>>In the Bhagavadgita, Krishna teaches that one can kill only the body; the soul is immortal.

>>In the Bhagavadgita, Krishna teaches that one can kill only the body; the soul is immortal. At death, the soul is reborn in another body, or, for those who have fully grasped the true teachings, it achieves release (moksha) or extinction (nirvana)—that is, freedom from the wheel of rebirth.

Wait, if Hinduism contains the main Buddhist elements, that is to say to escape the cycle of birth-rebirth then what original ideas did Buddhism bring to the table to make it a separate religion?

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It replaced hind with budh.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No one cares about a religion which has produced the most disgusting country on Earth.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Bhutan?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Niger?

        It's pretty clear he's talking about India and Hinduism, I don't think there's a single major religion on Earth where playing with feces is part of the religious practice.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Niger?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      USA?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Haiti?

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    1. Buddhism rejects the caste system
    2. Hinduism has a wide range of local varieties, many of which do not follow a system like the one outlined in the green text of your post taken from the Bhagavad Gita
    3. Buddhism rejects a lot of Hindu folklore and deities. For instance, Buddhists eat cow meat, but Hindus don’t, because cows are considered the incarnation of a Hindu goddess
    4. Buddhism centers around a particular individual and his philosophy and spiritual teachings, distinct enough to make it a separate religious tradition (same reason why Calvinists aren’t Catholic)
    5. The Buddha lived and taught before the Bhagavad Gita was written

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Aren't the Buddhists vegetarian if possible?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Not to my knowledge

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Some but not all. I think they also have some type of philosophy like, “If it’s already been killed and butchered and going to be eaten anyway, and it’s given out as almsfood, then it’s valid; but don’t deliberately have animals killed for your sustenance.”

        > “Monks, I allow you fish and meat that are quite pure in three respects: if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. But, you should not knowingly make use of meat killed on purpose for you.”

        Got it from a random search online: https://bswa.org/teaching/vunaya-buddha-says-eating-meat/ . Others are more strictly vegetarian, some like the Tantrikas have explicit use of meat (and even liquor or alcohol) for some rituals.

        [...]
        It's pretty clear he's talking about India and Hinduism, I don't think there's a single major religion on Earth where playing with feces is part of the religious practice.

        Many different types of Hinduism and Indian spiritual practice exist, and it’s also an incredibly shallow mindset to judge the highest manifestations of a culture (including those stretching thousands of years back) with the lowest manifestations of it today. It’s like if one denigrated America entirely as incestuous Alabamians or Appalachian mountain-dwellers addicted to opioids. Or likening Ibn Arabi or Al Ghazzali to the runners of an Islamic rape & human trafficking ring in the U.K. No culture or people is above reproach for at least some (or even many) of its members, but it’s crude and shallow to apply that to their most outstanding exemplars.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You don't need to reply to him. But that was a good reply.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          So buying factory farm meat at the supermarket is fine because it's already killed and shouldn't go to waste? Isn't it immoral to support an industry that creates brutality and senseless suffering?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          What you miss in your examples is decay. Yes the Hindus and Muslims had their high points, but it speaks to the failures of their religions that it has led them to these new low points. Hinduism and Islam were doomed to these fates because the flaws are inherent to the religions. Hinduism naturally becomes hollow nationalism, Islam becomes desert barbarism.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >new low points
            what low points? explain your logic

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Buddhism was born at a time when Hinduism was corrupt with the fake cast system and people were too uneducated to have read hindu literature so they simplified it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Sounds like cope
      No teacher I didn't copy the homework, Jimmy is a poopy meanyhead so even if I did I simplified it and made it better! (Same homework word for word)

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >corrupt
      the only thing corrupt about it is that they didn't massacre the dasyus like they should have

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    jesus fricking christ just look up anatta and never post again

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > then what original ideas did Buddhism bring to the table to make it a separate religion?
      The fact that Buddhism didn’t explicitly affirm any immortal soul was a new development in contrast to Jainism and Hinduism and the Upanishads, everything else in Buddhism was more or less already contained in the early pre-Buddhist Upanishads. Also, the fact of being preached openly was a change too, since the Upanishadic teachings were reserved for the educated and spiritual elite and were not openly revealed to farmers, peasants etc whereas Buddha preached to everyone.

      Then what is the thing that cycles different rebirths and goes to heaven or nirvana if "good" enough. If it's not a soul then what is it?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        "The channel for the transmission of kammic influence from life to life across the sequence of rebirths is the individual stream of consciousness. Consciousness embraces both phases of our being — that in which we generate fresh kamma and that in which we reap the fruits of old kamma — and thus in the process of rebirth, consciousness bridges the old and new existences. Consciousness is not a single transmigrating entity, a self or soul, but a stream of evanescent acts of consciousness, each of which arises, briefly subsists, and then passes away. This entire stream, however, though made up of evanescent units, is fused into a unified whole by the causal relations obtaining between all the occasions of consciousness in any individual continuum. At a deep level, each occasion of consciousness inherits from its predecessor the entire kammic legacy of that particular stream; in perishing, it in turn passes that content on to its successor, augmented by its own novel contribution. Thus our volitional deeds do not exhaust their full potential in their immediately visible effects. Every volitional deed that we perform, when it passes, leaves behind a subtle imprint stamped upon the onward-flowing stream of consciousness. The deed deposits in the stream of consciousness a seed capable of bearing fruit, of producing a result that matches the ethical quality of the deed."

