Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Dhamma discussion

andybarnes67
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2011 5:31:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Andy Barnes - moderator
Dhamma Discussion
A group for the serious student of the Buddhist Dhamma.
There are many good and active groups for the student of the dhamma. This group will differ from most in our concentration on one excerpt of text per week. In this way, it is hoped that a deeper understanding of the text may develop.
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com...
Andy Barnes - moderator
Dhamma Discussion

A group for the serious student of the Buddhist Dhamma.
There are many good and active groups for the student of the dhamma. This group will differ from most in our concentration on one excerpt of text per week. In this way, it is hoped that a deeper understanding of the text may develop.
http://www.facebook.com...
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2011 11:56:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This seems to equate to nothing more than desperate attempt to precipitate the growth of a board discussion.

Is that the reason you joined here to advertise another forum board?
andybarnes67
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2011 1:50:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/27/2011 11:56:23 AM, Gileandos wrote:
This seems to equate to nothing more than desperate attempt to precipitate the growth of a board discussion.

Is that the reason you joined here to advertise another forum board?

Not at all. You'll notice that post is identical to my signature. The only way I could find to edit my signature was on the 'post' screen. I then hit the post button by mistake when reviewing. I now can't delete it. Sorry
Perhaps you'd like to discuss buddhadhamma here? :-)
Andy Barnes - moderator
Dhamma Discussion

A group for the serious student of the Buddhist Dhamma.
There are many good and active groups for the student of the dhamma. This group will differ from most in our concentration on one excerpt of text per week. In this way, it is hoped that a deeper understanding of the text may develop.
http://www.facebook.com...
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 3:50:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are 60,000 different viewpionts on dharma.
It is not a mainstream discussion here for a reason.

One of the key aspects to 'Truth' is its low viscosity.

Christianity's veracity is born out as it has maintained a completely consistent, large and coherent core against all thoughts or viewpoints. It defeats all comers consistently.

Dharma is so viscous, if someone sneezes while in the same room, you will believe something else.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 4:14:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 3:50:01 PM, Gileandos wrote:
There are 60,000 different viewpionts on dharma.

False. Everyone unanimously agrees that Dharma in the Buddhist religion means truth/doctrine of the Buddha.

dharma with a lower case "d" is a word used in Buddhism which means "phenomenon or constituants of human experience as well as the entire material and physical world."

It is not a mainstream discussion here for a reason.

And what reason is that?

One of the key aspects to 'Truth' is its low viscosity.

Christianity's veracity is born out as it has maintained a completely consistent,

Consistant? You must be joking. Christianity is the last thing to be called consistent.

large and coherent core against all thoughts or viewpoints.

Coherent? Again, not so. Trinity?

It defeats all comers consistently.

False.

Dharma is so viscous, if someone sneezes while in the same room, you will believe something else.

False. BuddhaDharma is immovable, unchanging.

.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
andybarnes67
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 5:04:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 3:50:01 PM, Gileandos wrote:
There are 60,000 different viewpionts on dharma.
It is not a mainstream discussion here for a reason.

One of the key aspects to 'Truth' is its low viscosity.

Christianity's veracity is born out as it has maintained a completely consistent, large and coherent core against all thoughts or viewpoints. It defeats all comers consistently.

Dharma is so viscous, if someone sneezes while in the same room, you will believe something else.

The buddhardhamma doesn't urge belief. It urges investigation and experience. Having investigated and experienced the teachings the path unfolds for each individual.
This is why many that do follow the path debate whether it is really accuratell it a 'religion' at all. Many cultures do follow 'religiously' but I personally regard it as philosophy and psychology

If someone sneezes in a room, I will believe that someone has sneezed!

It is, to my mind, disrespectful to your own religion to seek to defend its view by attack on the other.
I have no interest in trying to prove my understanding of the dhamma in comparison with anothers religion.they have no relevance to each other. That is for another board, I suggest.

A very happy new year to all.
Andy
Andy Barnes - moderator
Dhamma Discussion

A group for the serious student of the Buddhist Dhamma.
There are many good and active groups for the student of the dhamma. This group will differ from most in our concentration on one excerpt of text per week. In this way, it is hoped that a deeper understanding of the text may develop.
http://www.facebook.com...
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 1:16:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 5:04:07 AM, andybarnes67 wrote:
At 12/30/2011 3:50:01 PM, Gileandos wrote:
There are 60,000 different viewpionts on dharma.
It is not a mainstream discussion here for a reason.

One of the key aspects to 'Truth' is its low viscosity.

Christianity's veracity is born out as it has maintained a completely consistent, large and coherent core against all thoughts or viewpoints. It defeats all comers consistently.

