Are Buddhist and Hindu Scriptures Inaccurate?

[CG Didymus]

If they realize that no religion has a monopoly on the Truth, thus we can all learn somethings from each other.

But, if each religion says and believes it has the Truth and the other religions say and believe things that contradict that Truth, then what? Is any of it really The Truth? Or, are people getting smart enough to know that all religions have things that are true in them but have myths and legends mixed in?

 

[metis]

But, if each religion says and believes it has the Truth and the other religions say and believe things that contradict that Truth, then what?

Not so much nowadays. I don't believe that any religion or denomination any longer believes that it has some sort of monopoly on the Truth.

Is any of it really The Truth?

Undoubtedly, yes. The Truth is not directly related to one's opinion on what exactly is the Truth.

Or, are people getting smart enough to know that all religions have things that are true in them but have myths and legends mixed in?

Most do from what I've experienced.

 

[CG Didymus]

Not so much nowadays. I don't believe that any religion or denomination any longer believes that it has some sort of monopoly on the Truth.

Undoubtedly, yes. The Truth is not directly related to one's opinion on what exactly is the Truth.

Most do from what I've experienced.

I don't know how much some Hindu and Buddhists expect their followers to believe a lot of the "mythical" sounding stuff, but, especially in the U.S., it is techniques and practices of doing things that get a person to connect with the "higher self" or the "divine" or whatever they call it. When I say "The Truth" I'm talking about religions like Christianity that lay out an interpretation of the Bible that the followers are expected to believe. Things like a six-day creation become "The Truth" no matter what scientists might say.

 

[metis]

When I say "The Truth" I'm talking about religions like Christianity that lay out an interpretation of the Bible that the followers are expected to believe. Things like a six-day creation become "The Truth" no matter what scientists might say.

Not in Catholicism and many mainline Protestant churches, which tend not to be so literalistic. Matter of fact, the first time I heard that a Christian could accept the ToE was from a Catholic priest I ran into at a bowling alley back around 1961.

In Catholicism, the Church has the role of teaching what it believes is right, but it doesn't go as far as saying only their interpretation is mandated. IOW, we as parishioners have the right of personal discernment. However, it certainly wasn't always that way.

A priest that I know describes it this way: The Church is like a Roman traffic cop waving his hands the way the cars should go, with some drivers obeying him and some not because they're not paying attention or they just want to do their own thing. As long as there's no conflict, no problem. But if there is a conflict or an accident, the officer is there to try and sort things out.

To put it another way: the Church teaches but we are responsible for our own salvation.

You may have seen me post this before, but I sometimes refer to myself as being on the "lunatic left-wing fringe of Catholicism". My priest knows this and yet has me working with potential adult converts coming into the Church.

 

[Inquire of God]

It was suggested in another thread that Hindu and Buddhist scriptures may not accurately reflect the lives of Buddha and Krishna.

I am interested in hearing specifically what scriptures and what parts of these scriptures the denizens of RF feel are flawed or inaccurate with regard to the lives of these two avatara.

As far as I can tell there is zero historical evidence regarding Krishna being more than a story about a Hindu God, I.E. no real evidence he was actually a real person living on this planet.
Buddha on the other hand has some very real historical evidence of actually being a person who lived on this planet and some of the information about him has so much connection to various areas in India that almost everyone is convinced he is a real person
The problem that arises is that the info about Buddha was probably not written down for a long time after he died, so it is likely very unreliable, but many elements of it must be true for various reasons.
If this is the same problem with Krishna I would be surprised, because even though there are some accounts of him living in actual areas of India, there is no evidence to support it and the writer probably just chose to insert the story into a known area. I.E. the story mentions a real area, but the real area has no distinguishing supporting evidence.

 

[CG Didymus]

Not in Catholicism and many mainline Protestant churches, which tend not to be so literalistic. Matter of fact, the first time I heard that a Christian could accept the ToE was from a Catholic priest I ran into at a bowling alley back around 1961.

In Catholicism, the Church has the role of teaching what it believes is right, but it doesn't go as far as saying only their interpretation is mandated. IOW, we as parishioners have the right of personal discernment. However, it certainly wasn't always that way.

