Atheistforums

Extraordinary Claims => Religion General Discussion => Hinduism and Buddhism => Topic started by: Solitary on August 21, 2015, 04:53:29 PM

Title: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: Solitary on August 21, 2015, 04:53:29 PM
http://atheism.about.com/b/2009/05/28/whats-wrong-with-buddhism.htm?utm_content=20150821&utm_medium=email&utm_source=exp_nl&utm_campaign=list_atheism&utm_term=list_atheism

Although Buddhism seems so different from religions like Christianity and Islam that it doesn't look like it should be in the same category, it still shares with other religions a very basic element: a belief that the universe is in some fashion set up for our sake -- or at least set up in a manner conducive to our needs. In Christianity this is more obvious with the belief in a god that supposedly created the universe for our benefit. In Buddhism, it is expressed in the belief that there are cosmic laws that exist solely to process our "karma" and make it possible for us to "advance" in some fashion.

This is one of the most fundamental problems with religions -- pretty much all religions. Although it's more of a problem in some and less of a problem in others, it's still a fairly consistent problem that people are falsely taught that there is something in or above the universe that has picked them out for special protection and consideration. Our existence is a product of luck, not divine intervention, and any improvements we achieve will be due to our own hard work, not cosmic process or karma.

This is based on the various schools of Buddhism that have been corrupted by other religions, His original and ideas in later life to not support this in any way.  Buddha never thought he was divinely inspired, or thought he was a god. In fact, he never believed in the divine period. He never believed in Karma or any other magical thing. His was just a philosophy of life, almost identical to Schopenhauer's. I have had terrific arguments from modern Buddhist that claim the Western mind cannot understand Buddhism. I take this as a compliment. The modern schools are nothing like what he taught, in the beginning of his life or later before he died from eating poison mushrooms. This criticism is based on Hinduism, not the original teachings of Buddha himself.  Why is it seem that everyone has to make everything divine when it isn't?   :wall:
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: peacewithoutgod on August 21, 2015, 05:35:08 PM
Buddhism is a lot of things different from the Abrahamic religions, so what the fuck and la de dah? On bullshit, it is not arguably any less. On that, this forum really needs to add a bullshit-shoveling smiley. :toilet:
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: aitm on August 21, 2015, 06:28:17 PM
Buddism, like religion, is the belief that man can be far more than he is. It is in all aspects, preferable to religion, but still nonetheless…hokum.
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: Shiranu on August 21, 2015, 06:33:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Buddism, like religion, is the belief that man can be far more than he is. It is in all aspects, preferable to religion, but still nonetheless…hokum.

This is where I make a terrible atheist; that is a bad thing... how?
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: peacewithoutgod on August 21, 2015, 06:55:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Buddism, like religion, is the belief that man can be far more than he is. It is in all aspects, preferable to religion, but still nonetheless…hokum.
Ok, since when was Buddhism not a religion? The absence of deities isn't even 100% true with all forms of it, and they all have plenty of woo-woo to go around.
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: Baruch on August 21, 2015, 07:44:43 PM
Like any old sophisticated cultural item, Buddhism is not just one thing, but a whole family of things.  Which version one is talking about, is important.  Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana et al.  Also what kind of nirvana? ... one kind is annihilation of the ego.

Abrahamic religions seem to maximize the ego ... as does Hinduism (another family of things).  Buddhism is the only religion that minimizes the ego.  Notice, doesn't annihilate the ego (in general), just minimizes it.  Buddhist deities are more like archangels than gods.

Now why would one want to annihilate the ego?  Isn't that as extreme as maximizing it to G-d status?  Could it be that some atheists are also nihilists, that their atheism is part of how they express their nihilism?  I see no requirement that an atheist be anti-ego.  But a nihilist would be anti-ego ... and some Buddhists seem to be nihilist.  Others are not ... as outlined by the initial poster.

Some will claim that some forms of Buddhism are simply psychological self analysis.  Others will claim that the Buddha only mentions karma and deities, because he is dealing the Hindus.  And it is unclear the relationship between the various Buddhisms of the present, vs the supposed original.