Dharma is so viscous, if someone sneezes while in the same room, you will believe something else.

The buddhardhamma doesn't urge belief. It urges investigation and experience. Having investigated and experienced the teachings the path unfolds for each individual.
This is why many that do follow the path debate whether it is really accuratell it a 'religion' at all. Many cultures do follow 'religiously' but I personally regard it as philosophy and psychology

If someone sneezes in a room, I will believe that someone has sneezed!

It is, to my mind, disrespectful to your own religion to seek to defend its view by attack on the other.
I have no interest in trying to prove my understanding of the dhamma in comparison with anothers religion.they have no relevance to each other. That is for another board, I suggest.

A very happy new year to all.
Andy

So you admit that entire countries follow dharma religiously but your personal viewpoint on dharma is not like theirs.....
and this detracts from the "problem of dharma" how? I already stated the increased air pressure in the room can cause the belief of something else. The entire approach is subjective rather than objective.

This is not an attack but clearly pointing out a flaw with the philosophy as you put it. I do not do cocaine for nearly the same reason.

What value is their to prescribe to a philosophy that causes me to behave as though I am on cocaine?

I prefer a viewpoint the espouses Truth transcendent of me.

Now every viewpoint save a couple espouses the fact that you are to inquire and investigate. To ask the Big Questions and seek out the answers.

The difference with Christianity is the recognition we are on the level of cockroaches in the cosmos and that it is a superior path to seek out God, the creator and transcendent compass that is good, for those Answers.

***
Please do not take my response as flippant or an offense. Dharma has an obvious problem and why most here to do not bother the discuss anything with a Hindu for very long.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 1:26:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 4:14:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/30/2011 3:50:01 PM, Gileandos wrote:
There are 60,000 different viewpionts on dharma.

False. Everyone unanimously agrees that Dharma in the Buddhist religion means truth/doctrine of the Buddha.

dharma with a lower case "d" is a word used in Buddhism which means "phenomenon or constituants of human experience as well as the entire material and physical world."

It is not a mainstream discussion here for a reason.

And what reason is that?

One of the key aspects to 'Truth' is its low viscosity.

Christianity's veracity is born out as it has maintained a completely consistent,

Consistant? You must be joking. Christianity is the last thing to be called consistent.

large and coherent core against all thoughts or viewpoints.

Coherent? Again, not so. Trinity?

It defeats all comers consistently.

False.

Dharma is so viscous, if someone sneezes while in the same room, you will believe something else.

False. BuddhaDharma is immovable, unchanging.


Please respond to this as a whole and not in bits and pieces.

I want to point out, not to be mean, but to cause you to question the veracity of your claims, that your definition of even english words is different than everybody elses.

I do not want to discuss what you think the definition of Dharma is.

You are also dishonest to call Christianity inconsistent. It is hands down the most conistent viewpoint and has resisted change. It has a self correcting process.
Crazies come and go. Christianity so failed to change at each instance, these crazies have to create their own churches, which historically have done little and died.

Remember Muhammad came to the Christians first and tried to get them to embrace his new teachings.
That failed.
Mormons. JW's all try to create an error of acceptance and brotherhood.

It continues to fail.

The American Episcopal church embraces Gays, the church declines every day, with rejections from ministerial boards etc...

Every viewpoint has attacks from outside philosophies. When I say attacks I do not mean malicious intent necessarily, but attempts to change Christianities core beliefs.

It remains obvious it is transcendent as this quality remains.

Very few other viewpoints can claim this stability. Dharma as a philosophy is not one of them.

Especially the above original posters self contradictory definition.
andybarnes67
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 3:46:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 1:16:05 PM, Gileandos wrote:

So you admit that entire countries follow dharma religiously but your personal viewpoint on dharma is not like theirs.....

Incorrect. There is no difference in the accepted dhamma between all the schools of Buddhism. I stated that Buddhism is, in some countries, followed religiously. Buddhism and not the same. I suggest you check your definitionst to avoid embarrassment.

The entire approach is subjective rather than objective.

Again, definition.... All belief and thought is subjective, including Christianity. By it's very nature, all except empirically provable fact is subjective.

I prefer a viewpoint the espouses Truth transcendent of me.

No problem. I'm pleased you have a belief that speaks to you.
This thread wasn't created for the purpose of comparing one system of belief to another (or philosophy of...).
It was created to discuss a subject. I'm not interested in discussing the gospels, for instance. So I don't enter a board discussion about the gospels. Simple. I certainly don't jump in to announce that I don't believe in them. This serves no purpose except to cause disruption to those that do and want to discuss their finer points.

Please do not take my response as flippant or an offense. Dharma has an obvious problem and why most here to do not bother the discuss anything with a Hindu for very long.

