New Messiahs

[Aupmanyav]

The first two are again about the self, it is the pure witness that is taken to be the manifest portion of Brahman.

The third needs to be shared more with Hindu's because they hate the suggestion.

What self? There is no self. What you take as self is an illusion - maya.
Oh, yes. Many Hindus will not go by that. The teachers wanted to oppose Sankara, and came out with different philosophies.
But that is OK. There is no ban on that in Hinduism. Your belief, your concern, not mine.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Most Hindu's are pretty adamant about Atman, and you're changing the meaning of Anatta to make it match.

There is no absolute in (Theravada) Buddhism, it is rejected entirely... nothing has any independent nature, not even any Brahman.

It is misleading to suggest they aren't different because the differences have cost many lives.

This seems disingenuous on your part, are you purposely misleading or just don't know any better?

Things get a little murkier when you touch Tantric aspects of each tradition, now there is more an argument for their similarity... but that is heterodox to both.

Yeah, many think that way. I don't. An illusion - maya is 'Anatta'. It has no substantiality. What is wrong in what I said?
Well, that is the difference between Hinduism and Buddhism, and that is why I am not a Buddhist.
There is something at the base of all things, even if they are the four fundamental forces of nature. Fundamental interaction - Wikipedia
No. When did they fight? Hindu kings supported Buddhism and Buddhist kings supported Hinduism. The populace did not make any distinction between monks. Do not Hindus give alms to Muslim fakirs? Nalanda was supported till the year 1,300, long after Buddhism had disappeared in India, before the Muslims destroyed it. The new Rama idol in Ayodhya has Buddha as one of the ten avataras of Lord Vishnu. It was very rare that they fought each other. Mihirkula is said to have been harsh on Buddhists. But he was a foreign king.
I know it very well. A mention in Buddhist books when they were loosing in India, does not mean much.
Of course, both Hinduism and Buddhism have tantra as their part.
Please remember, I am not Pureland Buddhist, I am not a Tibetan Buddhist. I am neither a Mahayana nor a Theravada Buddhist. I like the term Hinayana, the minimalist rendition of what Buddha said. I am sure that you might not have met a person like me.

 

[DaoYin]

What self? There is no self. What you take as self is an illusion - maya.
Oh, yes. Many Hindus will not go by that. The teachers wanted to oppose Sankara, and came out with different philosophies.
But that is OK. There is no ban on that in Hinduism. Your belief, your concern, not mine.

Ahamkara is Maya, but Atman is Brahman.

Shankara himself says this is the principle difference between Buddhism and his philosophy, and this had a huge role in Buddhism basically being ran out of India entirely...

 

[DaoYin]

When did they fight?

Persecution of Buddhists - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[DaoYin]

The new Rama idol in Ayodhya has Buddha as one of the ten avataras of Lord Vishnu.

This is also disingenuous, they made him an avatar of Vishnu to subvert Buddhism in the country... if you look into the means of this you learn that his role is to mislead atheists/unbelievers so in no way is he looked upon in a positive light.

Of course most would argue for Balarama in his place anyway because they want nothing to do with Buddha.

 

[DaoYin]

Of course the antagonism was there among Buddhists too, for instance Vajrapani kills Shiva to claim the mythical vajra...

Do not think I am picking on Hinduism specifically, but the notion that there is no conflict between them is absurd.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Ahamkara is Maya, but Atman is Brahman.

Shankara himself says this is the principle difference between Buddhism and his philosophy, and this had a huge role in Buddhism basically being ran out of India entirely...

'Ahamkara': To consider one's self as permanent is maya. Any atman (self) is Brahman).
It may be a human, it may be an animal, it may be some vegetation, it may be some non-living thing. All consider themselves to have self, not just humans.
And to consider it as something permanent is false. I find no problem with what Sankara said. Where is the difference?
Sankara's most famous quote is "Brahma Satyam, jagan mithya; jeevo Brahmaiva na parah."
(Brahman is the truth, the observed is false. A living being is no different from Brahman.)
That is why Mandukya Upanishad said, "Ayamatma Brahman" (This self is Brahman). Every self is Brahman, which is the only truth.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Persecution of Buddhists - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That is a fake report, like Christians being persecuted in India.

 

[DaoYin]

That is a fake report, like Christians being persecuted in India.

It's fun how Hindu's like disputing history that doesn't make them seem great enough.

It's more like Americans rejecting their history of slavery because it makes racism harder to validate.

