Quit running around the Bhodi tree

[worldslaziestbusker]

Since threads hereabouts keep disappearing into the ether, I thought I'd re-cap the four I've contributed to in this section in the last two years by stating that Buddhism is as much a bossy, evidence free ideology as any of the Abrahamic religions, and has been the cause, or used as an excuse for, considerable harm through the course of human history.  Buddhism continues to offer a rationalisation for bias to become prejudice, for prejudice to act as the spur to harm, and fails to prevent that harm being prevented while failing to ensure justice for that harm is served by due processes.

[Solitary]

What Buddha taught originally was nothing like what the various schools taught even in his own time. It has been corrupted by the Judeo-Christian-Islamic-religions.  There were no prayers, rituals, God or gods, absolute dogma in his original teachings, and he never believed what he taught was of divine intervention or that he was a god, even though the Hindu religion claims he is. It was, and is, a good philosophy to live by, nothing more. Bill

[Colanth]

A large part of what the Buddha taught was "question everything - even this".  Sounds like skepticism to me.

It's like Christianity, though - most of what Paul taught isn't part of Christianity, and most of Christianity bears little, if any, relationship to what Paul taught.

[Aupmanyav]

.. or that he was a god, even though the Hindu religion claims he is.

Being made an avatara is hindu way of recognizing the merit of a person. Buddha was accepted as a full avatara of Lord Vishnu. There are many lesser ones who were accepted as 'leela avataras' or 'amsha avataras' (part avataras). Some saints are accepted as avataras of the things that Lord Vishnu holds or wears, like the Chakra (discuss), the mace, the conch, the jewel (Syamantaka), Rishabhadeva of the jains and Kashyapa of the buddhists are other such examples. Vedavyasa or Sankaracharya also are avataras. This is like awarding the Nobel or some other prize in philosophy, religion, and social action.

[Shiranu]

I thought I'd re-cap the four I've contributed...

So... nothing?

[Aupmanyav]

Sikhism also accepts avataras. Their book accepts 23 (as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avataras#In_Dasam_Granth) which includes all the ten hindu avataras as well as Rudra (Shiva), Buddha, Arihant Dev (Mahavira of the jains), Suraj (Sun, mithra), Chandar (Moon) and Manu.

The basic fact is that Indian religions do not break each others' idols, do not break each others' heads, respect each other, do not pull each others legs, and try to live together peacefully in stark contrast with the Abrahamic religions.

[Colanth]

.. or that he was a god, even though the Hindu religion claims he is.

Being made an avatara is hindu way of recognizing the merit of a person. Buddha was accepted as a full avatara of Lord Vishnu.

That's what the Hindu religion made of the Buddha's teachings, that's not what the Buddha taught.  And I'd sooner believe that he knew what he was teaching, than that some other group knew what was in his mind better than he did.

When talking about what someone believed, or what he taught, bringing in what someone else interpreted the teachings as is an incompetent argument, at best.

[Aupmanyav]

That's what the Hindu religion made of the Buddha's teachings, that's not what the Buddha taught.  And I'd sooner believe that he knew what he was teaching, than that some other group knew what was in his mind better than he did.

The buddhists accept six historical buddhas. 'Advaita', which is close to buddhism is older than buddhism. It is mentioned in the Vedas and Upanishads. Where did Gautama got his views and his language - from hinduism and Sanskrit. Buddha did not bring out his religion from a vaccum.

However, the dispute does not affect me. For me, all the three jainism, buddhism, and sikhism are sects of hinduism, 'matas' (opinions), 'panthas' (roads). They had different emphases - jainism had non-violence and avoidance of pleasures, buddhism had anatta and compassion, sikhism has monotheism. There are other sects too in hinduism. Even Buddha mentions six in his Samannaphala sutta. And that is only in his region, Magadha. And Magadha is but just one part of India.

[Colanth]

That's what the Hindu religion made of the Buddha's teachings, that's not what the Buddha taught.  And I'd sooner believe that he knew what he was teaching, than that some other group knew what was in his mind better than he did.

The buddhists accept

That's what I said - I'd sooner accept his own words than what some other people "accept".  If I "accept" that I'm the President of the US, it does nothing to Mr. Obama's status.

[Aupmanyav]

Apart from the crap about devas, rebirth, heaven, hell, etc., which IMV were said for the level of understanding that his audience had, Buddha's words or what we have received as Buddha's words are divine and allow us to cross the stream. Divine, since was he not the ninth avatara of Lord Vishnu?

"Nindasi yajna-vidher ahaha sruti-jatam, sadaya-hridaya;
darsita-pasu-ghatam  kesava dhrita-buddha-sarira."

(You decry the sacrifice performed according to the rules of Vedas, compassionate heart;
seeing the slaughter of animals, O Keshava! who have assumed the form of Buddha!)
Dashavatara Stotra (the hymn of ten avataras) - Jayadeva, early 13th century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha_in_ ... _of_Vishnu

We appropriated buddhism long before buddhism became a separate religion. ;)

[Colanth]

Apart from the crap about devas, rebirth, heaven, hell, etc., which IMV were said for the level of understanding that his audience had, Buddha's words or what we have received as Buddha's words are divine

According to you, not according to the Buddha.

We appropriated buddhism long before buddhism became a separate religion. ;)

You "appropriated" something that you wanted, not what the Buddha said.

[Aupmanyav]

We understand what Buddha said very well, he spoke our language. He will remain the ninth avatara of Lord Vishnu till hinduism exists. (And hinduism is 'Sanatan', eternal. It will always remain)

See, how earnestly he asked his followers to follow 'dharma' and what praise he had for 'brahmanas'. :)

[Aupmanyav]

Just a reminder - It is 'Bodhi' tree and not 'Bhodi' tree. It derives from PIE vid. (to know) just as Veda also.

"Bodhi is an abstract noun formed from the verbal root budh (to awake, become aware, notice, know or understand) corresponding to the verbs bujjhati (P?li) and bodhati or budhyate (Sanskrit). Also from the same root are the Sanskrit words bodha (also meaning knowledge or intelligence) and buddhi which is the exact equivalent to the Greek word nous." Wikipedia

[mykcob4]

I find it funny that Hindi's actually claim Buddha as their own. He was a prince but that is where it ends. His awakening was a manifestation of his own thoughts and isn't part of any religion. Just because people started adopting him and then teaching their own religion and politics doesn't make the Buddha part of them in any way. I also find it odd that there are sects of buddhism. Since he wasn'r a god, a prohet, or anything to do with the supernatural why would they not only create a religion but actually break off into sects. I mean pilgrams migrate to different parts to pray to him. In his time he would have explained that was worthless. Buddha was practical and secular. The higher level that he spoke of was becoming one with nature and understanding the natural rythmn and harmony of nature. The all seeing eye was about observation and finding inner peace. It wasn't a cult or a religion, it was an understanding.
The corruption of this philosophy into a religion is one of the greatest travesties the world has ever known.

[Shiranu]

Wow, this thread... haven't seen it in ages.

Sam Harris on Buddhism

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text ... he-buddha/

Good read, imo.