Suggest that your zeal to speak against any belief that isn't your own is so foremost that you forget which religion it is you are meant to be so interested in discussing! I'm not Hindu and the thread is not about Hinduism. Perhaps this doesnyou as we are 'other'!

Andy
Andy Barnes - moderator
Dhamma Discussion

A group for the serious student of the Buddhist Dhamma.
There are many good and active groups for the student of the dhamma. This group will differ from most in our concentration on one excerpt of text per week. In this way, it is hoped that a deeper understanding of the text may develop.
http://www.facebook.com...
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:22:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 3:46:46 PM, andybarnes67 wrote:
At 1/1/2012 1:16:05 PM, Gileandos wrote:

So you admit that entire countries follow dharma religiously but your personal viewpoint on dharma is not like theirs.....

Incorrect. There is no difference in the accepted dhamma between all the schools of Buddhism. I stated that Buddhism is, in some countries, followed religiously. Buddhism and not the same. I suggest you check your definitionst to avoid embarrassment.

The entire approach is subjective rather than objective.

Again, definition.... All belief and thought is subjective, including Christianity. By it's very nature, all except empirically provable fact is subjective.

I prefer a viewpoint the espouses Truth transcendent of me.

No problem. I'm pleased you have a belief that speaks to you.
This thread wasn't created for the purpose of comparing one system of belief to another (or philosophy of...).
It was created to discuss a subject. I'm not interested in discussing the gospels, for instance. So I don't enter a board discussion about the gospels. Simple. I certainly don't jump in to announce that I don't believe in them. This serves no purpose except to cause disruption to those that do and want to discuss their finer points.

Please do not take my response as flippant or an offense. Dharma has an obvious problem and why most here to do not bother the discuss anything with a Hindu for very long.

Suggest that your zeal to speak against any belief that isn't your own is so foremost that you forget which religion it is you are meant to be so interested in discussing! I'm not Hindu and the thread is not about Hinduism. Perhaps this doesnyou as we are 'other'!

Andy

Please do not respond to this post in bits and pieces. Thank you.

Pointing out that you are asserting the "BUDDHIST" version of dharma again only underscores my point.

To state that BUDDHISTS are consistent on their belief does not detract from my original statement.

It is well known that Buddhism is a subset of Hinduism. It is disingenuous to claim I do not know my definitions. You are deliberately being obtuse or NOT very knowledgable about religious classifications.

The fact that your first response you claimed this forum post was merely to adjust your signature and just 3 posts later you claim this forum was for discussion, has given me doubts I could have a coherent discussion with you. You seem to be so unable to follow your own talking points within a few short posts.

***
Dharma is a part of Hinduism and its subsets. Sikhism, Janiasm and Buddhism as well.
The fact that no consistent definition is settled on is a HUGE detractor to my mind.

If you claim that Buddhists all agree on their particular definition.... I will say ok. I do not particularly care about your anecdotal statements.

That is not to say a skepticism is not warranted as a viewpoint concerning spiritual things as Buddha taught.
No one would disagree with Buddha's Kalama Discorse.

Christianity has always asserted a "question bag" as we call it.
Or as Paul taught us to Test all things.
1 Thess
19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not despise prophecies. 21 Test all things; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil.

Discussing what you view this life philosphy to be applied amounts to a sunday morning sermon.
How long would anyone last here on a forum preaching?
Or do you just want to discuss your definition of Dharma as a superior one?

Even though I will point out Buddha rejected Dharma as a philosophy, which you then above claimed it was your philosophy.

Such obvious contradictions occur whenever I discuss anything with a Buddhist.
They all use nonesensical statements, that granted may mean something to them personally, are just underwater when hitting the ears of the rest of the world.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 2:54:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 9:22:00 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Pointing out that you are asserting the "BUDDHIST" version of dharma again only underscores my point.

To state that BUDDHISTS are consistent on their belief does not detract from my original statement.

It is well known that Buddhism is a subset of Hinduism.

Absolutely and utterly FALSE. If you seriously assert that, let's debate it. The Buddha rejected all of the central tenets of Hinduism. The Hindus and the Jains viewed Buddha like Christians view Christopher Hitchens.

You wouldn't say Christopher Hitchens is a Christian because he came from a Christian society would you? No. Neither would you say Buddha is Hindu because he came from a predominantly Hindu society.

Dharma is a part of Hinduism and its subsets. Sikhism, Janiasm and Buddhism as well.
The fact that no consistent definition is settled on is a HUGE detractor to my mind.