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >is the individual stream of consciousness
          So, in other words, a soul

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Call it whatever you want, I don't care. The point is that it's different from the hindu concept of atman, go read a book and stop posting

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The mind, but it doesn't "go" to heaven, nirvana is not a place but a condition just like the mind is not a thing but a process, this process needs a particular system (skhandas/dukkha) to keep working on his current form (samsara) if you change the system you change the process

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    > then what original ideas did Buddhism bring to the table to make it a separate religion?
    The fact that Buddhism didn’t explicitly affirm any immortal soul was a new development in contrast to Jainism and Hinduism and the Upanishads, everything else in Buddhism was more or less already contained in the early pre-Buddhist Upanishads. Also, the fact of being preached openly was a change too, since the Upanishadic teachings were reserved for the educated and spiritual elite and were not openly revealed to farmers, peasants etc whereas Buddha preached to everyone.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The current consensus is more or less that Buddhism grew out of a revolt against the dogmatic ritual-obssessed vedic religion (that is the vedas and the brahmanas mostly). It is not a fully new development though as some later upanishads already take a piss at the vedas (there is a famous one in which chanting priests are compared to howling dogs, deeply insulting in a south Asian context) and they do show this second path of enlightenment that can be attained without conforming to the rituals as defined by the priesthood. This is the generating of so called 'inner heat', kinda like inner spiritual energy, as opposed to outer heat which gets generated by rituals (on which the priests have a monopoly at this point in time).

    This whole thing makes hindu nationalist go foaming btw, as indian society in the modern era has kinds tried to make this unified coherent theology out of hinduism which it absolutely isn't, and the fact that scripture itself considers the vedas just stupid and the fact that 'hinduism'is just a huge misnomer in the first place and south Asian religions develop in all kinds of directions throughout their history is not known among the general public.

    Buddhism was another form of this anti-priesthood phenomenon, but the thing with 'hinduism' is that it is by nature very open to co-opting other concepts under its umbrella. So the whole moksha thing eventually gets placed under the 'hindu' label as well thanks to theological flexibility.

    Hindu history is just a complex mess

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Very well put, I believe
      >This is the generating of so called 'inner heat', kinda like inner spiritual energy, as opposed to outer heat which gets generated by rituals (on which the priests have a monopoly at this point in time).
      This is referring to the agnihotra ceremony (throwing ghee into the fire/fire ritual) right? And this being shifted to a metaphorical conception of “Agni yoga” or something like that, as in the Buddha’s fire sermon.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There are a number of inaccurate statements in your post.

      First and foremost is your claim that the Upanishads disrespect the Vedas, this is wrong and they never do this, instead they praise the Vedas of which they themselves are a part and they only criticize the blinkered obsession with following Vedic rituals without any knowledge of the inner spiritual content or teaching of the Sruti. The same is true of Brahmins, the Upanishads only disparage priests/Brahmins who follow external practices while lacking insight into spirituality.

      >and they do show this second path of enlightenment that can be attained without conforming to the rituals as defined by the priesthood. This is the generating of so called 'inner heat', kinda like inner spiritual energy,
      This is not true, the primary Upanishads are consistent in presenting liberation as happening through knowledge or realization, and not through "generating an inner heat".

      >So the whole moksha thing eventually gets placed under the 'hindu' label
      The early Upanishads already present moksha as being the final aim of the spiritual quest of Hinduism before Buddhism and Jainism were a thing, so moksha was an organic and essential part of Hinduism and was not "grouped in" later.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        the upanishads disrespect the vedas
        I know they are a part of the vedas from a religiois point of view, just as the old testament contains both Genesis and Esther for instance, , but from a historical point of view it is important to note that there are literally centuries up to almost a millennium of passed time in between the writing of the rigveda (often dated around 1700/1600/1500 BC) and upanishads of which the first were written around the 6th and 5th century BCE. So seeing those texts as the same body of literature (and yes I know devoted hindus see this all as 'shruti') from a historical point of view really does not make sense.

        About the criticism of the upanishads, yes I agree with you that the upanishads are not full-on critical reflections on earlier vedic scripture, for sure not. A lot of them are indeed simply giving a metaphysical explanation of rituals described more in detail in the brahmanas. If I portrayed my earlier post as implying that all upanishads are just focussed on critique then that is my mistake.