So is the ultimate skepticism, nihilism?  Do you believe in nothing, not yourself, not even your belief in nothing.  Then why listen to you, unless you want to pay me a fee for psychoanalysis ;-)  And if humans aren't special, then cannibalism is OK if I am not a vegetarian?
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: Aupmanyav on August 22, 2015, 03:00:14 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
.. it's still a fairly consistent problem that people are falsely taught that there is .. He never believed in Karma ..
Why do you jump at something false that was taught? Perhaps it was for the benefit of the society. I thought if anything existed in Buddhism, it is karma, not even the doer of deeds.
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: Baruch on August 22, 2015, 05:43:53 AM
Aupmanyav ... don't know where you are coming from, in regards to Buddhism, so don't feel disturbed what I might say about it now or later ;-)  Namaste.

Evidence would indicate that Theravada Buddhism is the one closest to the original, and that on that basis Buddha was more Indian, and less Universalist, than he was interpreted outside of India, at a later date.  Mahayana and Vajrayana claims, are based on a contact with the spirit of the Buddha (Buddhakaya) at a later date ... it is the result of exegesis of early sutras by first Buddhists in Andhra, and later by Buddhists in Kashmir.  These "spiritual" sutras didn't exist in the time of Emperor Ashoka.  But something like the Dhammapada and the gathas of the monks and nuns, are part of the oldest layer of the Tripitaka.

So my educated guess, is that Buddha was not just being "skillful" when preaching in Hindu terminology.  But in his time, Hinduism was still evolving (and still is) .. so he belonged to an anti-Brahmin faction, which was Kshatriya in origin.  In Hinduism as it developed, absorbed many influences, including Buddhism, such that Buddhism died out under the influence of Advaita theology, undermining the Kshatriyas and reestablishing the dominance of the Brahmins.

How do you like The Hindus by Wendy Doniger?
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: Aupmanyav on August 22, 2015, 12:11:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Aupmanyav ... don't know where you are coming from, in regards to Buddhism, so don't feel disturbed what I might say about it now or later ;-)  Namaste.
 
So my educated guess, is that Buddha was not just being "skillful" when preaching in Hindu terminology. 

How do you like The Hindus by Wendy Doniger?
Don’t worry, Baruch. What you say about Buddha is not going to disturb me. I have two Gurus and Buddha is one of them (the other is Sankara of Advaita, non-duality). I am a Kashmiri.

I think Buddha was quite skillful. He retained ‘karma’ for the benefit of society. We have a saying in Hindi, from Rama Charit Manas of Goswami Tulsi Das, which goes like this:

‘Bhaya bin hot na preet, Gopala’ (O Gopala (Krishna), love does not develop without fear).

We love our parents, social laws, wife, so as not to loose their love. If there is no benefit, you may not find people engaging in good deeds. So, Buddha retained the carrot and sword policy (which you find in all religions as also in society) without subscribing to Gods or soul. I think he used minimal hocus-pocus, but only that which was necessary.

I have not read Wendy Doniger except for a few excerpts long ago, some I agree with some I do not agree with. I think Wendy, apart from the atrocious last books or articles, has written something sane about Hinduism too. You see, one could spend time doing better things than read what people say Wendy has written. I have my views no Wendy can change that.

As for Hinduism, it was always developed to the best of its times. It has a dynamic format, something like Wikipedia. It is still the most developed with Advaita.
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: peacewithoutgod on August 22, 2015, 01:46:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Don’t worry, Baruch. What you say about Buddha is not going to disturb me. I have two Gurus and Buddha is one of them (the other is Sankara of Advaita, non-duality). I am a Kashmiri.

I think Buddha was quite skillful. He retained ‘karma’ for the benefit of society. We have a saying in Hindi, from Rama Charit Manas of Goswami Tulsi Das, which goes like this:

‘Bhaya bin hot na preet, Gopala’ (O Gopala (Krishna), love does not develop without fear).

We love our parents, social laws, wife, so as not to loose their love. If there is no benefit, you may not find people engaging in good deeds. So, Buddha retained the carrot and sword policy (which you find in all religions as also in society) without subscribing to Gods or soul. I think he used minimal hocus-pocus, but only that which was necessary.

I have not read Wendy Doniger except for a few excerpts long ago, some I agree with some I do not agree with. I think Wendy, apart from the atrocious last books or articles, has written something sane about Hinduism too. You see, one could spend time doing better things than read what people say Wendy has written. I have my views no Wendy can change that.