Wow. You have no clue about anything. Just because several of those Eastern religions use the word "dharma" doesn't mean anything. The word "dharma" is like the word "doctrine," "theology," or "truth." Christians have a doctrine, Jews have a doctrine, Muslims have a doctrine, but you don't start saying that "oh there is no consistent definition of 'theology' because Muslims, Christians, and Jews use that word."

There's Buddha Dharma, Hindu Dharma, etc. Just like Christian doctrine, Islamic doctrine.

If you claim that Buddhists all agree on their particular definition.... I will say ok. I do not particularly care about your anecdotal statements.

"The Dhamma of the Buddha denotes both his teachings and the direct experience of nibbāna, the quality at which those teachings are aimed."
-- http://www.accesstoinsight.org...

That is not to say a skepticism is not warranted as a viewpoint concerning spiritual things as Buddha taught.
No one would disagree with Buddha's Kalama Discorse.

That discourse is not about skepticism, it's about proper epistemology.

Christianity has always asserted a "question bag" as we call it.
Or as Paul taught us to Test all things.
1 Thess
19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not despise prophecies. 21 Test all things; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil.

Yes, a great verse indeed.

Discussing what you view this life philosphy to be applied amounts to a sunday morning sermon.
How long would anyone last here on a forum preaching?

I preach all the time.

Or do you just want to discuss your definition of Dharma as a superior one?

Even though I will point out Buddha rejected Dharma as a philosophy,

You have no understanding of this word. Dharma is not a specific philosophy. The Buddha did not reject Dharma, in fact he claimed to be the Dharmakaya, the living embodiment of Dharma just as Jesus Christ is the living Word, the Word made flesh. Same concept.

Such obvious contradictions occur whenever I discuss anything with a Buddhist.
They all use nonesensical statements, that granted may mean something to them personally, are just underwater when hitting the ears of the rest of the world.

Do not blame Buddhism for the actions of Buddhists. In fact, I am in agreement with you as far as Buddhists go. There are not many Buddhists who are not doctrinally correct and have shallow understanding of Buddhism, thus giving you hazy, unclear, and contradictory answers. However, this point doesn't detract from Buddhism itself just like Christian extremists and the Crusades don't make Christianity any less true.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 9:50:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 2:54:15 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:22:00 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Pointing out that you are asserting the "BUDDHIST" version of dharma again only underscores my point.

To state that BUDDHISTS are consistent on their belief does not detract from my original statement.

It is well known that Buddhism is a subset of Hinduism.

Absolutely and utterly FALSE. If you seriously assert that, let's debate it. The Buddha rejected all of the central tenets of Hinduism. The Hindus and the Jains viewed Buddha like Christians view Christopher Hitchens.

You wouldn't say Christopher Hitchens is a Christian because he came from a Christian society would you? No. Neither would you say Buddha is Hindu because he came from a predominantly Hindu society.

Dharma is a part of Hinduism and its subsets. Sikhism, Janiasm and Buddhism as well.
The fact that no consistent definition is settled on is a HUGE detractor to my mind.

Wow. You have no clue about anything. Just because several of those Eastern religions use the word "dharma" doesn't mean anything. The word "dharma" is like the word "doctrine," "theology," or "truth." Christians have a doctrine, Jews have a doctrine, Muslims have a doctrine, but you don't start saying that "oh there is no consistent definition of 'theology' because Muslims, Christians, and Jews use that word."

There's Buddha Dharma, Hindu Dharma, etc. Just like Christian doctrine, Islamic doctrine.

If you claim that Buddhists all agree on their particular definition.... I will say ok. I do not particularly care about your anecdotal statements.

"The Dhamma of the Buddha denotes both his teachings and the direct experience of nibbāna, the quality at which those teachings are aimed."
-- http://www.accesstoinsight.org...

That is not to say a skepticism is not warranted as a viewpoint concerning spiritual things as Buddha taught.
No one would disagree with Buddha's Kalama Discorse.

That discourse is not about skepticism, it's about proper epistemology.

Christianity has always asserted a "question bag" as we call it.
Or as Paul taught us to Test all things.
1 Thess
19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not despise prophecies. 21 Test all things; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil.

Yes, a great verse indeed.

Discussing what you view this life philosphy to be applied amounts to a sunday morning sermon.
How long would anyone last here on a forum preaching?

I preach all the time.

Or do you just want to discuss your definition of Dharma as a superior one?

Even though I will point out Buddha rejected Dharma as a philosophy,

You have no understanding of this word. Dharma is not a specific philosophy. The Buddha did not reject Dharma, in fact he claimed to be the Dharmakaya, the living embodiment of Dharma just as Jesus Christ is the living Word, the Word made flesh. Same concept.

Such obvious contradictions occur whenever I discuss anything with a Buddhist.
They all use nonesensical statements, that granted may mean something to them personally, are just underwater when hitting the ears of the rest of the world.