        But for sure especially the later upanishads reflect a changed urbanised society, The power monopoly is no longer just in the hands of a priestly class, which is was during the more pastoral earlier eras, but city life gives the opportunity for the economic advancement of urbanites who challenge the existing power structure.

        >This is not true, the primary Upanishads are consistent in presenting liberation as happening through knowledge or realization, and not through "generating an inner heat".

        moksha in earlier works is represented in a different way, more akin to just 'freedom of death' or more generic freedom of the ever-continuing cycle. But in later upanishads moksha gets associated with the act of renunciation, It is renunication that leads to total freedom

        Very well put, I believe
        >This is the generating of so called 'inner heat', kinda like inner spiritual energy, as opposed to outer heat which gets generated by rituals (on which the priests have a monopoly at this point in time).
        This is referring to the agnihotra ceremony (throwing ghee into the fire/fire ritual) right? And this being shifted to a metaphorical conception of “Agni yoga” or something like that, as in the Buddha’s fire sermon.

        heat' is tapas. A more generic spiritual energy that is central to vedic religion. In the earlier vedic scripture this can only be received by rituals, later on another way gets possible in the form of renuniciation. The latter only becomes a thing from the upanishads and onwards;

        >13. Woman, O Gautama, is fire. In this fire the gods offer the seed. Out of that offering a man is born. He lives as long as he is destined to live. Then, when he dies—
        >14. They carry him to be offered in the fire. The fire becomes his fire, the fuel his fuel, the smoke his smoke, the flame his flame, the cinder his cinder, and the sparks his sparks. In this fire the gods offer the man. Out of that offering the man emerges radiant.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >15. Those who know this as such, and those others who meditate with faith upon the Satya-Brahman in the forest, reach the deity identified with the flame, from him the deity of the day, from him the deity of the fortnight in which the moon waxes, from him the deities of the six months in which the sun travels northward, from them the deity identified with the world of the gods, from him the sun, and from the sun the deity of lighthing. (Then) a being created from the mind (of Hiraṇyagarbha) comes and conducts them to the worlds of Hiraṇyagarbha. They attain perfection and live in those worlds of Hiraṇyagarbha for a great many superfine years. They no more return to this world.

          I did not want to start quoting scripture because you will end up in a vague rabbit hole but these sentences explain the two concepts pretty straight-on

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >But for sure especially the later upanishads reflect a changed urbanised society, The power monopoly is no longer just in the hands of a priestly class, which is was during the more pastoral earlier eras, but city life gives the opportunity for the economic advancement of urbanites who challenge the existing power structure.
          I’m not sure what you think ‘reflects’ this in the Upanishads, there isn’t any socio-economic conflict described in them, and they were also composed or transcribed Brahmins just as the other parts of the Vedas and the early Upanishads. It sounds like you are just interpolating modern narratives onto a different era. There is nothing to suggest that a different class of people is composing the later Upanishads but even the latter ones are in Sanskrit and show a deep knowledge of Vedic ritual and lore as well as the earlier Upanishads and their motifs, and they present themselves as essentially being in continuity with the other Upanishads and earlier Vedic layers.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It is not a different class of people composing the upanishads but it is crucial to consider the changed context of south asia at this point of time compared to the era in which the oldest vedas were composed (roughly a millennium earlier). We go from small-scale pastoral chief dogs to hierarchical ordered settlements organized into states. People start to move around and get confronted with new ideas. It seems likely that the Brahmins were willing to incorporate new ideas into new texts even thought they might controversy Brahmin imaginary (namely less of an emphasis on the ritual). This is an established scholars opinion (Doniger, The Hindus, p 166) and of course breaks the religious narrative by considering all of the shruti as a whole corpus but a historian can't simply take a corpus of texts written over the course of a millennium as a single body of coherence , it would be like me giving philosophical depth to hymns of Hildegard von Bingen and then assuming social developments in the period between our lives won't affect my interpretation of things, that would be dishonest to say the least

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >It seems likely that the Brahmins were willing to incorporate new ideas into new texts even thought they might controversy Brahmin imaginary (namely less of an emphasis on the ritual)
            The Aranyakas already declare the superiority of monasticism over rites, that idea doesn't start with the Upanishads.

            >This is an established scholars opinion
            I don't see Doniger as being an especially serious scholar, her works seem driven by her ideological agenda/beliefs. Some of her stuff has been retracted before.