A priest that I know describes it this way: The Church is like a Roman traffic cop waving his hands the way the cars should go, with some drivers obeying him and some not because they're not paying attention or they just want to do their own thing. As long as there's no conflict, no problem. But if there is a conflict or an accident, the officer is there to try and sort things out.

To put it another way: the Church teaches but we are responsible for our own salvation.

You may have seen me post this before, but I sometimes refer to myself as being on the "lunatic left-wing fringe of Catholicism". My priest knows this and yet has me working with potential adult converts coming into the Church.

Actually, my beliefs are very close to what the Baha'is think. Except, I think it is very likely that the people in each culture, tribe or whatever made their religious beliefs, rules and their Gods. So if there differences no big deal. Whereas Baha'is believe that one God sent messengers to different people at different times, then the people added things in and messed the religion, which caused each religion to have so many contradictory beliefs.

So Judaism doesn't to be exactly true, but it is what Jews were taught was true. Then comes the story of Jesus. I've got no problem believing that pagan ideas about dying and rising Gods came into it, that devils and hell and the need for a savior came into it. And then a lot of people believed it. And it was probably better than their old beliefs in some ways. Then the Church leaders canonized the NT and made some doctrines which all evolved into the Catholic Church. I don't believe they had the exact truth. And I think the Protestants were right to rebel. But did they have the truth? All they knew was the Christian Bible, so that was their truth. Anything that went contrary to their interpretation of their Bible was not the truth. Which meant not only the other religions, but the other sects of Christianity.

So why not with Hinduism and Buddhism? Same thing... I think religious/spiritual people came up with thing that they believed were true. And no doubt many of the things from Hinduism and Buddhism have worked and have helped people become more Intune, enlightened, more spiritual. But are stories about Krishna and the Buddha precisely and totally accurate? I doubt it. But rather I think, like the stories of Jesus and others, the stories were embellished to make those people even greater than they were. That is, if all of them were even real. I would have no problem if ancient people made up mythical characters that were used to give the religion a supernatural origin. But if they were real, and did exactly as the stories say they did that's fine too. I just don't think it is very likely. But, definitely, I believe that if those people like Krishna, Buddha and Jesus are believed to be real, that they have a more powerful effect and influence on the people. So if I was a religious leader I'd want my people to fully believe and not doubt. But then whether Popes, Priests, Gurus or TV Evangelists... can we really trust what they are saying?

 

[WonderingWorrier]

What I found in the bible can also be found all over the world. That is why I believe the way of the wheel could be the truth.

Scriptures (from various religions, myths, and fairytales) can be sorted through word structure analysis into two piles. Those that speak the wheel of law, and those that do not.


Not just mentioning a wheel, but having their words positioned in sentences having the form of wheel.
The wheel is identified by following the words.


I also became a believer in things like mythical creatures, signs, miracles, prophecies etc, after they appeared as word combinations in the same positions of the wheel. It is a strange truth.



"The dharmachakra (Sanskrit; Pali: dhammacakka) or wheel of dharma is a widespread symbol used in Indian religions such as Hinduism, Jainism, and especially Buddhism".

"The dharmachakra symbol also points to the central Indian idea of "Dharma", a complex and multivalent term which refers to the eternal cosmic law, universal moral order and in Buddhism, the very teaching and path expounded by the Buddha"
Dharmachakra - Wikipedia



"Nothing is higher than dharma. The weak overcomes the stronger by dharma, as over a king. Truly that dharma is the Truth (Satya); Therefore, when a man speaks the Truth, they say, "He speaks the Dharma"; and if he speaks Dharma, they say, "He speaks the Truth!" For both are one".
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.xiv

 

[Martin]

Actually, my beliefs are very close to what the Baha'is think. Except, I think it is very likely that the people in each culture, tribe or whatever made their religious beliefs, rules and their Gods. So if there differences no big deal. Whereas Baha'is believe that one God sent messengers to different people at different times, then the people added things in and messed the religion, which caused each religion to have so many contradictory beliefs.