Do not blame Buddhism for the actions of Buddhists. In fact, I am in agreement with you as far as Buddhists go. There are not many Buddhists who are not doctrinally correct and have shallow understanding of Buddhism, thus giving you hazy, unclear, and contradictory answers. However, this point doesn't detract from Buddhism itself just like Christian extremists and the Crusades don't make Christianity any less true.

Please respond to this post as a whole and not in bits a pieces.

I am unaware of any discussion where theology is not defined the same by everyone that matters.
That analogy would be effective if indeed there was a discussion about the definition of Theology.
However, there is not a large discussion on the varying definition of Theology.

As to Buddhism being Hinduism.
You cannot claim it is blatantly false. You can state it is not your view, or it is a large misconception.

If I am confused as to the source of Buddhism then nearly everyone but you here are also confused. If the large majority are confused, the burden of proof rests on you to verify your assertion.
If you look up Buddhism you cannot get around its roots in Hinduism.

Hindu's claim Siddharta Guatma as the incarnation of Vishnu.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Hindu's claim Buddhism as a sect.
http://www.sanatansociety.org...

Buddha's willingly admit it is a refining of Hinduism but are certian to claim disctinction.
http://hinduism.about.com...

***
Do not get mad at me for the ambiguity in the situation. You cannot rail at me or get mad at me for pointing out the clear connection from a western viewpoint.

Christianity and Judaism does not have this problem.
Yes Christianity is Judaism in a fulfilled messianic sense.

However, Christianity seperated from Judaism and the Jews agreed. Neither owns the other, though we all understand Christianity is Messianic Judaism fulfilled. No theologian would argue with you.

That is not the case with Buddhism. Hinduism "claims" Buddhism as a sect of itself. This creates something that is very different and allows me to make such statements not matter how hard Buddhists want to seperate from Hinduism.

***
Actions of Buddhists.
If you said, do not blame Buddhism by the actions of its lay believers. I would agree with you.
If you said, do not blame Buddhism by the 'one-offs' or cultish/deviant beliefs. I would again agree with you.

The problem I have is when I read the Bhuddist priests or monks or bhikkhu, they are the people with contradictory teachings and nonsensical drivel.

That is not a problem inherent in Christianity. The Priests are consistent on core doctrines, even on fringe beliefs they largely agree.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 2:02:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 9:50:23 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/2/2012 2:54:15 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:22:00 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Pointing out that you are asserting the "BUDDHIST" version of dharma again only underscores my point.

To state that BUDDHISTS are consistent on their belief does not detract from my original statement.

It is well known that Buddhism is a subset of Hinduism.

Absolutely and utterly FALSE. If you seriously assert that, let's debate it. The Buddha rejected all of the central tenets of Hinduism. The Hindus and the Jains viewed Buddha like Christians view Christopher Hitchens.

You wouldn't say Christopher Hitchens is a Christian because he came from a Christian society would you? No. Neither would you say Buddha is Hindu because he came from a predominantly Hindu society.

Dharma is a part of Hinduism and its subsets. Sikhism, Janiasm and Buddhism as well.
The fact that no consistent definition is settled on is a HUGE detractor to my mind.

Wow. You have no clue about anything. Just because several of those Eastern religions use the word "dharma" doesn't mean anything. The word "dharma" is like the word "doctrine," "theology," or "truth." Christians have a doctrine, Jews have a doctrine, Muslims have a doctrine, but you don't start saying that "oh there is no consistent definition of 'theology' because Muslims, Christians, and Jews use that word."

There's Buddha Dharma, Hindu Dharma, etc. Just like Christian doctrine, Islamic doctrine.

If you claim that Buddhists all agree on their particular definition.... I will say ok. I do not particularly care about your anecdotal statements.

"The Dhamma of the Buddha denotes both his teachings and the direct experience of nibbāna, the quality at which those teachings are aimed."
-- http://www.accesstoinsight.org...

That is not to say a skepticism is not warranted as a viewpoint concerning spiritual things as Buddha taught.
No one would disagree with Buddha's Kalama Discorse.

That discourse is not about skepticism, it's about proper epistemology.

Christianity has always asserted a "question bag" as we call it.
Or as Paul taught us to Test all things.
1 Thess
19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not despise prophecies. 21 Test all things; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil.

Yes, a great verse indeed.

Discussing what you view this life philosphy to be applied amounts to a sunday morning sermon.
How long would anyone last here on a forum preaching?

I preach all the time.

Or do you just want to discuss your definition of Dharma as a superior one?

