Existential Buddhism versus Theravada Buddhism

[Spirit of Light]

What I have said is on the record: it is for others to comment on the validity of my assertions.

Is that not what i do?

 

[Shantanu]

Is that not what i do?

You are hurling insults at me by saying that I am a non-enlightened person with no right to comment on Buddhism.

 

[Spirit of Light]

You are hurling insults at me by saying that I am a non-enlightened person with no right to comment on Buddhism.

No that is not what i said, Yes i say you are not enlighten because from your knowledge of both buddhism and hinduism you show that you do not are all knowing. That is not an attack on you as a person it is meant to guide you to know there is more to learn, Same for me, i am not an enlighten being but i use my 20 years as a buddhist to back up my clames within the buddhist teachings.

When you comment on buddhism you do often not now the consept or even sometimes it is fully wrong statment and not backed up by any scripture.

 

[crossfire]

Let me just post a link to this chapter of the Dhammapada from the Theravadan website accesstoinsight.org Perhaps this might dispel some ignorance regarding the Buddhadharma.

Don't worry, it is short (10 lines.) You won't waste any precious time and you only have your ignorance to lose.

Attavagga: The Self

 

[Shantanu]

No that is not what i said, Yes i say you are not enlighten because from your knowledge of both buddhism and hinduism you show that you do not are all knowing. That is not an attack on you as a person it is meant to guide you to know there is more to learn, Same for me, i am not an enlighten being but i use my 20 years as a buddhist to back up my clames within the buddhist teachings.

When you comment on buddhism you do often not now the consept or even sometimes it is fully wrong statment and not backed up by any scripture.

I am a self-taught Existentialist Buddhist within the Hindu fold; that is the difference.

 

[Shantanu]

Let me just post a link to this chapter of the Dhammapada from the Theravadan website accesstoinsight.org Perhaps this might dispel some ignorance regarding the Buddhadharma.

Don't worry, it is short (10 lines.) You won't waste any precious time and you only have your ignorance to lose.

Attavagga: The Self

Let us take these into consideration. You have a religion that gets people to sign up to seek refuge in these dictations and if they fail to meditate on the following, they are consigned to the hell of karmic existence for many lives in this samsara (the world as we know it) until they get it right: it does not spell out what the evil deeds are, as far as I can see:
157. If one holds oneself dear, one should diligently watch oneself. Let the wise man keep vigil during any of the three watches of the night.

158. One should first establish oneself in what is proper; then only should one instruct others. Thus the wise man will not be reproached.

159. One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is self-control.

160. One truly is the protector of oneself; who else could the protector be? With oneself fully controlled, one gains a mastery that is hard to gain.

161. The evil a witless man does by himself, born of himself and produced by himself, grinds him as a diamond grinds a hard gem.

162. Just as a single creeper strangles the tree on which it grows, even so, a man who is exceedingly depraved harms himself as only an enemy might wish.

163. Easy to do are things that are bad and harmful to oneself. But exceedingly difficult to do are things that are good and beneficial.

164. Whoever, on account of perverted views, scorns the Teaching of the Perfected Ones, the Noble and Righteous Ones — that fool, like the bamboo, produces fruits only for self destruction. [14]

165. By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depend on oneself; no one can purify another.

166. Let one not neglect one's own welfare for the sake of another, however great. Clearly understanding one's own welfare, let one be intent upon the good.

 

[sayak83]

I am being a Hindu in practicing Existential Buddhism.

Hindu's don't practice existential Buddhism. Stop making ridiculous claims that you can never hope to back up.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Let us take these into consideration. You have a religion that gets people to sign up to seek refuge in these dictations and if they fail to meditate on the following, they are consigned to the hell of karmic existence for many lives in this samsara (the world as we know it) until they get it right: it does not spell out what the evil deeds are, as far as I can see:
157. If one holds oneself dear, one should diligently watch oneself. Let the wise man keep vigil during any of the three watches of the night.

158. One should first establish oneself in what is proper; then only should one instruct others. Thus the wise man will not be reproached.

159. One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is self-control.

160. One truly is the protector of oneself; who else could the protector be? With oneself fully controlled, one gains a mastery that is hard to gain.

161. The evil a witless man does by himself, born of himself and produced by himself, grinds him as a diamond grinds a hard gem.

162. Just as a single creeper strangles the tree on which it grows, even so, a man who is exceedingly depraved harms himself as only an enemy might wish.

163. Easy to do are things that are bad and harmful to oneself. But exceedingly difficult to do are things that are good and beneficial.