As for Hinduism, it was always developed to the best of its times. It has a dynamic format, something like Wikipedia. It is still the most developed with Advaita.
Dude, while I'm sure that swastika tattoo means something entirely different to you from Arianism, you should know better than to display it on a Western-dominated site!
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: Baruch on August 22, 2015, 02:02:59 PM
With swastikas ... and an educated Jewish person ... there is no offense ... since I know what it means.  Also I know what the Star of David means in the East ... the heiros gamos of Vishnu/Lakshmi.  So I hope no Hindus take offense either ;-)

You have enlarged my acquaintance with you, for which I am thankful.  As a Kashmiri, you have a lot of spiritual heritage to live up to.  My leanings regarding Buddha is also framed by (upaya)  Did you ever watch the TV program, Bones of the Buddha, regarding Piprahwa stupa?  Also the video Jesus in India?
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: Aupmanyav on August 22, 2015, 02:14:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Dude, while I'm sure that swastika tattoo means something entirely different to you from Arianism, you should know better than to display it on a Western-dominated site!
I think it gives me a chance to inform people of the real import of Swastika (Swasti - we wish you well) which has been used in all civilizations including the Jewish from time immemorial barring the nasty period of Nazism. Yes, I am supposed to be from the Indo-Aryan stock and I am very interested in the history of Aryans, though my views differ from the European (Aryans were invaders, marauders and victors) or even the Indian view (Aryans were Indians). Aryans were none of these. They were the people who were displaced from their sub-Arctic homeland by the advent of ice-age and their culture has left imprints right from Denmark to Combodia. Please allow me to show you what Swastika means to us:

Om sarvesham swastir bhavatu, Sarvesham shantir bhavatu;
Sarvesham purnam bhavatu, Sarvesham mangalam bhavatu.
Sarve bhavantu sukhinah, Sarve santu niramayah;
Sarve bhadrani pashyantu, Ma kaschit duhkha bhag bhavet.

Auspiciousness (swasti) be unto all; peace (shanti) be unto all;
fullness (purnam) be unto all; prosperity (mangalam) be unto all.
May all be happy! (sukhinah), May all be free from disabilities! (niramayah);
May all look (pashyantu) to the good of others, May none suffer from sorrow! (duhkha).
http://www.hinduism.co.za/shanti.htm
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: Aupmanyav on August 22, 2015, 02:32:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
With swastikas ... and an educated Jewish person ... there is no offense ... since I know what it means.  Also I know what the Star of David means in the East ... the heiros gamos of Vishnu/Lakshmi.  So I hope no Hindus take offense either ;-)

You have enlarged my acquaintance with you, for which I am thankful.  As a Kashmiri, you have a lot of spiritual heritage to live up to.  My leanings regarding Buddha is also framed by (upaya)  Did you ever watch the TV program, Bones of the Buddha, regarding Piprahwa stupa?  Also the video Jesus in India?
No. No question of an offense. We love both the signs. I have a lot of images from India where the two exist side by side, most famously, in a synagogue in Cochin, Kerala, our southern-most State, and where the Jews landed some 2,500 years ago and since then have lived happily in peace and prosperity. Here are some of them (starting with the synagogue):

(http://www.jewisheastend.com/Mindus%205.jpg)
(http://www.loupiote.com/photos_m/15587431744-house-hindu-symbols-shatkona-star-david-swastika-india.jpg?loupiote_embed=bbcode) (http://www.loupiote.com/photos/15587431744.shtml)
(https://heifer12x12.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/juxtaposition.jpg?w=1230)
(http://janesindiajournals.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/3-symbols-om-star-of-david-and-swastika-on-entrance-gate.jpg)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rtne_fpsQ6Y/USyR3EhdOvI/AAAAAAAAAgQ/w-I5_hT3BB8/s500/t.jpg)

Thanks for the kind sentiments. I am quite familiar with the Buddhist history and monuments in India and Pakistan. Not much interested in videos. Christianity and Islam because of their monotheism do not sit with me. (Is not Judaism too monotheistic: Yes, but they are mostly not crazy about it)
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: Baruch on August 22, 2015, 02:49:04 PM
This is not a surprise, and probably not to German scholars traveling in the East in the 1920s and 1930s.

As a follower of Shankara ... do you feel any alienation between you aren the more popular Vaisnava or Saiva followers?  Hindu fundamentalists might find Advaita Vedanta ... suspiciously Buddhist.  How do you feel about the division between Saiva followers in N vs S India?  How do you feel about the followers of Durga in Bengal?  And what about the transgendered representations of divinity like Ardhanarishvara vs transgressive Tantra?

