Author Topic: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism  (Read 4765 times)

Offline Baruch

Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
« Reply #15 on: August 22, 2015, 09:43:03 PM »
Thanks for sharing.  Have a good atman lila ;-)
שלום

Offline Aupmanyav

Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
« Reply #16 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.
"Brahma Satyam Jagan-mithya" (Brahman is the truth, the observed is an illusion)
"Sarve Khalu Idam Brahma" (All this here is Brahman)

Offline Baruch

Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
« Reply #17 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.
שלום

Offline Aupmanyav

Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
« Reply #18 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?
« Last Edit: August 23, 2015, 01:46:30 AM by Aupmanyav »
"Brahma Satyam Jagan-mithya" (Brahman is the truth, the observed is an illusion)
"Sarve Khalu Idam Brahma" (All this here is Brahman)

Offline Baruch

Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
« Reply #19 on: August 23, 2015, 06:43:50 AM »
Farther back ... Central Asia.



The Celtic ancestors had horses and carts also, that were buried with them.
שלום

Offline Aupmanyav

Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
« Reply #20 on: August 23, 2015, 09:34:50 AM »
BBC has blocked this video in India. Rather surprising.
"Brahma Satyam Jagan-mithya" (Brahman is the truth, the observed is an illusion)
"Sarve Khalu Idam Brahma" (All this here is Brahman)

Offline Baruch

Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
« Reply #21 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).
שלום

Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
« Reply #22 on: September 05, 2015, 10:18:25 AM »
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.

Offline Baruch

Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
« Reply #23 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?
שלום

Offline Aupmanyav

Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
« Reply #24 on: September 09, 2015, 11:26:25 AM »
.. 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).
"Brahma Satyam Jagan-mithya" (Brahman is the truth, the observed is an illusion)
"Sarve Khalu Idam Brahma" (All this here is Brahman)

Offline Baruch

Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
« Reply #25 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.
שלום

Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
« Reply #26 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.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2016, 04:46:19 AM by Goon »
You evolutionists are spoiling our fun!

Offline Baruch

Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
« Reply #27 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.
שלום

Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
« Reply #28 on: March 19, 2016, 01:03:56 AM »
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.
"I will take China's Great Wall because they owe us so much money, and I will place it on the Mexican border."

-Ronald Rump