164. Whoever, on account of perverted views, scorns the Teaching of the Perfected Ones, the Noble and Righteous Ones — that fool, like the bamboo, produces fruits only for self destruction. [14]

165. By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depend on oneself; no one can purify another.

166. Let one not neglect one's own welfare for the sake of another, however great. Clearly understanding one's own welfare, let one be intent upon the good.

You are taking a part out of a PDF i was sharing in an other post, and you make a clam of understanding it? and again you trying to undermind Buddhism Can you please stop this harrasment?

 

[Shantanu]

You are taking a part out of a PDF i was sharing in an other post, and you make a clam of understanding it? and again you trying to undermind Buddhism Can you please stop this harrasment?

Noone asked you to join in this debate: if you feel this is harassment, you should go back to the Buddhism DIR and post all your nonsense there.

 

[Shantanu]

Hindu's don't practice existential Buddhism. Stop making ridiculous claims that you can never hope to back up.

They do not know that they are practicising Existential Buddhism because the vast majority of Hindus are not organised into their buddhi-led way of life.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Noone asked you to join in this debate: if you feel this is harassment, you should go back to the Buddhism DIR and post all your nonsense there.

Well the tread you made include Theravada Buddhism, it happens that i am a follower of this teaching, and find it strage that you should make a thread that is full of false clames and then it is right of me to correct what you say so that when others do read it they do not get a false understanding of Buddhas teaching.

You can disagree in Buddhas teaching, that i do not mind, but trying to mock it or make false clames is not made by a wise man.

 

[Shantanu]

Well the tread you made include Theravada Buddhism, it happens that i am a follower of this teaching, and find it strage that you should make a thread that is full of false clames and then it is right of me to correct what you say so that when others do read it they do not get a false understanding of Buddhas teaching.

You can disagree in Buddhas teaching, that i do not mind, but trying to mock it or make false clames is not made by a wise man.

If this is what the Buddha has taught you, I am glad I am a Hindu.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I find it quite disrespectful to those of a belief structure or culture to bastardize their label by applying it to a belief structure one created oneself, especially if the created belief structure contradicts the beliefs and practices of the original belief structure or culture.

That said, perhaps if one of the goals of "Existential Buddhism," as you insist on calling it, is to let go of attachments, as you claim it is, @Shantanu, perhaps squabbling over justifications in what one should be allowed to label oneself is counterproductive to that goal.

 

[crossfire]

Let us take these into consideration. You have a religion that gets people to sign up to seek refuge in these dictations and if they fail to meditate on the following, they are consigned to the hell of karmic existence for many lives in this samsara (the world as we know it) until they get it right: it does not spell out what the evil deeds are, as far as I can see:
157. If one holds oneself dear, one should diligently watch oneself. Let the wise man keep vigil during any of the three watches of the night.

158. One should first establish oneself in what is proper; then only should one instruct others. Thus the wise man will not be reproached.

159. One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is self-control.

160. One truly is the protector of oneself; who else could the protector be? With oneself fully controlled, one gains a mastery that is hard to gain.

161. The evil a witless man does by himself, born of himself and produced by himself, grinds him as a diamond grinds a hard gem.

162. Just as a single creeper strangles the tree on which it grows, even so, a man who is exceedingly depraved harms himself as only an enemy might wish.

163. Easy to do are things that are bad and harmful to oneself. But exceedingly difficult to do are things that are good and beneficial.

164. Whoever, on account of perverted views, scorns the Teaching of the Perfected Ones, the Noble and Righteous Ones — that fool, like the bamboo, produces fruits only for self destruction. [14]

165. By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depend on oneself; no one can purify another.

166. Let one not neglect one's own welfare for the sake of another, however great. Clearly understanding one's own welfare, let one be intent upon the good.

I posted this link because an Existentialist would appreciate this.

 

[Shantanu]

I find it quite disrespectful to those of a belief structure or culture to bastardize their label by applying it to a belief structure one created oneself, especially if the created belief structure contradicts the beliefs and practices of the original belief structure or culture.

That said, perhaps if one of the goals of "Existential Buddhism," as you insist on calling it, is let go of attachments, as you claim it is, @Shantanu, perhaps squabbling over justifications in what one should be allowed to label oneself is counterproductive to that goal.

Thank you for a most pertinent response from what I recognise as the Moderators and Administrators of Religious Forums. I should therefore clarify my raison d'etre.

