life.[/QUOTE]

I think you make a good point about the ‘organized religion’ that we find in Christianity and Buddhism, being a little different from what was originally taught. But I see no evidence of them dulling the mind or social life. My brother and girlfriend are Christians and they have the best social skills I’ve ever seen. I’ve gone through a phase a ‘a Buddhist’, although I would have to consider myself an Atheist (as I reject any claims made outside of modern science) and I have a good social life. My friends like me and want to spend time with me and think I’m funny and cool, girls seem to want to have sex with me, old ladies think I’m a lovely gentleman… I don’t see how it dulls social life.