Yoga, Hindusim and Buddhism

Yoga Discussion General Yoga
#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.

#26

There is clear evidence of Christiantiy and Buddhism dulling the mind and social life. You simply need to look at history.

Modern Christians and Buddhists are not proper Christians and Buddhists. You simply need to go into a Buddhist monestary or Catholic monestary to see how dull, repressed and isolated they are. They have no idea what it is like to be alive.

#27

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34150]There is clear evidence of Christiantiy and Buddhism dulling the mind and social life. You simply need to look at history.

Modern Christians and Buddhists are not proper Christians and Buddhists. You simply need to go into a Buddhist monestary or Catholic monestary to see how dull, repressed and isolated they are. They have no idea what it is like to be alive.[/QUOTE]

:slight_smile:

Can’t argue there. Lol . . .

But of course you know not all followers of the buddhism and the christianity live in the convent. To each their own I guess. Perhaps it’s their karma. WHos to judge?

#28

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34150]They have no idea what it is like to be alive.[/QUOTE]

We’ll, they may look at your life and say exactly the same thing. I mean, the fact that your concerned with whether or not Christians and Buddhists have any Idea what it is like to be alive, IS an indication that your life may be lacking something.

#29

I have a very dynamic, fighting spirit. I am very lively. People who know me will testify just how bold, dynamic and lively I am. I take no nonsense from anybody and I do whatever I like. I do not suppress any of my desires and openly live out my desires.

So no you cannot compare me to a repressed Buddhist or Christian monk.

#30

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34178]I have a very dynamic, fighting spirit. I am very lively. People who know me will testify just how bold, dynamic and lively I am. I take no nonsense from anybody and I do whatever I like. I do not suppress any of my desires and openly live out my desires.

So no you cannot compare me to a repressed Buddhist or Christian monk.[/QUOTE]

This is a very desperate answer. Bold? Dynamic? Take no nonsense? I genuine feel sad after reading this. It sounds like the words of a lost, lonely, frightened soul. You don’t have to compare yourself with different people. Life isn’t a contest. Your OK just the way you are. I promise people will like you. You don’t need to try and demonstrate to others that you are special. You don’t need to have people agree with everything you say, in order to be loved. Learn to love others. Love Buddhist just the way they are. Love Christians just the way they are. They will love you just the way you are. Have the courage to be different and have the courage to accept difference. The whole world will show you love like you’ve never know, once you accept yourself, and accept others. I hope you can learn to listen to others, and share your thoughts with others. It’s not you verses everyone who’s different. It’s you sharing your differences. The world can be a kind warm, place… But you need to find kindness and warmth in yourself first.

#31

Wise words from such a young spirit. Much to think about! Thank you for sharing. As I’ve said before, there are many paths on our journey. They all, hopefully, lead to the same place. Love rules all. Love trumps all. Love ROCKS!

#32

YogiAdam- Really it all boils down to one very important question, “Is Fosters really Australian for beer?” LOL!!!

#33

[QUOTE=lotusgirl;34237]YogiAdam- Really it all boils down to one very important question, “Is Fosters really Australian for beer?” LOL!!![/QUOTE]

It is, but we don’t drink it. Or though, I saw Ricky Gervais drinking it on his stand up DVD, so I think I might have to give it a go. I think I remember grown-ups at BBQs drinking it in the 80s lol.

#34

[QUOTE=lotusgirl;34237]YogiAdam- Really it all boils down to one very important question, “Is Fosters really Australian for beer?” LOL!!![/QUOTE]

Ahhhh! Fosters. It’s not just for breakfast anymore.