 

[DaoYin]

'Ahamkara': To consider one's self as permanent is maya. Any atman (self) is Brahman).
It may be a human, it may be an animal, it may be some vegetation, it may be some non-living thing. All consider themselves to have self, not just humans.
And to consider it as something permanent is false. I find no problem with what Sankara said. Where is the difference?
Sankara's most famous quote is "Brahma Satyam, jagan mithya; jeevo Brahmaiva na parah."
(Brahman is the truth, the observed is false. A living being is no different from Brahman.)
That is why Mandukya Upanishad said, "Ayamatma Brahman" (This self is Brahman). Every self is Brahman, which is the only truth.

It's strange that you still insist upon this after just admitting that you reject notions there is no absolute... there is a huge difference between knowing the absolute and rejecting any absolute such that the positions cannot be reconciled.

What do you get out of pretending they're the same?

 

[Aupmanyav]

This is also disingenuous, they made him an avatar of Vishnu to subvert Buddhism in the country... if you look into the means of this you learn that his role is to mislead atheists/unbelievers so in no way is he looked upon in a positive light.

Of course most would argue for Balarama in his place anyway because they want nothing to do with Buddha.

Well, the SriVaishnavas may say so, not most Hindus. Even Jayadeva in 12th Century in his composition "Dashavatara" said this of Buddha:

"nindasi yajna-vidher ahahasruti-jatam
sadaya-hridayadarsita-pasu-ghatam
kesava dhrita-buddha-sarira jayajagadisa hare"
(O Kesava! O Lord of the universe! O Lord Hari, who have assumed the form of Buddha! All glories to You!
O Buddha of compassionate heart, you decry the slaughtering of poor animals performed according to the rules
of Vedic sacrifice.)
Sri Dasavatara Stotra, verse 9

We did not come up with the idea yesterday.
"According to Doniger, "Hindus came to regard the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu between A.D. 450 and the sixth century," first appearing in the Vishnu Purana (400-500 CE).

The Buddha is mentioned as an avatar of Vishnu in the Puranas and the epics such as:

Harivamsa (1.41)
Vishnu Purana (3.18)
Bhagavata Purana (1.3.24, 2.7.37, 11.4.22)[web 1]
Garuda Purana (1.1, 2.30.37, 3.15.26)
Agni Purana (16, 49.8)
Naradiya Purana (2.72)
Linga Purana (1.71)
Padma Purana (3.252)[20]
Skanda Purana"

Gautama Buddha in Hinduism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We have hundreds of thousands of Buddhas, Gutamas, Siddhartha, Tathagatas, Amitabhas, Maitreyas, etc. among us (including my son, who is an Amitabha, not named after the actor, but after my guru Gautama, the Buddha).

Can you ban Hindus from revering, worshiping Buddha, if they want to do so? "Gautama Buddha in Hinduism" in Wikipedia has images of ancient temples and paintings depicting Buddha as an avatara of Lord Vishnu. And where did the persecuted Buddhist go to? The Chakmas and the Tibetans came to India and were happily accepted, even the displaced Buddhists from Myanmar because of persecution by military rulers.

 

[DaoYin]

Well, the SriVaishnavas may say so, not most Hindus. Even Jayadeva in 12th Century in his composition "Dashavatara" said this of Buddha:

"nindasi yajna-vidher ahahasruti-jatam
sadaya-hridayadarsita-pasu-ghatam
kesava dhrita-buddha-sarira jayajagadisa hare"
(O Kesava! O Lord of the universe! O Lord Hari, who have assumed the form of Buddha! All glories to You!
O Buddha of compassionate heart, you decry the slaughtering of poor animals performed according to the rules
of Vedic sacrifice.)
Sri Dasavatara Stotra, verse 9

We did not come up with the idea yesterday.
"According to Doniger, "Hindus came to regard the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu between A.D. 450 and the sixth century," first appearing in the Vishnu Purana (400-500 CE).

The Buddha is mentioned as an avatar of Vishnu in the Puranas and the epics such as:

Harivamsa (1.41)
Vishnu Purana (3.18)
Bhagavata Purana (1.3.24, 2.7.37, 11.4.22)[web 1]
Garuda Purana (1.1, 2.30.37, 3.15.26)
Agni Purana (16, 49.8)
Naradiya Purana (2.72)
Linga Purana (1.71)
Padma Purana (3.252)[20]
Skanda Purana"

Gautama Buddha in Hinduism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you're not a Vaishnava whether Buddha is an avatar makes little difference to you, but even the Shaivas have their conflicts around the concept of Atman and Anatta because of course Shiva is said to be the embodiment of Atman so again they are not compatible.

The Tantric lineages tend to unite around what is called Sahaja, but there are few other meeting points.