So Judaism doesn't to be exactly true, but it is what Jews were taught was true. Then comes the story of Jesus. I've got no problem believing that pagan ideas about dying and rising Gods came into it, that devils and hell and the need for a savior came into it. And then a lot of people believed it. And it was probably better than their old beliefs in some ways. Then the Church leaders canonized the NT and made some doctrines which all evolved into the Catholic Church. I don't believe they had the exact truth. And I think the Protestants were right to rebel. But did they have the truth? All they knew was the Christian Bible, so that was their truth. Anything that went contrary to their interpretation of their Bible was not the truth. Which meant not only the other religions, but the other sects of Christianity.

So why not with Hinduism and Buddhism? Same thing... I think religious/spiritual people came up with thing that they believed were true. And no doubt many of the things from Hinduism and Buddhism have worked and have helped people become more Intune, enlightened, more spiritual. But are stories about Krishna and the Buddha precisely and totally accurate? I doubt it. But rather I think, like the stories of Jesus and others, the stories were embellished to make those people even greater than they were. That is, if all of them were even real. I would have no problem if ancient people made up mythical characters that were used to give the religion a supernatural origin. But if they were real, and did exactly as the stories say they did that's fine too. I just don't think it is very likely. But, definitely, I believe that if those people like Krishna, Buddha and Jesus are believed to be real, that they have a more powerful effect and influence on the people. So if I was a religious leader I'd want my people to fully believe and not doubt. But then whether Popes, Priests, Gurus or TV Evangelists... can we really trust what they are saying?

Do you think Jesus was mythologised, eg reported as doing miracles when in fact he didn't?

 

[metis]

Then the Church leaders canonized the NT and made some doctrines which all evolved into the Catholic Church

It was the name that evolved to be called "Catholic", which occurred well over a century prior Nicene and the canonization of the Christian scriptures. Thus, the Church was there with Jesus and the Apostles and evolved from there.

So why not with Hinduism and Buddhism? Same thing... I think religious/spiritual people came up with thing that they believed were true

As with all religions, imo.

But then whether Popes, Priests, Gurus or TV Evangelists... can we really trust what they are saying?

or you? or I? or anyone else?

 

[WonderingWorrier]

Having a look at the Vedas. Listening to the birds.

I've found a verse about swans separating milk from water. I didn't know they could do that.
I see some saying that science has proven swans cant actually separate milk from water. The verse is not accurate.

But maybe it is accurate. In its own way.



Knowing the connection between words could allow to separate words into their places:

"Just as swan separates milk from water and drinks it, so a learned person, the embodiment of action, through yogic practices, strengthening his soul with pure food, acquires divine hearing, sweetness, healing medicine, pure love, and immaculate divine speech mingled with the eternal connection between word and its significance in all worldly objects".




Not too sure on this swan verse. Seems a bit of a vague interpretation. A maybe:

"The groups of the rainers of wisdom, who are like the swans separating truth from falsehood, who are quickly, the overcomers of the foes in the form of lust, anger, jealousy etc. by their soul-force attain God, who is the object of praise and adoration, the purifier, difficult to attain by ordinary persons. Behaving with each other in a friendly manner, they mention about him together".



This swan verse is interesting. It has lots of word connection detail:

"O king and commander-in-chief of the army! come to our places of prosperity with your swan-like horses which have sweet (charming) movements, and are inviolable. They are golden winged, wakers at dawn, bearers of burden, dispensers of water and are gladdening. Come to us as the bees are set upon the collection of honey"


So perhaps it is something that is part horse - part swan that can separate milk and water.

Not quite like this:

The Swan/Horse/Gold might be in a specific position on a wheel.

Further investigation would be needed to confirm.


Would need to listen to the birds, animals, plants, and trees. Maybe they will agree.

 

[rational experiences]

A human is two bodies as one self.

First notification that words used by one self the male human did not speak on behalf of two.

However a baby non word user was born from one O ovary female.

Why science as a spoken thesis is never personally correct as it is abstract. Part of religious expressions in life man in sciences.

If you ask do religious icons live involved with phenomena in spirituality. Of course proven multi times.