I have found Sanskrit most difficult to study, but I can follow a little in a bilingual Gita.
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: Aupmanyav on August 22, 2015, 03:06:48 PM
:) No, not at all. Since Brahman is one, Vishnu, Krishna or Shiva, all are forms of Brahman only. Advaitists can be moderators between warring Vaishnavas and Shaivas. The theist fundamentalists do say that, but with so many references about Advaita in Upnishads, we do not give them any ground (BTW, I am an atheist advaitist Hindu. You see advaita, non-duality, does not even allow a God). Hinduism takes form according to people. Bali Hinduism is so different, but it still is Hinduism. By that standard North and South India are not far from each other. Well what would the Gods do, if there was no Shakti (power). It is a part and parcel of them. No problem about transgenders, prostitutes or eunuchs; we have special Goddesses for them. Bahuchara in North India and Yelamma in South. All can find refuge under the Hindu umbrella.

Late, time to sleep. Bye, Baruch. Nice to have met you.
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: Baruch on August 22, 2015, 09:43:03 PM
Thanks for sharing.  Have a good atman lila ;-)
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: Aupmanyav on August 22, 2015, 10:04:15 PM
Up and ready again. You know Baruch, Sankara was a schemer. He established four places of pilgrimage in all four directions in India - Badrinath in North, Dwarika in West, Rameshwaram in South and Puri in East - the last three being on sea-coasts. And then he established that the chief priest (now known as Sankaracharyas)of Badrinath will (always) be from far south, the chief priest of Dwarika will be from East, that of Rameshwaram from the North and that of Puri from West. The chief priest of Pashupati temple in Nepal also is from South India. That is for assimilation.
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: Baruch on August 22, 2015, 10:29:38 PM
Yes, integrating the Saptadvipa.  Of course Emperor Ashoka did the same with his pillars ... integrating the diversity that is India.  In America, this has mostly happened because of good highways and automobiles.
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: Aupmanyav on August 23, 2015, 01:26:07 AM
Mahabharata 6.604 : "In Shakdvipa, caste system is same as Jambudvipa. There was four caste in Shakdvipa 1. Maga 2. Mushus 3. Manus 4 Mandak". Wikipedia

Were they talking of Bactria (Scythia) with its Magis or Magha brahmins?

Aitareya Brahmana makes first reference to Uttarakuru and Uttaramadra as real-life Janapadas. According to Aitareya Brahmana, these two nations lay beyond the Himalayan ranges (Hindukush). The Aitareya Brahmana adduces these two people as examples of republican (vairajiya) nations, where whole Janapada took the consecration of rulership.

Aitareya Brahmana again notes that Uttarakuru was a deva-kshetra or divine land. - Wikipedia

Which means the people of the republics worshiped the Aryan Gods. Margiana?
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: Baruch on August 23, 2015, 06:43:50 AM
Farther back ... Central Asia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVlO7_w6JRA

The Celtic ancestors had horses and carts also, that were buried with them.
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: Aupmanyav on August 23, 2015, 09:34:50 AM
BBC has blocked this video in India. Rather surprising.
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: Baruch on August 23, 2015, 10:06:42 AM
Part of the Michael Wood video love letter to India from a couple years ago.  He is one of my favorite historians.  This one gave the recipe of soma ... maybe that is still a state secret in India ;-)

It is dogma for some Hindus, that the Vedic people have always been in India and never came from anyplace else.  For some this is driven by politics.  I know there is a Native American group that likes to claim that they never came from Siberia.  In any case, the Vedic people have been in India so long ... I can't as a neutral get too excited about it.  This kind of chauvinism extends even to Stone Age questions ... for awhile, scholarship showed that modern humans didn't interbreed with Neanderthals ... but are all recently connected to African peoples.  Now we know that there was interbreeding at least outside of Africa, while both species existed ... though interbreeding kind of violates the definition of species.  It may be that the idea of "species" is specious ;-) .. same as race.  In any case, the Neanderthal are descended from even earlier hominids, who came out of Africa even earlier (Homo Erectus).  The fact that residual Neanderthals were isolated to Europe ... this implies something less than chauvinistic about Europeans (those who were there before the Indo-Aryans arrived).
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: Summertimeyeah on September 05, 2015, 10:18:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
http://atheism.about.com/b/2009/05/28/whats-wrong-with-buddhism.htm?utm_content=20150821&utm_medium=email&utm_source=exp_nl&utm_campaign=list_atheism&utm_term=list_atheism

Although Buddhism seems so different from religions like Christianity and Islam that it doesn't look like it should be in the same category, it still shares with other religions a very basic element: a belief that the universe is in some fashion set up for our sake -- or at least set up in a manner conducive to our needs. In Christianity this is more obvious with the belief in a god that supposedly created the universe for our benefit. In Buddhism, it is expressed in the belief that there are cosmic laws that exist solely to process our "karma" and make it possible for us to "advance" in some fashion.