I applied my brand of Buddhism to a different belief structure so as to demonstrate the validity of what Sakyamuni Buddha wanted to achieve, and I have said that I commended him for that vision. I therefore retain my buddhistic outlook of ascertaining the means to alleviate the suffering of humanity both at a personal level and collectively. As the Baha'i's try to convince us there must be a universal world order where there is peace so that the important things that mankind does to preserve the planet and its environment and lead us not just to 100 years as @wizanda stated but for as long as the sun is able to sustain the Solar System are addressed. That has been my sole objective and I have blogged about the virtues of Green Socialism in this regard (with your permission I will provide the appropriate internet link here, as I know it is against the Forum Rules to promote one's website).

So there is no disrespect implied to the Theravada Buddhism which is followed by adherents in all sincerity and I have had countless discussions with @Amanaki over the past few months over it. I would not wish a single Buddhist to do any differently than what they have been taught in following their Faith. That is a matter for them and if it works for them that is fine by me.

Likewise I am not setting out to start a new religion as has been alluded to. I am just very happy being a Hindu with all our traditions. I was born Brahmin but saw virtue in Buddhism so have striven to reconcile myself with what the Buddha taught and am in agreement with the essence of this perceived wisdom that I believe Hinduism should regard him as being an avatar of God for.

As regards to attachment, I certainly think that all attachments are the root cause of all human suffering and so I strive not to have any objectives let alone stronger desires; but that said one has a duty to oneself to engage with society with the right duties and righteous actions. This so that humanity prospers and we see a better world than that we found ourselves in.

 

[Shantanu]

I posted this link because an Existentialist would appreciate this.

I did appreciate it: it is useful.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Buddhadasa Bhikkhu - LOOKING AT BUDDHISM

 

[Spirit of Light]

Buddhadasa Bhikkhu - LOOKING AT BUDDHISM

 

[Shantanu]

Is Buddhism a branch of Hinduism.


In the above thread the question arose as follows:


Shantanu said: ↑

Most definitely Buddhism is a branch of Hinduism. They all originated in the sub-continent of India under the Hindu umbrella. When the teaching spread to different countries it became a religion elsewhere that others followed while at the same time Buddhism's inconsistencies with reality saw it demoted as a religion within India. But it was throwing the baby out with the bath water for Buddhism holds tremendous strengths if it is revised. It has potential to once again become the religion of the greatest followers within India but not under Theravada or Mahayana or any of their offshoots. A fresh new insight is required.

George-ananda said: ↑

How do you see this fresh new insight adressing metaphysical issues like reincarnation? Like Brahman?

Shantanu said: ↑

It will depend on who it is that people listen to when we talk about the existence of God as a Personal God monitoring human activities and guiding humans into their dharmic actions, and the mechanisms by which this is accomplished.

George-ananda said: ↑

I am not clear on what you are saying? Brahman is different than the Abrahamic God concept. I was asking about Brahman, the One Consciousness.

@George-ananda Yes Brahman is very different from the Abrahamic Concept of God. The Hindu concept is that of One Consciousness that is differentiated into gunas that give us the genetic basis for atman, and Paramatman is always there to override the atman if one has surrendered. I hope that is now clear.

 

[crossfire]

Is Buddhism a branch of Hinduism.


In the above thread the question arose as follows:


Shantanu said: ↑

Most definitely Buddhism is a branch of Hinduism. They all originated in the sub-continent of India under the Hindu umbrella. When the teaching spread to different countries it became a religion elsewhere that others followed while at the same time Buddhism's inconsistencies with reality saw it demoted as a religion within India. But it was throwing the baby out with the bath water for Buddhism holds tremendous strengths if it is revised. It has potential to once again become the religion of the greatest followers within India but not under Theravada or Mahayana or any of their offshoots. A fresh new insight is required.

George-ananda said: ↑

How do you see this fresh new insight adressing metaphysical issues like reincarnation? Like Brahman?

Shantanu said: ↑

It will depend on who it is that people listen to when we talk about the existence of God as a Personal God monitoring human activities and guiding humans into their dharmic actions, and the mechanisms by which this is accomplished.

George-ananda said: ↑

I am not clear on what you are saying? Brahman is different than the Abrahamic God concept. I was asking about Brahman, the One Consciousness.

@George-ananda Yes Brahman is very different from the Abrahamic Concept of God. The Hindu concept is that of One Consciousness that is differentiated into gunas that give us the genetic basis for atman, and Paramatman is always there to override the atman if one has surrendered. I hope that is now clear.

I'm out. Laters.