Even though I will point out Buddha rejected Dharma as a philosophy,

You have no understanding of this word. Dharma is not a specific philosophy. The Buddha did not reject Dharma, in fact he claimed to be the Dharmakaya, the living embodiment of Dharma just as Jesus Christ is the living Word, the Word made flesh. Same concept.

Such obvious contradictions occur whenever I discuss anything with a Buddhist.
They all use nonesensical statements, that granted may mean something to them personally, are just underwater when hitting the ears of the rest of the world.

Do not blame Buddhism for the actions of Buddhists. In fact, I am in agreement with you as far as Buddhists go. There are not many Buddhists who are not doctrinally correct and have shallow understanding of Buddhism, thus giving you hazy, unclear, and contradictory answers. However, this point doesn't detract from Buddhism itself just like Christian extremists and the Crusades don't make Christianity any less true.

Please respond to this post as a whole and not in bits a pieces.

I am unaware of any discussion where theology is not defined the same by everyone that matters.
That analogy would be effective if indeed there was a discussion about the definition of Theology.
However, there is not a large discussion on the varying definition of Theology.



As to Buddhism being Hinduism.
You cannot claim it is blatantly false. You can state it is not your view, or it is a large misconception.

If I am confused as to the source of Buddhism then nearly everyone but you here are also confused. If the large majority are confused, the burden of proof rests on you to verify your assertion.
If you look up Buddhism you cannot get around its roots in Hinduism.

Hindu's claim Siddharta Guatma as the incarnation of Vishnu.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Hindu's claim Buddhism as a sect.
http://www.sanatansociety.org...

Buddha's willingly admit it is a refining of Hinduism but are certian to claim disctinction.
http://hinduism.about.com...

***
Do not get mad at me for the ambiguity in the situation. You cannot rail at me or get mad at me for pointing out the clear connection from a western viewpoint.

Christianity and Judaism does not have this problem.
Yes Christianity is Judaism in a fulfilled messianic sense.

However, Christianity seperated from Judaism and the Jews agreed. Neither owns the other, though we all understand Christianity is Messianic Judaism fulfilled. No theologian would argue with you.

That is not the case with Buddhism. Hinduism "claims" Buddhism as a sect of itself. This creates something that is very different and allows me to make such statements not matter how hard Buddhists want to seperate from Hinduism.

***
Actions of Buddhists.
If you said, do not blame Buddhism by the actions of its lay believers. I would agree with you.
If you said, do not blame Buddhism by the 'one-offs' or cultish/deviant beliefs. I would again agree with you.

The problem I have is when I read the Bhuddist priests or monks or bhikkhu, they are the people with contradictory teachings and nonsensical drivel.

That is not a problem inherent in Christianity. The Priests are consistent on core doctrines, even on fringe beliefs they largely agree.

The core tenents of Hinduism center on worshipping a pantheon of anthropomorphic gods for material benefits while enforcing a highly-structured society based on destroying social-mobility and preserving inequality. Buddhism and Sikhism explicity reject these principles; there is no specific God in Buddhism while Sikhism is a monotheistic religion, and both Buddhism and Sikhism advocate human equality. Geo is correct; claiming that Sikhism and Buddhism are sects of Hinduism just because their founders were born Hindu is like claiming that Christians are Jews because Jesus was a Jew. Also, do not be fooled by Hindu claims to the contrary; throughout history, Hindu nationalists have attempted to subsume every religion into their doctrine. Buddhism was violently eradicated in India by nationalist Hindus, Sikhism is under a similar attack today (1984 riots and Operation Bluestar), while Jainism was consumed by Hinduism very quickly. Many Hindus claim that all religions are simply extensions of their own; some have even attempted to claim that Judaism and Christianity are simply mutated forms of Hinduism.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 5:26:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 2:02:45 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

The core tenents of Hinduism center on worshipping a pantheon of anthropomorphic gods for material benefits while enforcing a highly-structured society based on destroying social-mobility and preserving inequality. Buddhism and Sikhism explicity reject these principles; there is no specific God in Buddhism while Sikhism is a monotheistic religion, and both Buddhism and Sikhism advocate human equality. Geo is correct; claiming that Sikhism and Buddhism are sects of Hinduism just because their founders were born Hindu is like claiming that Christians are Jews because Jesus was a Jew. Also, do not be fooled by Hindu claims to the contrary; throughout history, Hindu nationalists have attempted to subsume every religion into their doctrine. Buddhism was violently eradicated in India by nationalist Hindus, Sikhism is under a similar attack today (1984 riots and Operation Bluestar), while Jainism was consumed by Hinduism very quickly. Many Hindus claim that all religions are simply extensions of their own; some have even attempted to claim that Judaism and Christianity are simply mutated forms of Hinduism.

Even if all of your claims are correct, getting mad at me or not being able to address a world oriented confusion is not helpfull.