This is one of the most fundamental problems with religions -- pretty much all religions. Although it's more of a problem in some and less of a problem in others, it's still a fairly consistent problem that people are falsely taught that there is something in or above the universe that has picked them out for special protection and consideration. Our existence is a product of luck, not divine intervention, and any improvements we achieve will be due to our own hard work, not cosmic process or karma.

This is based on the various schools of Buddhism that have been corrupted by other religions, His original and ideas in later life to not support this in any way.  Buddha never thought he was divinely inspired, or thought he was a god. In fact, he never believed in the divine period. He never believed in Karma or any other magical thing. His was just a philosophy of life, almost identical to Schopenhauer's. I have had terrific arguments from modern Buddhist that claim the Western mind cannot understand Buddhism. I take this as a compliment. The modern schools are nothing like what he taught, in the beginning of his life or later before he died from eating poison mushrooms. This criticism is based on Hinduism, not the original teachings of Buddha himself.  Why is it seem that everyone has to make everything divine when it isn't?   :wall:

I thought Buddhism is about escaping suffering and creating a life with less suffering for other people.
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: Baruch on September 05, 2015, 03:10:38 PM
All humanistic activities are anthropocentric.  And in a much smaller universe, it wasn't a stretch to see cosmology that way.  So I have disagreed with the original poster's point.  I think that Buddhism is better positioned than any other religion, to deal with the discovery of extraterrestrial life.

On the other hand, if you are human, and you don't think humans are special ... maybe there is something wrong with you?
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: Aupmanyav on September 09, 2015, 11:26:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
.. it still shares with other religions a very basic element: a belief that the universe is in some fashion set up for our sake ..
Buddhism does not have any such belief. Shunyata - it says things have no substance; and that they are only temporary association - Anicca (Anitya).
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: Baruch on September 09, 2015, 01:29:59 PM
It is hard for Westerners to not project Western views onto others (egomania).  I think any reason behind creation is not accessible to humans anyway.  If we could access it ... I would balance it against the patent cruelty of life ... which is part of the motivation behind the idea of karma and post-Earth justice.
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: Goon on February 08, 2016, 04:28:11 AM
how could there be laws to process karma without a driving force? such as an eternal dictator? i feel sorry for people that need to believe that rationalization takes believing that creation is an absolute. just think.. for fucks sakes.. or that things could come into existence just for fun, unlike life.. fucking life couldn't be life.. there's this creator that brings life through purposely making billions and billions suffer in eternal torment for not loving him.. or there are cosmic laws that exist because.. they just do.  is heaven and hell dogma from the 1800s? religious/creationists should be neutered.

 how could you believe that there's this creator.. when thinking always leads to atheism? are people just so pathetic because of dead people? have to believe in this existence being our last hope to do something good for mankind. that's all it is.. or is it a chance to be genocidal prick in the sky worshiper..? LOL. saying there's this god that was playing games and poof.. people on earth.. but doesn't stop the travesty that is this world.. is insulting your own intelligence. i fucking hope one day to see people bettering the world through coming to terms with the suffering of this earth being an absolute to things being very, very random. too random to justify saying "i'm a theist" and expecting some form of respect.

fuck off with all the bullshit i hear.
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: Baruch on February 08, 2016, 06:52:10 AM
There is a lot of suffering, and humans are complicit.  A person with conscience finds this disturbing.  In some non-theist culture, this is considered just a part of the world being machine like, like a meat grinder.  In theist culture, karma is considered justice rather than impersonal mechanics.  But it is rather silly, the delayed justice idea, whether it is karma or some divine court.  People should focus on the here and now, to make things better, and not just complain about how bad things are, or expect magic to take care of things.
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: The Atheist on March 19, 2016, 01:03:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
http://atheism.about.com/b/2009/05/28/whats-wrong-with-buddhism.htm?utm_content=20150821&utm_medium=email&utm_source=exp_nl&utm_campaign=list_atheism&utm_term=list_atheism

Although Buddhism seems so different from religions like Christianity and Islam that it doesn't look like it should be in the same category, it still shares with other religions a very basic element: a belief that the universe is in some fashion set up for our sake -- or at least set up in a manner conducive to our needs. In Christianity this is more obvious with the belief in a god that supposedly created the universe for our benefit. In Buddhism, it is expressed in the belief that there are cosmic laws that exist solely to process our "karma" and make it possible for us to "advance" in some fashion.