            >and of course breaks the religious narrative by considering all of the shruti as a whole corpus but a historian can't simply take a corpus of texts written over the course of a millennium as a single body of coherence
            This is only if you are presupposing that the Shruti emerged from the "bottom up" in response to socio-economic change instead of being genuinely revealed/received "from above" or even simply emerged from an investigation into timeless spiritual truths independent of any mundane considerations. So, you really haven't said anything but "yeah but if scholars presuppose that the Shruti isn't revealed then they can find things that can be read as supporting their own presuppostions" but that's not really an argument and you can say that about anything position including the opposing viewpoint.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >>I’m not sure what you think ‘reflects’ this in the Upanishads, there isn’t any socio-economic conflict described in them, and they were also composed or transcribed Brahmins just as the other parts of the Vedas and the early Upanishads. It sounds like you are just interpolating modern narratives onto a different era.
            There's a clear difference of vocabulary between the early hindu texts and one from the late vedic era. That's literally how academics manage to understand the Brahminical migration. Brahmins are just glorified cattle herders.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >There's a clear difference of vocabulary between the early hindu texts and one from the late vedic era.
            Difference in vocabulary isn't prima facie evidence of socio-economic upheavel and isn't also not prima facie evidence that changes in the vocabulary were driven specifically by the socio-economic changes instead of just being incidental.
            > Brahmins are just glorified cattle herders.
            This is a silly thing to say when they are overrepresented in producing the notable works of philosophy, drama, poetry etc in India, both Hindu and non-Hindu.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            it's amazing how deceitful you are and you still haven't even read the texts that you keep shilling

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            nice cope

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >moksha in earlier works is represented in a different way, more akin to just 'freedom of death' or more generic freedom of the ever-continuing cycle. But in later upanishads moksha gets associated with the act of renunciation, It is renunication that leads to total freedom.
          I think the facts show otherwise, in the very first Upanishad (Brihadaranyaka), moksha is presented as unity with (or realizing the already pre-existent unity) with Brahman and this is described as specifically occurring through knowledge/realization and also as being explicitly connected with renunciation/monasticism and this theme is simply continued in the later Upanishads.

          Liberation is repeatedly described all throughout the text as occurring through knowledge such as 4.4.13 when it says “Those who know It become immortal, while others attain misery alone”, or in verse 4.5.15 when it says “But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self…” and then concludes with “This much indeed is (the means of) immortality, my dear”.

          In Brihadaranayaka 4.4.1-4.4.5 the process of transmigration is described and then in verse 4.4.6 and 4.4.7 it says that the wise man who has overcome desires and realized the Brahman-Self does not transmigrate any further but merely ‘merges’ in the Brahman which he already is:

          >Regarding this there is the following verse: ‘Being attached, he, together with the work, attains that result to which his subtle body or mind is attached. Exhausting the results of whatever work he did in this life, he returns from that world to this for (fresh) work.’ Thus does the man who desires (transmigrate). But the man who does not desire (never transmigrates). Of him who is without desires, who is free from desires, the objects of whose desire have been attained, and to whom all objects of desire are but the Self—the organs do not depart. Being but Brahman, he is merged in Brahman.
          -4.4.6
          >Regarding this there is this verse: ‘When all the desires that dwell in his heart (mind) are gone, then he, having been mortal, becomes immortal, and attains Brahman in this very body.’ Just as the lifeless slough of a snake is cast off and lies in the ant-hill, so does this body lie. Then the self becomes disembodied and immortal, (becomes) the Prāṇa (Supreme Self), Brahman, the Light. ‘I give you a thousand (cows), sir,’ said Janaka, Emperor of Videha.
          -4.4.7

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          In the same Upanishad, monasticism is presented as essential to realizing the Brahman-Self and is also described as the natural course of a man who has realized the Brahman-Self:

          In 4.4.22 it says

          >The Brāhmaṇas seek to know It through the study of the Vedas, sacrifices, charity, and austerity consisting in a dispassionate enjoyment of sense-objects. Knowing It alone one becomes a sage. Desiring this world (the Self) alone monks renounce their homes. This is (the reason for it): The ancient sages, it is said, did not desire children (thinking), ‘What shall we achieve through children, we who have attained this Self, this world (result).’ They, it is said, renounced their desire for sons, for wealth and for the worlds, and lived a mendicant life.

          So, it talks about people seeking the Self engaging in monasticism, and it also describes people engaging in monasticism after having attained Self-realization. Furthermore, within the dialogue in the Upanishad, one of the characters, Janaka I think, is described as entering into monasticism after receiving the instruction about Brahman.

          The part from the Brihadaranyaka you quoted about Hiranyagarbha is not talking about liberation, it’s talking about heaven or Brahmaloka. The Upanishads present Brahmaloka as distinctly different from moksha although the former can lead to the latter. The Upanishads and earlier Vedic layers are in agreement that rituals and meditations lead to Brahmaloka which is temporary while true liberation from samsara happens through realization of the Brahman-Self.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >knowledge of the inner spiritual content or teaching of the Sruti.
        So before the upanishads and the brahamanas, what are those texts which detail this ''knowledge of the inner spiritual content'' ?