I think you're overlooking the diversity of both Buddhism and Hinduism to pretend they're similar, there are branches of both that are closer but they're far more antagonistic than you're suggesting overall.

 

[DaoYin]

I preference the Dao De Jing precisely because it only conveys what I consider the strengths of both... while explicitly rejecting many of the things I find fault in...

This is not limited to the Dharma traditions of course, I see the same being conveyed in the Abrahamic traditions and others throughout the world... they all sort of get to the Dao in various places but none are as pure or precise.

Of course a lot of Daoism is more about the yang aspect of reality, it wants to manipulate and control the world around you... but I do not subscribe to these expressions.

This might seem confusing, isn't the yin/yang symbol Daoist?

Well, no... the concept seems to come from the I Ching... the Dao De Jing very much favors the yin aspect.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It's fun how Hindu's like disputing history that doesn't make them seem great enough.

It's more like Americans rejecting their history of slavery because it makes racism harder to validate.

Read the article carefully. You have not done that, I have. It is the Achaemenids and Sassanids, also Hunas (Mihirkula) persecuted Buddhists. The article does not mention any well evidenced persecution of Buddhists by Hindu kings. Don't just go by the title of the article. Of course, the Muslims destroyed everything they found connected with Buddhism in Gandhara and elsewhere. Even an idol translates in Urdu as "But", i.e., Buddha. The Taliban are still destroying sculptures of Buddha that are left in Afghanistan. Many of the Muslim monuments to "9 meter Ghazis" are really built over images of sleeping Buddha and sleeping Vishnu.

 

[DaoYin]

Read the article carefully. You have not done that, I have. It is the Achaemenids and Sassanids, also Hunas (Mihirkula) persecuted Buddhists. The article does not mention any well evidenced persecution of Buddhists by Hindu kings. Don't just go by the title of the article. Of course, the Muslims destroyed everything they found connected with Buddhism in Gndhara and elsewhere. Even an idol translates in Urdu as "But", i.e., Buddha. The taliban are still destroying sculptures of Buddha that remain in Afghanistan.

Are you just going to ignore the evils associated with Hindutva throughout modern Indian society?

Why is it necessary to pinpoint a king to acknowledge that Indians have long held hostilities against Buddha? The very scriptures paint him in a bad light, as Buddhist scriptures paint Hindu figures in a bad light.

Why are you rejecting reality to make your points?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I think you're overlooking the diversity of both Buddhism and Hinduism to pretend they're similar, there are branches of both that are closer but they're far more antagonistic than you're suggesting overall.

Well, I follow something which is hardly any different from Buddhism. I am not a Vaishnava, not a Shakta, not a Smarta (who worship six deities). I am a strong atheist, my community (Kashmiri brahmins) is generally Shaiva, but you must remember that Kashmir Shaivism and many other Shaiva Siddhantas (philosophies) also are close to Buddhism.

 

[DaoYin]

Certainly there has been more death around conflicts between Vaishnavas and Shaivites than either with Buddhism, but you're suggesting relations are wholly cordial because they're essentially the same.

It's just not true.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, no... the concept seems to come from the I Ching... the Dao De Jing very much favors the yin aspect.

Unfortunately, I hardly know anything about Dao or Confucianism. And at 82 years of age, it is too late to start. Also that do not need any new teaching. I am perfectly satisfied with my Advaita/Buddhism mix and science.

 

[DaoYin]

Well, I follow something which is hardly any different from Buddhism. I am not a Vaishnava, not a Shakta, not a Smarta (who worship six deities). I am a strong atheist, my community (Kashmiri brahmins) is generally Shaiva, but you must remember that Kashmir Shaivism and many other Shaiva Siddhantas (philosophies) also are close to Buddhism.

I am familiar with the Trika...

Familiar enough to know that it fundamentally differs cosmologically to the Siddha Siddhanta which is largely dualistic.

The Naths sort of took over Buddhism and Hinduism through the concept of Sahaja, but the orthodox of both reject them.

I respect these traditions because they ignore the tradition to find a higher truth... but as such they are apart from the underlying tradition.

The Naths are sort of a modification of Trika to be more acceptable to the masses.

 

[DaoYin]

Unfortunately, I hardly know anything about Dao or Confucianism. And at 82 years of age, it is too late to start. Also that do not need any new teaching. I am perfectly satisfied with my Advaita/Buddhism mix and science.

Confucius is mocked by Daoists, do not align them.

Confucius is all about superficial social accord, he even admits he has nothing to do with the transcendent.

I am interested in the transcendent alone.