This is one of the most fundamental problems with religions -- pretty much all religions. Although it's more of a problem in some and less of a problem in others, it's still a fairly consistent problem that people are falsely taught that there is something in or above the universe that has picked them out for special protection and consideration. Our existence is a product of luck, not divine intervention, and any improvements we achieve will be due to our own hard work, not cosmic process or karma.

This is based on the various schools of Buddhism that have been corrupted by other religions, His original and ideas in later life to not support this in any way.  Buddha never thought he was divinely inspired, or thought he was a god. In fact, he never believed in the divine period. He never believed in Karma or any other magical thing. His was just a philosophy of life, almost identical to Schopenhauer's. I have had terrific arguments from modern Buddhist that claim the Western mind cannot understand Buddhism. I take this as a compliment. The modern schools are nothing like what he taught, in the beginning of his life or later before he died from eating poison mushrooms. This criticism is based on Hinduism, not the original teachings of Buddha himself.  Why is it seem that everyone has to make everything divine when it isn't?   :wall:

Buddha probably wasn't a real person. Nobody is even sure which century he allegedly lived in.
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: stromboli on March 19, 2016, 01:07:49 AM
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha

His street name was Siddhartha Gautama
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: Baruch on March 19, 2016, 06:11:08 AM
Yes, the Buddha is at least legendary.  His first bio was centuries late, the first big promotion of his system was under Emperor Asoka ... the history of early Christianity was similar ... and in both cases miracles are proclaimed post-facto.

But in both cases, you do have followers who are not mythical or legendary.  Once we have the sayings of the old monk and nuns and the Dhammapada ... we have the beginning of Buddhist literature.  The references to Buddha may be allegorical, just as they may be in the Gospels, or even mythical as they are in the Epistles of Paul.

A mythical founder is more powerful for most people than a legendary founder.  Similarly a legendary found is more powerful for most people than a historical founder.  Atheists are part of the population that don't follow this pattern.
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: reasonwell on July 12, 2016, 07:01:23 AM
It's always fun to win huge amounts here
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: Gerard on July 23, 2016, 02:25:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Part of the Michael Wood video love letter to India from a couple years ago.  He is one of my favorite historians.  This one gave the recipe of soma ... maybe that is still a state secret in India ;-)

It is dogma for some Hindus, that the Vedic people have always been in India and never came from anyplace else.  For some this is driven by politics.  I know there is a Native American group that likes to claim that they never came from Siberia.  In any case, the Vedic people have been in India so long ... I can't as a neutral get too excited about it.  This kind of chauvinism extends even to Stone Age questions ... for awhile, scholarship showed that modern humans didn't interbreed with Neanderthals ... but are all recently connected to African peoples.  Now we know that there was interbreeding at least outside of Africa, while both species existed ... though interbreeding kind of violates the definition of species.  It may be that the idea of "species" is specious ;-) .. same as race.  In any case, the Neanderthal are descended from even earlier hominids, who came out of Africa even earlier (Homo Erectus).  The fact that residual Neanderthals were isolated to Europe ... this implies something less than chauvinistic about Europeans (those who were there before the Indo-Aryans arrived).
Indo-European languages and the associated people did not originate in India. They moved there later, gave parts of the country their languages and at least some of their religion and were assimilated, although it must have been a substantial immigration.

Gerard
Title: Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
Post by: Baruch on July 25, 2016, 07:01:43 PM
There were pre-existing folks in India, going back 40,000 years (the folks who walked around the Indian Ocean from Africa to Australia).  The current Hinduism is a mixed bag of high and low.  The high Hinduism comes from Central Asia, the E branch of Indo-European folks, from 6,000 years ago.  The low Hinduism in the village is the evolved part of the aboriginal culture.  The Aryan part is patriarchal, and the Dravidian part is matriarchal.  The S Indian village has many local minor goddesses.  This crystalized in Bengal into the worship of Durga/Kali.