        >>The early Upanishads already present moksha as being the final aim of the spiritual quest of Hinduism
        and before the upanishads and the brahamanas, what are those texts which detail the goal of hinduism as liberation, and that the method for this liberation is knowledge or realization?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This guy gets historic India and Hinduism, at least in broad strokes.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Very well put, I believe
      >This is the generating of so called 'inner heat', kinda like inner spiritual energy, as opposed to outer heat which gets generated by rituals (on which the priests have a monopoly at this point in time).
      This is referring to the agnihotra ceremony (throwing ghee into the fire/fire ritual) right? And this being shifted to a metaphorical conception of “Agni yoga” or something like that, as in the Buddha’s fire sermon.

      "inner heat" is a completely different concept, exclusively present in vajrayana, it has nothing do to with the fire sermon or with the historical Sakyamuni. "Agni yoga" is also not a thing in buddhism

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    religions are hard to classify. Why isn’t Islam considered a sect of Judaism? They have a similar law, cosmology, and historical worldview, their main differences are cultural and the acceptance of a couple prophets. Is Confucianism a religion, or a philosophy? If it’s a religion, why isn’t Platonism a religion? What about Shinto, should we regard Shinto as a form of Buddhism, and therefore a sect of Hinduism? Is Greek and Roman paganism the same religion, or different? Are materialistic philosophies like Marxism or Objectivism religions? No? Okay, then what about new age religions which also reject the supernatural in favor of belief in aliens from other planets who are further evolved then us? Shouldn’t Raelianism or Scientology be considered also material philosophies in the same way Marxism or Objectivism are? If the preacher and the first Presbyterian church and the preacher at the second Presbyterian church differ in one slight doctrine, is that the same religion, same sect, a different sect, or a different religion? What if they differ in a thousand doctrines? When does the distinction occur? If a Presbyterian church and a Baptist church agree on every doctrine, are they the same denomination, or are they different denominations solely due to their name? Are Roman Catholics and Melkite Catholics following the same religion? If they are, then why aren’t Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox following the same religion? Is it solely due to recognition of the pope as a religious authority? Okay, then what about Sedevacantists? Should they be viewed as Roman Catholic, a sect of Roman Catholics, or an entirely different religion?
    The point of all this is solely to say that “Buddhist” is a useful classification of religion, and many people identify themselves as Buddhists with no regard to Hinduism at all, especially when you get farther north away from India. Chinese, Japanese, and Korean do not view themselves as Hindu.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >if Hinduism contains the main Buddhist elements, that is to say to escape the cycle of birth-rebirth then what original ideas did Buddhism bring to the table to make it a separate religion?
    hinduism doesnt contain the main buddhist elements

    the Bhagavad’s Gita is the novel equivalent of the Upanishads.
    The purpose of the Bhagavad’s Gita is how the hindus cope with being ravaged by sramanas in the east. The whole story is about whether the hindu should kill his cousin, ie follow his duty, ie follow the Vedas or instead embrace non-violence, ie rejecting the Vedas, ie following the jains or buddhists or whatever the frick results from the hindus merging their dogmatic crap in the vedas with the rebirth and karma theory of the sramanas.

    Guess what the hindus chose? They made their madeup krishna said that ''even through there is no rebirth taught in the vedas, there was always rebirth (i guess i just forgot about it lol), it's totally real, so you can kill your cousin he will be born again, just trust me lmao''

    2000 years later the poos still take this crap seriously lol

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Hinduism is just very heterosexual by its nature. No sane scholar would claim that vedic religion is the same as that what is practiced under the name hinduism anno 2024. But the fact that documents as old as mesopotamian religions(!) are still used as part of a creed shows that that versatility has been key in still being actively worshipped. Hinduism as 'the oldest religion in the world' is once again non-sensical nationalist crap but it is true that the oldest part of the vedas are very, very old and I can't think of a single religion that still uses texts as old as those.

      Thank arab petrol money on one hand and moronic hindu nationalism on the other hand for the fact that 'hinduism'and for instance islam only can define themselves in opposition to each other. Sai baba is a late 19th century Indian guru who preached tolerance and was worshipped by both Muslims and 'hindus'. That openness is just really cool and it is a shame that those things are being lost

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        *heterodox

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Muslims
        Not muslims by definition. You are clearly either:
        1. moronic
        2. know nothing about islam
        3. both

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Okay my man, millions of self-identified Muslims were totally OK with listening to the man but they ain't Muslims as per the book haha.

          Prime example of why we can't have nice things

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      So breaking the birth-rebirth cycle and reaching Nirvana isn't the main Buddhist 'objective'?