I realize that Hindu's do claim all religions in one sense, in that they believe all religions are true but their claim of Buddhism is different and not "unwarranted".

It is a very strong claim and has evidence asserted.

You can certainly claim Christianity is Judaism. You would be correct to do so.
You link Jesus to Judaism not by birth but by ministry. He taught and converted using the same Jewish Concepts.

Buddha did the same thing. He reinvented, or reinvigorated or "corrected" Hinduism. He did not establish his own in that sense.

Becoming distinct and starting distinct is quite different.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 10:34:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 9:50:23 AM, Gileandos wrote:
As to Buddhism being Hinduism.
You cannot claim it is blatantly false. You can state it is not your view, or it is a large misconception.

If I am confused as to the source of Buddhism then nearly everyone but you here are also confused. If the large majority are confused, the burden of proof rests on you to verify your assertion.

Except I'm the Buddhist who has read extensively on Buddhism, attended lectures by Zen Masters, own Buddhist literature and sutras, have read and analyzed scripture instead of base my knowledge of Buddhism on About.com

If you look up Buddhism you cannot get around its roots in Hinduism.

Hindu's claim Siddharta Guatma as the incarnation of Vishnu.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Hindu's claim Buddhism as a sect.
http://www.sanatansociety.org...

Yeah, that's BS. Of course Hinduism will try to claim one of the world's great religions as it's own. Don't ask an opponent of Buddhism to define Buddhism, ask the founder of Buddhism to define it. The Baha'i faith claims that Jesus is one of their divine prophets, but the Christian religion rejects the Baha'i faith as a false religion making a false claim.

Also, even Hindu texts themselves are anti-Buddha:

"Some Hindu texts say that the Buddha was an avatar of the god Vishnu, who came to Earth to delude beings away from the Vedic religion."
-- http://en.wikipedia.org...

Buddha's willingly admit it is a refining of Hinduism but are certian to claim disctinction.
http://hinduism.about.com...

False. Buddha admitted NO such thing. From your own article contained in your link:

"He [Buddha] was awakened with a new enlightenment only to denounce Hinduism and emerge as the founder of a new religion."

Do you want to see what the Buddha himself said about Hinduism? Look no further:

"The talk of these Brahmins learned in the Three Vedas turns out to be laughable, mere words, empty and vain."
-- the Buddha [Tevijja Sutta]

There you have it, end of discussion. Straight from the Buddha himself.

*Brahmin = Hindu priest/guru/philosopher
*Vedas = Hindu scripture

Do not get mad at me for the ambiguity in the situation. You cannot rail at me or get mad at me for pointing out the clear connection from a western viewpoint.

Christianity and Judaism does not have this problem.
Yes Christianity is Judaism in a fulfilled messianic sense.

However, Christianity seperated from Judaism and the Jews agreed. Neither owns the other, though we all understand Christianity is Messianic Judaism fulfilled. No theologian would argue with you.

That is not the case with Buddhism. Hinduism "claims" Buddhism as a sect of itself. This creates something that is very different and allows me to make such statements not matter how hard Buddhists want to seperate from Hinduism.

***
Actions of Buddhists.
If you said, do not blame Buddhism by the actions of its lay believers. I would agree with you.
If you said, do not blame Buddhism by the 'one-offs' or cultish/deviant beliefs. I would again agree with you.

The problem I have is when I read the Bhuddist priests or monks or bhikkhu, they are the people with contradictory teachings and nonsensical drivel.

The situation is not ambiguous, it's blatantly and clearly established that the Buddha rejected Hinduism entirely. He was never a Hindu, he was shielded from the Hindu religion growing up.

Regarding Buddhist monks being contradictory, show me such an example. DT Suzuki, the Dalai Lama, Buddhagosa, Nagarjuna, Bodhidharma, etc. are all in agreement about Buddhism and do not have contradictory teachings except perhaps in a few minor, insignificant nuances.

That is not a problem inherent in Christianity. The Priests are consistent on core doctrines, even on fringe beliefs they largely agree.

Of all the bikkhus, Zen Masters, and Lamas that I've seen they all seem consistent with eachother, especially on the core issues.

Look at Martin Luther, look at Calvinism, look at Catholic priests, look at Kent Hovind, look at William Lane Craig. These guys certainly have fundamental disagreements about Christianity.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 10:48:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@Geo,
Please do not pick apart my posts. By addressing each line you did not see how your complain/response was answered two or three lines below.

I have to repeat myself entirely too much.

I laughed @ your comment at About.com. It only validates my point that there is mass confussion in the western realm.

Bahai though yes claims Jesus, nothing about it is connected to actual Christianity but their claim.