My sisters house was in latest bushfires. Her daughter's once worked in Buddhist monastery asked them to pray in world prayer group. They did. Fire stopped in front of her house.

Cloud spirit man water owns his spirit presence. Loss of bio life given to atmospheric spirit some times proves itself. Praying by loving selves proven.

In times of my struggle a butterfly will appear. I know the spiritual self deity was a real circumstance as they proved it their selves. I am of neither spiritual following but know spiritual presence in human life is exhibited.

 

[firedragon]

But, if each religion says and believes it has the Truth and the other religions say and believe things that contradict that Truth, then what? Is any of it really The Truth? Or, are people getting smart enough to know that all religions have things that are true in them but have myths and legends mixed in?

There are two ways to look at it. One is to think that all religions are true, and not untrue essentially, and the one who follows any religion well enough is great. The other would be to study them and make specific theories rather than general ones without going deep into any.

In my honest opinion, you can generalise certain things to every religion, but not most of the things.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't know how much some Hindu and Buddhists expect their followers to believe a lot of the "mythical" sounding stuff, but, especially in the U.S., it is techniques and practices of doing things that get a person to connect with the "higher self" or the "divine" or whatever they call it. When I say "The Truth" I'm talking about religions like Christianity that lay out an interpretation of the Bible that the followers are expected to believe. Things like a six-day creation become "The Truth" no matter what scientists might say.

I call it Buddha's little joke.

 

[CG Didymus]

Do you think Jesus was mythologised, eg reported as doing miracles when in fact he didn't?

Well, if I was going to write a story about a super hero, I'd have them doing super natural things. Without the healing miracles, the virgin birth, walking on water and rising from the dead, why would people believe in Jesus? But then, there is also the threat of hell... that without Jesus that is where people will be sent to be punished. And I believe that lots of Christians do feel the power and love of God inside them. So it is very real to them. And most of them are very nice people. But, then there's the radical believers, and the phony believers and the TV evangelists.

But to me... Wow, it sure seems way too easy to have embellished the stories... like dead people coming out of their graves? A star that kept moving until it got to Bethlehem? God speaking from heaven? Then go back to Genesis and forget about it... a talking snake? A world wide flood? But, the stories worked. It got people to believe and got them to try and follow some rules... And got them to feel guilty if they broke some of the rules. And most important of all, it got people to give their money.

 

[Skywalker]

It can be seen that there are two levels of sin.

One can be forgiven, one cannot and that is clearly stated in the Bible.

Matthew 12:30-32: "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, any sin and blasphemy can be forgiven. ... And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven."

That reflects why Baha'u'llah has given a Covernant. As many people take the Word and speak as it they have the authority of the Holy Spirit, or make themselves Christ. This is a grave spiritual sickness.

Wheras, the greatest enemy, who is yet to see the Spirit in Jesus, can be forgiven if they repent and change their ways.

Regards Tony

God can't just say that he forgives the sins of the world for the same reason that judges can't just forgive criminals and can't let rapists and thieves back on the street and just say, "It's okay, I forgive you." For God to do something like this would be an insult to his holiness. It would look like he was simply endorsing rebellion against himself and his character. He is a righteous judge, and therefore he must find us guilty of sin because the truth of the matter is that we are guilty. We have fallen short of how God wants us to live. We violate even our own moral standards, so certainly we violate God's higher standard. To pretend otherwise would be a lie-and God is not a liar.

 

[Skywalker]

We are never separated from God. Never were, never will be. Lying and being impolite have karmic consequences but karmic consequences don’t separate us from God.

We all do things that we arent supposed to do. Karma doesn't explain the origin of sin. Eternal separation being the consequences of sin makes sense because people go to jail in human law. 13 Reasons I No Longer Believe In Karma Or Reincarnation | Reasons for Jesus

(1) If suffering, evil, and imperfection in any individual are a result of negative karma reaped from a former life, then how do suffering, evil, and imperfection make their appearance in a soul’s first ‘incarnation’?
Since every human being goes through suffering in this world, and every person is subject to evil and imperfection, there is no person free from this evidence of previous guiltiness. Therefore, there is no proof that anyone has been born for the first time with a ‘clean slate.’