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Th Bhagavad Gita was written centuries after the Buddha lived

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Buddhism is hindi principles minus dogma.
    Buddha taught that God's, myths, all ideas are projections of the mind. Hinduism taught that these things are real.
    Buddha cut past the meat straight to the bone: you are responsible for how you act, how you control and center your mind, and that is reality. Not these stories of deities plaguing you.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      sounds pretty based to me tbh

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Buddhism is excellent and is the only spiritual system I've ever read about that produced an immediate and lasting change in my perspective/behavior. Every other system or religion gives you an out, and something else to blame. Or, it hits you with so much guilt that you're paralyzed.
        Buddhism teaches you to own the present moment and that there's zero justification for anything, only different levels of awareness and discipline. It's great.
        Buddhism came from Taoism. I'd recommend reading the Tao Te Ching. It's very short.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Buddhism came from Taoism

          There's definitely a resemblance, but where did you get that from?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Because everything under the sun comes from the Tao. I view the Tao as the purest idea.
            When Buddha speaks about nirvana, he's talking about aligning ones being with that of the Tao.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >When Buddha speaks about nirvana, he's talking about aligning ones being with that of the Tao.
            That's completely false. Nirvana is not even an idea.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Neither is the Tao.
            In and out, in and out, in and out, in and out, in and out, in and out, in and out; but never moving.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I think the Tao is one of the names of the Infinite, the thing one can get away with claiming is at the heart of every religion. In Buddhism, I think it appears as the non-duality of emptiness and form, or perhaps it is nirvana, since nirvana is also called the deathless.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I agree. Good post.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >the Infinite
            lol no

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Oh, yes! No one would say the Tao is limited. The Infinite is that which admits no limitation. It's in every world religion.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What is the Tao, then, sensei?

            The tao is both finite and infinite.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I can agree with that. Personally, I define the Tao as everything and nothing.
            But none of it quite fits. First line of the Tao Te Ching:
            >the Tao that can be described is not the eternal Tao
            >the Name that can be spoken is not the eternal Name.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Tao is "The Ultimate", not "Infinite". The Named Tao is not the True Tao.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Tao is so infinite even words can't contain it, stop fighting it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What is the Tao, then, sensei?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Okay but all Buddhist countries venerate their Bodhisattvas like Apostolic Christians venerate their Saints, they seem real to them.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Buddha didn't.
        Men missing the point and turning an idea into a dogma doesn't say anything about the original idea. Just about men.
        Buddha told his followers that to venerate him is nonsensical.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I agree, I know about the parable of the Arrow but there is this weird sense that somehow it just fits. There is a weird similarity between Theravada Buddhist countries and Catholic countries in the sense that you feel like you are among a fleshed out metphysical realm.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Highly interesting digits in this thread.
            I chalk it up simply to this: some men broach wisdom, and it's so enrapturing that men who can't broach it as well, are nevertheless enamored by it. These men then go on to worship and sanctify the original wise men, who didn't worship or sanctify anything, simply saw thing as they were, or, came close.
            Happens in every system. It doesn't make the followers bad, because in following, they're trying to get closer to what is good. People just do things differently and reach things at different paces.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm probably lowering the level of discussion itt and am out of my depth on Buddhism but I see Catholicism get compared to Mahayana or Vajrayana more than Theravada. Mahayana has its own exclusive sacred sutras and Vajrayana has the tantric scriptures not accepted by Theravada, just like Catholicism has the Greek deuterocanon not accepted by Protestants.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I tend to think of all of that as missing the point, but that doesn't mean I hate any of it. Making an idol out of an idea seems to defy the point of these practices.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I just took Theravada as an example because it's supposedly closest to the OG Buddhism, and it still has, what is mirrored in the west as Saint veneration and intercession, where people go to various Bodhisattvas and ask for good fortune in finances etc.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            "Supposedly" does quite a lot of work here, I think only Theravadins actually believe they're closer to OG Buddhism. A stronger case is that OG Buddhism is pretty much lost.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Only Theravadans believe they are the closest to OG Buddhism. It's a view rooted in sectarian thinking, not a historical thinking.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >>Only Theravadans believe they are the closest to OG Buddhism
            Mahayana gurus say they are the only correct buddhist teaching.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Hinduism doesn't begin with the Upanishads. Why are you obsessed with this?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Why are you obsessed with this?
      Nooooooo you can’t just correct inaccurate statements about the main Hindu scripture in a Hinduism thread!?!

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >main Hindu scripture
        doubt

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >doubt
          While other texts that are more accessible and easy to comprehend may be read by a wider audience (e.g. Gita or Puranas), the Upanishads are generally considered to have the highest doctrinal authority of any text, aside from maybe a few fringe sects. The Shruti (Vedas+Upanishads) are considered to be the highest textual authority, and the Upanishads are the specific part of the Vedas that reveal the ultimate metaphysical or spiritual teaching of the Vedas.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >In the Gita Bhakti-Yoga is a legit way of liberation. Even Karma-Yoga.
            Jnana-Yoga has never been the only way to reach liberation in Hinduism,
            To say that liberation happens through knowledge is not to say that Jnana-Yoga is the only path to liberation, since the other paths ultimately culminate in knowledge all the same, either in this life (by preparing oneself for jnana-yoga), or after death (by granting entry to the Brahmaloka where one subsequently attains knowledge). The Upanishads focus primarily on Jnana-Yoga, they acknowledge indirect paths to liberation that involves going through the Brahmaloka first, but they don’t explain in detail or step by step what exactly these alternative paths entail. This is where the Gita comes in by expounding on these alternative paths to moksha in addition to Jnana-Yoga. The Gita explains how the Upanishads, which focus on Jnana-Yoga and renunciation, still ultimately teach a worldview that is relevant to and practicable by non-monk householders in the form of Karma-Yoga, Bhakti-Yoga etc.