This is different as Hinduism came first, Buddha was a Hindu and Hindu's claim him as the incarnation of Vishnu.

So if there is confusion that the two are quite linked do not get angry about it. Do not expect me to make your distinctions.

I have no problem repeating to an indoctrinated mormon as to why he is not actually a Christian.
I do not get mad at him and rant.

Mormons and JW's have a link to Christianity stronger than the Bahai' in that the originators could once claim Christianity. This is not made worse as Christianity, the much older, rejects them rather than claiming them.

In Hinduism this is different as the older does not reject the younger but embraces it.

So we see that the reality is troublesome to the Buddhist belief system and not those of us over here in the west that are woefully unable to see your distinction for ourselves.

As to the coherent core doctrines.
Give me the most profound teaching of Buddha that you feel "changed your life" or gave you an awakening or an epiphany etc..
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 11:59:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@Gileandos

The Buddha was NOT a Hindu. If anyone has to repeat things, it's me. I've read and responded directly to all your points. You seem to be overlooking mine. I already demonstrated that the Buddha was not a Hindu yet you overlooked it and still claimed he is a Hindu. The Buddha is NOT a Hindu. I have shown evidence, you have shown none. Hindu propaganda written by biased Hindus is not evidence. The About.com article was written by a Hindu and so were the Hindu websites.

My evidence about Buddhism comes from objective sources and the Buddhist founder himself. Who better to describe Buddhism than the Buddha himself? Some modern Hindu does not have the right to say what Buddhism is and is not. The BUDDHA has the say what Buddhism is.

"King Suddhodana, wishing for his son [Buddha] to be a great king, is said to have shielded him from religious teachings"
-- http://en.wikipedia.org...

And when the Buddha got older he said:

"The talk of these Brahmins learned in the Three Vedas turns out to be laughable, mere words, empty and vain."
-- the Buddha [Tevijja Sutta]

^^
That's coming straight from the Buddha. No source, no Hindu, and no About.com can counter this.

Just because the West is incompetent in understanding the distinction doesn't mean anything. An Asian might not be familiar with the difference between Protestantism from Catholicism, from Mormonism or from Jehova Witness.

Regarding the teachings of the Buddha that I find to be profound, it's difficult to give you a couple sentences of Buddha's teaching and say this is the teaching that gave me an epiphany. The philosophy taken as a whole is profound to me.

But here's some of the specific teachings I find to be profound:

- The transcience of all phenomena.
- Universal Mind.
- Non-self.
- Dependent arising.
- 5 aggregate phenomenology.
- Tetralemma logic.
- Two Truth doctrine.
- Voidness.
- Enlightenment and self-improvement as a goal.
- The notion that language and words are not an accurate representation of reality, but rather merely symbolic of what's true and real. Many times the symbol is mistaken for the truth.

Notable quotes:

"Thus you should go about self-governed, mindful; governed by the cosmos, masterful, absorbed in concentration; governed by the Dhamma, acting in line with the Dhamma."
-- the Buddha [Adhipateyya Sutta]

"Every drop of water is the ocean, but each individual drop does not know this truth!"
-- the Buddha

"The world, indeed, is like a dream and the treasures of the world are an alluring mirage! Like the apparent distances in a picture, things have no reality in themselves, but they are like heat haze."
-- the Buddha [Lankavatara Sutra]

"He who experiences the unity of life sees his own Self in all beings, and all beings in his own Self, and looks on everything with an impartial eye."
-- the Buddha

"Oneself, indeed, is one's savior, for what other savior could there be? With oneself well-controlled one obtains a savior difficult to find."
-- the Buddha [Dhammapada 160]

"Gripped by fear people go to sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines."
-- the Buddha [Dhammapada 188]
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 10:49:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
@Geo,
Thank you for replying to my post as a whole. It is easier for me.

As to Buddha being a Hindu/not….
He left his father's shelter, wife and son at the age of 29.

If there is confusion I have countless sources reiterating that Buddha was raised in a Hindu family to the age of 29. I have not one before wikipedia that has claimed he was not taught Hinduism. I however, hold little regard for wikipedia, though I have no problem with you citing it. You will notice also that wikipedia does not cite a source for that claim.

Do you have a direct quote where Buddha claims he was never a Hindu?
Can you also show this document was indeed Buddha?

I also find it hard to believe that Hinduism had so little an influence upon him, even though he rejected Hinduism for the same reasons I would, that the creation of Buddhism is still not directly attributed to anti-Hinduism or reformation of Hinduism.

It uses and addresses all of the same conceptualism.

***
Thank you for your feedback on what has impacted you from Buddhism.
Quite a few of them I am only topically familiar with.

I will review them.