(2) It is taught that the justice of God demands the concept of reincarnation
For instance, if a child is born physically debilitated or in abject poverty, there is no other explanation for such a condition than the presupposition that this is repayment for evil behavior in a former life. Otherwise, allowing such a circumstance would be sufficient evidence to indict the Almighty God with the crime of injustice. A loving Creator could never allow such a terrible plight to come upon an innocent child. So, negative circumstances can only be the result of karmic indebtedness.

Believing this line of logic supposedly preserves the integrity and justness of God and places the blame on human beings for their own predicaments. But does this really answer the questions we all ask concerning human suffering? Does it not instead catapult humanity into an even greater abyss of despair?

If this scenario is true, then the innocent child is no longer innocent and good people who suffer are no longer good. Quite the contrary, they are all guilty parties who should unresistingly submit to the ‘punishment’ they deserve. How could this possibly be fair and just treatment especially since those who suffer have no recollection of the ill deeds for which they are being punished? Furthermore, because there is no remembrance of the causal action, unfortunate recipients of such karmic curses cannot assess their wrong behavior patterns in order to make necessary adjustments in their character.

The unfairness of this doctrine is magnified even more if the Buddhist doctrine of no-self (anatta) is correct. According to this view, there is no enduring self or soul that exists from one incarnation to the next. Instead, five ‘aggregates’ are disassembled at death and a new person is assembled from five new aggregates in the next incarnation. The only thing transferred from one manifestation to the next is the “unconscious disposition” with its attachment of karma accumulated from previous lives. In this scenario, a person does not suffer for his own evil deeds, but for those performed by altogether different individuals.

In the Garland Sutra (10) this is verified—“According to what deeds are done, do their resulting consequences come to be; yet the doer has no existence: this is the Buddha’s teaching.” One person being subjected to suffering because of another person’s errors is not justice; it is injustice—of cosmic proportions.

 

[Vinayaka]

We all do things that we arent supposed to do. Karma doesn't explain the origin of sin. Eternal separation being the consequences of sin makes sense because people go to jail in human law. 13 Reasons I No Longer Believe In Karma Or Reincarnation | Reasons for Jesus

In Hindu thought, anava would be the cause of adharmic behaviour.
Anava

 

[Skywalker]

In Hindu thought, anava would be the cause of adharmic behaviour.
Anava

Regardless of what the cause of sin is real, we all know that we do things that we arent supposed to do. That is why Christ came.

 

[Vinayaka]

Regardless of what the cause of sin is real, we all know that we do things that we arent supposed to do. That is why Christ came.

I don't believe in sin. Christ (if he existed) is irrelevant to me.
But you're free to differ, but I hate to be the bringer of the bad news that there happen to be other religions besides Christianity on this planet. Not sure if you knew that.

 

[Skywalker]

I don't believe in sin. Christ (if he existed) is irrelevant to me.
But you're free to differ, but I hate to be the bringer of the bad news that there happen to be other religions besides Christianity on this planet. Not sure if you knew that.

Why do you think sin doesn't exist? We all do things that we shouldn't do.

And God spoke all these words:

“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

“You shall have no other gods before me. (Exodus 20:1-3).

The first commandment means that God should be the focal point of all of your affections. Your relationship with Him should be the most important part of your life. A perfect example is the rich young ruler Matthew tells us about in the New Testament:

Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

“Which ones?” he inquired.

Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony,19 honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”

“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:16-24).

It is interesting to see how Jesus talked with the rich young ruler using the Ten Commandments as the starting point in a discussion of "what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" And with those commandments He was able to show the man his self-righteousness. This is an amazing story. The rich young ruler could not even get past the first commandment: He did have another god before the God of the universe, and it was his money. We will all worship something. Whether we are atheists, agnostics, or believers in some religion, we are all worshipers. Where do you turn your mind and heart to gain meaning, fulfillment, control, protection, and significance in your life? What has your affection? What do you meditate upon? When you lay your head on your pillow at night, what do you think about? Who or what is your God? Now ask yourself this question: Have I broken the first of the Ten Commandments?