Stuff You Should Know: Nirvana, Not the Band

[DeviChaaya]

http://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/podcasts/nirvana-not-the-band/

Mostly I'm posting this for the Hindus but I wanted to know what the Buddhists and Jains here think? I do not know much about Nirvana as according to Buddhism but I found it interesting to listen to right up until the boys began talking about the Hindu equivalent of moksha and mentioned only Krishna as the source of all. I have sent them an email gently correcting them of this folly!

The podcast isn't long, under 30 minutes, but it is definitely interesting, even if it raised my hackles towards the end by talking about how only those born into the brahmin caste can attain moksha (they were contradicting themselves here as they said Gandhi possibly attained moksha but he was not a brahmin!).

So, thoughts?

 

[kalyan]

I dont disagree to the point where they say Krushna is the answer for the salvation
There are 2 types of salvation though
1. attaining eternal self/soul and getting liberated, this will be devoid of any god.
2. attaining Krushna and staying with him in an eternal place called 'vaikuntam'

Second thing is blatantly wrong, brahmin, kshatriya, vaisya, sudra this caste is only to the physical body not to the self/soul/atma. The self is eternal and based on the karma it wanders in different physical bodies, for one to attain liberation from the cycles of birth and death according to bhagawadgita, he/she has to have unwavering devotion to Krushna as he only knows about the soul and all its past lives that the soul wandered through(because Krushna exists in every obect in this world even the non living entities as their inner soul). So he is the only one who knows the real you(soul) and he knows of everything you have done in this life and multiple past lives for he is always with you. So those people saying brahmins can attain moksha is absolute BS and which is not was said in any vedic scripture. Just as we discard the old torn clothes and wear new clothes, in the same way atma/soul/self discards the old/torn bodies and goes into new physical bodies unless the karmic bondage is entirely lost. Anyone can get liberated.

adiyen Chinna Jeeyar Swamy daasa

 

[Valjean]

They did way better on their Buddhist synopsis than they did with the Hindu. I hardly know where to begin there.
The Krishna gaffe you mention was pretty glaring. I think their research on that point largely consisted of reading ISKCON material. (How can Vishnu be an incarnation of Krishna, and Krishna an Incarnation of Vishnu?)

Note their apparent misunderstanding of Nirvana/Moksha as an achievement, as through work or merit, rather than an insight or realization that the whole cycle was illusory from the 'beginning'. Gandhi "skipping ahead?" 'cause he was a nice guy? How does being a nice guy cause the neurological aberration, the mind expansion that underlies Moksha?

Whilst Buddhism, which began as just another variety of Hinduism, is fairly homogenous in its teachings, Hinduism is not and never was. In fact, I think it's more homogenous today than it ever was, and it's still a crazy quilt of overlapping and often conflicting theologies.
"Hinduism" is just a British catch-all category for any of the myriad practices and belief systems indigenous (or imported

) to the Indian subcontinent.

 

[kalyan]

They did way better on their Buddhist synopsis than they did with the Hindu. I hardly know where to begin there.
The Krishna gaffe you mention was pretty glaring. I think their research on that point largely consisted of reading ISKCON material. (How can Vishnu be an incarnation of Krishna, and Krishna an Incarnation of Vishnu?)

Note their apparent misunderstanding of Nirvana/Moksha as an achievement, as through work or merit, rather than an insight or realization that the whole cycle was illusory from the 'beginning'. Gandhi "skipping ahead?" 'cause he was a nice guy? How does being a nice guy cause the neurological aberration, the mind expansion that underlies Moksha?

Whilst Buddhism, which began as just another variety of Hinduism, is fairly homogenous in its teachings, Hinduism is not and never was. In fact, I think it's more homogenous today than it ever was, and it's still a crazy quilt of overlapping and often conflicting theologies.
"Hinduism" is just a British catch-all category for any of the myriad practices and belief systems indigenous (or imported

) to the Indian subcontinent.

I would disagree wirh your observations on hinduism but thats ok as you are foreign to the teachings. Sanatan dharma or vaidika dharma is the same 5000 years back and it is the same now relating the principles laid down in the vedas, it is the people who get confused due to lack of understanding ...They dont change as the time progresses. Vedas are eternal!

 

[Valjean]

That may be so, but you cannot deny that today's popular Hinduism is very different from that if Vedic times.

 

[Vishvavajra]

There's a lot of confusion there, including projecting some Hindu ideas onto Buddhism, and probably getting those wrong in the process. For example, there's a difference between Nirvana and bodhi, which is more analogous to moksha, though significantly different in character and conception. Also, Samsara doesn't actually have to do with reincarnation, nor Nirvana (or bodhi) with escaping from reincarnation. That's possibly a case of conflating Buddhist and Jainist ideas, which is distressingly common.

Also, while it's not the place to have a debate about it (for all the good it'd do in any case), I'll just say that framing Buddhism as an offshoot of Hinduism isn't actually something many Buddhists would agree with, as much of the characteristic stuff we label as "Hinduism" developed as a reaction to Buddhism and Jainism, as all grew out of the ancient Vedic culture and evolved in different directions. It's just that while Hindus prefer to emphasize continuity with Vedic religion, despite huge differences, Buddhism frames itself mostly as a reaction against it.

Overall the article seems to be trying to teach people about stuff that the author isn't very knowledgeable about to begin with, having a somewhat worse understanding than one could get from reading Wikipedia. It would perhaps be best if actual practitioners wrote things like this instead of outsiders who are just sort of curious.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So, thoughts?

It will be a waste of time to listen to such podcast.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. as all grew out of the ancient Vedic culture and evolved in different directions. It's just that while Hindus prefer to emphasize continuity with Vedic religion, despite huge differences, Buddhism frames itself mostly as a reaction against it.

Vishvavajra, it is a fallacy to think that Hinduism grew out of Vedic religion (though Kalyan will not agree to that even though the fact is that Rama, Krishna, Shiva and Durga are not even mentioned in RigVeda). Hindu thought was/is indigenous. Jainism and Buddhism rebelled against Vedic religion. Hinduism because of its numbers was able to act in a different way. It accepted Vedas in a compromise and assimilated the Vedics. In time, the immigrants nearly forgot about Indra and Agni and worshiped the Gods and Goddesses of the majority.