            >no matter what the Upanishads claim.
            Like all Smriti, the Bhagavad-Gita derives its authority from the Shruti, it only has doctrinal authority inasmuch as it elucidates and expands on the teachings of the Shruti. If any Smriti says anything that seems to contradict the Shruti, one is supposed to either disregard that part or find an alternative interpretation that makes it agree.

            >>Like all Smriti, the Bhagavad-Gita derives its authority from the Shruti, it only has doctrinal authority inasmuch as it elucidates and expands on the teachings of the Shruti. If any Smriti says anything that seems to contradict the Shruti, one is supposed to either disregard that part or find an alternative interpretation that makes it agree.

            is what it's said in the Rigveda or some late texts written as fat cope?
            By the way is there an hindu text explicitly saying Krishna is wrong when he says the bakthi yoga is the best for liberation?

            >The Shruti (Vedas+Upanishads) are considered to be the highest textual authority, and the Upanishads are the specific part of the Vedas that reveal the ultimate metaphysical or spiritual teaching of the Vedas.

            Good, then you won't have any problem finding all the detailed expositions of karma, yoga, liberation from samsara, in the samhitas and/or brahamas.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Good, then you won't have any problem finding all the detailed expositions of karma, yoga, liberation from samsara, in the samhitas and/or brahamas.
            The pre-Upanishad portion of the Vedas are the karma-khanda, or the section of the Vedas that deal with work/ritual, while the Upanishads are the jnana-khanda, or the section of the Veda that deals with knowledge and the nature of ultimate reality. So, complaining about the contents of Jnana-Yoga not being found in the Karma-Khanda makes no sense since that’s not its purpose. It would be like complaining about Buddha not talking about meditation when he is talking about the time he ate cow poop along with his own poop in the Maha-sihanada Sutta, that’s not the point of that sutta so it makes no sense to complain about that.

            You can still find brief verses here and there in the Karma-Khanda which agree with the Jnana-Khanda and which show the ideas of the Upanishads has earlier antecedents in the earlier Vedic layers, but they are not the main purpose of the Karma-Khanda. Examples of this include

            “By knowing Brahman one attains immortality here. There is no other way to its attainment”
            - Taittiriya Aranyaka (Yajur Veda) 6-1-6

            "There are but two outstanding paths-first the path of rites, and next monasticism; of these the latter excels"
            -Taittiriya Aranyaka 10-62-12

            “Without any want, contemplative, immortal, self-originated, sufficed with a quintessence, lacking in naught whatever: lie who knoweth that constant, ageless, and ever-youthful Spirit, knoweth indeed himself, and feareth not to die"
            - Arthava Veda 10-8-44

            Even the root mantras of the Rig Veda show a knowledge of rebirth when they mention a sage realizing his past-lives:

            “I was aforetime Manu, I was Sūrya (the sun): I am the sage Kakṣīvān, holy singer.”
            - Rig-Veda 4-26-1

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    In the Gita Bhakti-Yoga is a legit way of liberation. Even Karma-Yoga.
    Jnana-Yoga has never been the only way to reach liberation in Hinduism, no matter what the Upanishads claim.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >In the Gita Bhakti-Yoga is a legit way of liberation.

      Chapter Twelve
      Devotional Service

      TEXT 1:
      Arjuna inquired: Which are considered to be more perfect, those who are always properly engaged in Your devotional service or those who worship the impersonal Brahman, the unmanifested?

      TEXT 2:
      The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Those who fix their minds on My personal form and are always engaged in worshiping Me with great and transcendental faith are considered by Me to be most perfect.

      TEXTS 3-4:
      But those who fully worship the unmanifested, that which lies beyond the perception of the senses, the all-pervading, inconceivable, unchanging, fixed and immovable – the impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth – by controlling the various senses and being equally disposed to everyone, such persons, engaged in the welfare of all, at last achieve Me.

      TEXT 5:
      For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.

      https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/12/5/
      >The group of transcendentalists who follow the path of the inconceivable, unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme Lord are called jñāna-yogīs, and persons who are in full Kṛṣṇa consciousness, engaged in devotional service to the Lord, are called bhakti-yogīs. Now, here the difference between jñāna-yoga and bhakti-yoga is definitely expressed. The process of jñāna-yoga, although ultimately bringing one to the same goal, is very troublesome, whereas the path of bhakti-yoga, the process of being in direct service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is easier and is natural for the embodied soul. The individual soul is embodied since time immemorial. It is very difficult for him to simply theoretically understand that he is not the body.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >In the Gita Bhakti-Yoga is a legit way of liberation. Even Karma-Yoga.
      Jnana-Yoga has never been the only way to reach liberation in Hinduism,
      To say that liberation happens through knowledge is not to say that Jnana-Yoga is the only path to liberation, since the other paths ultimately culminate in knowledge all the same, either in this life (by preparing oneself for jnana-yoga), or after death (by granting entry to the Brahmaloka where one subsequently attains knowledge). The Upanishads focus primarily on Jnana-Yoga, they acknowledge indirect paths to liberation that involves going through the Brahmaloka first, but they don’t explain in detail or step by step what exactly these alternative paths entail. This is where the Gita comes in by expounding on these alternative paths to moksha in addition to Jnana-Yoga. The Gita explains how the Upanishads, which focus on Jnana-Yoga and renunciation, still ultimately teach a worldview that is relevant to and practicable by non-monk householders in the form of Karma-Yoga, Bhakti-Yoga etc.

      >no matter what the Upanishads claim.
      Like all Smriti, the Bhagavad-Gita derives its authority from the Shruti, it only has doctrinal authority inasmuch as it elucidates and expands on the teachings of the Shruti. If any Smriti says anything that seems to contradict the Shruti, one is supposed to either disregard that part or find an alternative interpretation that makes it agree.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    same answer as why is Christianity different from israeliteism if they both have the exact same source of wisdom i.e the Bible

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Michael Zimmermann, in his study of the Tathagatagarbha Sutra, reveals that not only the Mahaparinirvana Sutra but also the Tathagatagarbha Sutra and the Lankavatara Sutra speak affirmatively of the Self. Zimmermann observes:[13]

    >the existence of an eternal, imperishable self, that is, buddhahood, is definitely the basic point of the TGS [Tathagatagarbha Sutra] ... the Mahaparinirvanasutra and the Lankavatarasutra characterize the tathagatagarbha explicitly as atman [Self].

    can indians make up their minds on the matter of self or no-self already

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >O Mahāmati, the tathāgatas thus teach the garbha in so far as they teach the tathāgatagarbha in order to attract those who are attached to the heterodox ātmavāda. How can people whose minds fall into the conceptual theory bearing on an unreal self (abhūtātmavikalpa) attain quickly the complete awakening in the supreme and exact sambodhi, possessing a mind comprised in the domain of the three gateways of emancipation? O Mahāmati, it is because of this that the tathāgatas teach the tathāgatagarbha.

      >O Mahāmati, with a view to casting aside the heterodox theory, you must treat the tathāgatagarbha as not self

      >Mahamati, my teaching of tathagatagarbha is not equivalent with the assertion of the Self of the non-Buddhists. Mahamati, the Tathagata, Arhat, Samyak Sambuddhas, having demonstrated the meaning of the words 'emptiness, reality limit, nirvana, non-arisen, signless', etc. as tathagatagarbha for the purpose of the immature complete forsaking the perishable abodes, demonstrate the expertiential range of the non-appearing abode of complete non-conceptuality by demonstrating the door of tathagatagarbha. Mahamati, a self should not be perceived as real by Bodhisattva Mahasattvas enlightened in the future or presently."

      From the Lankavatara Sutra

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Can someone please explain to me the difference between the Vedas and Upanishads and Sutras, and if the Sutras being only Buddhist and not broader Dharmic canon is correct.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Can someone please explain to me the difference between the Vedas and Upanishads
      The Upanishads are the final section of the Vedas and they focus on explaining the nature of ultimate reality and the spiritual journey to liberation.

      >and Sutras, and if the Sutras being only Buddhist and not broader Dharmic canon is correct.
      Sutras (Sutta in Pali) literally means "thread" but in a derivative sense means a text that is a collection of verses or a collection of sayings/discourses, there are both Buddhist and Hindu texts called Sutras/Suttas.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Sanatana Dharma is not a religion.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's incredible how silly these Indian myths sound the moment you read them in an Indian accent. How the frick am I supposed to care about something like this?
    Arjuna [head bob]. Dhis, for my soul's peece, have I heard from Dhee...

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Racism isn't allowed outside /b/ btw

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Just accept that you guys have a funny accent.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        dumb curryBlack person

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      If you don't read scriptures in Sanskrit you are just falling trap to some grifter with an English translation.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      you have severe issues

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine not learning Sanskrit Vyakarana before reading the original texts lmfao

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Well, In India, Back in the day, There was "Dharm" It meant your duties, Or way of life. "Sanatan Dharm" Meant, way of life that is present from the very beginning. They had various sects, Which had different ways for it. Each had their own rules, Their preffered deities and what not. Jainism, Buddhism were also one of those ways. With time, Came people from other countries, like Arabs and then Portugese and so on. For them, All these sects were one thing while they had their own ideas. This led to present religions.
    Hinduism today also has many sects, And for us, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs are no different. It's the present world that divides us. I don't mind praying to any gods mentioned in any of these religions, Cause all are one.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *