A DEBATE BETWEEN A LEARNED BUDDHIST SCHOLAR MEENAN VISHNU(MV) and HINDU GURU RAMI SIVAN (RS)-
MS - The Vedāntin asks “who is doing the looking?” There cannot be a process without an observer.”
I know we have argued on this point till the cows came home. But I just could not pass this when I saw the word “observer” once again from you. FYI, there CAN be a process without any magical entity doing the observation. Take any man made system such as a autonomous robot, autonomous car etc.
This observer thing is such a tripping point to those who have soaked themselves in the Vedantic mud puddle that they do not see the obvious problem with it.
So I am going to try one more time since I consider you as a well read intelligent man.
Body is an assembly of organs put together by nature in such a way that it functions. A Vedantin thinks that such an assembly of organs is insufficient for it to function and that there must be an Atman controlling this assembly of organs for the assembly of organs to function. Well the question is what is this Atman? Is it just like the body, assembly of subcomponents, or is it made of some homogeneous “stuff”?
Let us consider both cases. (1) Atman is an assembly of subcomponents. Well Vedantins claim that a simple assembly of subcomponents cannot work by themselves and that one need a central controller, an Atman in order for the assembly to function. That is, this would imply that the Atman needs an ur-Atman.
Now consider case (2) Atman is made of homogeneous “stuff”. How can a homogeneous single stuff be multi-faceted? How can it observe, enjoy, suffer, wish, lament, and will? How does the non physical Atman interface with dead physical body and “operate” it?
Both (1) and (2) untenable. That is, belief in Atman is a belief in magic. Hence, Vedantins have not offered anything other than word play.
RS - Meena this is just gobbledygook - you compare machines to sentient beings. Your knowledge of Vedanta is not as great as your knowledge of Buddhism.
So to keep this really simple please answer the following questions.
If there is no sākṣi (observer) and death is just nihilism - extinction then why did Buddha bother to teach? Atheism claims the same - so what’s the difference between Buddhism and Atheistic-nihilism?
What is the purpose of following the Dharma? Is it just to escape personal suffering here and now?
Why did he give 30 positive metaphors for Nirvana - all of which imply a sākṣi. Why did he not categorically state that death is death and Nirvana is thus certain for every living being.
Why did he enunciate the very same position as Vedanta in his annatta-lakhana sutra?
MV -
(1a) Your claim that Materialism (Nastika) does not need a dharma/ethics is invalid. In fact, from the text quoted in the Sarva-darsana-sangraha, the Nastika text of Brhaspati-sutra was one of the first to advocate non-killing and vegetarianism.
(1b) Indeed, there is a difference between Buddhism and Materialism. Buddhist view is a middle path between Eternalism (Vedanta) and Annihilationism (Nastika). It is the middle view where future birth is seeded by the karma of previous births but there is no enduring substance (atman) between births.
(1c) Read Brahmajala Sutta’s section on the wrong view of Sakkaya Ditthi (Vedanta) and how it arises.
(2) Dharma is followed to bring about the liberation of mind preferably in this birth. If that is not possible sometimes in the future births. The liberation of mind from craving also stops future births. Since births inevitably leads to suffering, old age and death, stopping future births is preferable.
(3) This is false. Please show me one instance where Buddha implied an ever lasting, unchanging Atman. One of his repeated claim is that Atta ditti is the biggest obstacle to liberation.
(4) Again this is false. He denies the existence of any permanent entity. How can he concur with the Vedanta?
RS -
(1a) Your claim that Materialism (Nastika) does not need a dharma/ethics is invalid. In fact, from the text quoted in the Sarva-darsana-sangraha, the Nastika text of Brhaspati-sutra was one of the first to advocate non-killing and vegetarianism.
Materialism develops a natural organic ethic and is no need of enlightened beings – western atheist humanism in many ways superior to any Buddhist ethics. Buddhist are majority non-vegetarians and some Asians do the most horrendous things to animals. Buddhists have also engaged in destructive wars – the Khmers were notorious for ripping out the livers of their enemies while still alive and eating them. The Burmese and Thais massacred each other and looted monasteries. The Mongols – Mahayanists - were renowned for their cruelty.
(1b) Indeed, there is a difference between Buddhism and Materialism. Buddhist view is a middle path between Eternalism (Vedanta) and Annihilationism (Nastika). It is the middle view where future birth is seeded by the karma of previous births but there is no enduring substance (atman) between births.
I agree that Visisṭḥādvaita and Dvaita are “eternalist” but Advaita is not. The ātman merges into cosmic consciousness. The seeded nature of Karma is not logical – without a sākṣi – again proposing an eternal process without a subject.
This is neither validated by empirical experience – i.e. my body has constantly changed since birth and is now a totally different body but my awareness of self has remained unchanged. There is ample evidence from OBE and NDE and childhood memories to indicate the existence of a Self.
This belief in seeded karma is also not validated by the Mahayana belief in Avataras of Bodhisattvas and reincarnation of lamas (tulkus) and all the Jataka tales of the previous incarnations of the Buddha. The results of actions having some adṛṣṭha quality in the absence of a subject is illogical since the original act required subject-object-action.
(1c) Read Brahmajala Sutta’s section on the wrong view of Sakkaya Ditthi (Vedanta) and how it arises.
Thank you.
(2) Dharma is followed to bring about the liberation of mind preferably in this birth. If that is not possible sometimes in the future births. The liberation of mind from craving also stops future births. Since births inevitably leads to suffering, old age and death, stopping future births is preferable.
Another teaching found throughout the Upanishads and Gita and all the shad-darshanas – moksha is liberation from suffering here and now.
You contradict yourself Meenan! IF I am not present in future births and it is simply a flow of awareness without me as a sākṣi then what is the point of following Dharma? Why should I be bothered by future births If I am not the one reaping the results of my karma? You are saying that the one who commits the crime here is not the one being rewarded in the next life it is just a play of karma generating Karma. Then who is it that stops Karma or experiences the stopping of Karma?
Your view makes no sense Meena. This is what the Buddha the truly enlightened one said:-
Kammas-sakomhi kamma-dayado kamma-yoni kamma-bandhu Kamma-patisarano, yam kammam karissami kalyanam va papakam va tassa dayado bhavissam-iti.
Due to the law of KAMMA, we are their Maker, their Heir, their Birthplace, their Attachment and their Pathway. We are destined toreceive the results of what we have done, both good and evil.
(3) This is false. Please show me one instance where Buddha implied an ever lasting, unchanging Atman. One of his repeated claim is that Atta ditti is the biggest obstacle to liberation.
(4) Again this is false. He denies the existence of any permanent entity. How can he concur with the Vedanta?
The Buddha avoided all metaphysical speculation – in Vedānta we call it the path of neti-neti he said whatever you think of as “Self” is non-self. Of course he didn’t propose a pudgala – but this is exactly what Vedanta says – Advaita Vedanta does not posit a permanent pudgala and the ultimate moksha is freedom from all conditioning – so ātman is a temporary conventional concept. And even Patanjali says perception of a Self in non-self is Avidya.
FINALLY – why did the Buddha – the fully enlightened one - give 30 positive metaphors for Nirvana (most of which are echoed in the Upanishads) if Nirvana is simply extinction? Surely he could have been honest and say the ultimate goal is extinction guys – period.
MV -
so ātman is a temporary conventional concept.
Buddhists have no problem calling the nama-rupa system as a conventional self for ease of speaking. However, such samanya lakshana entity does not really exist.
In any case Vedanta considers Brahman as uncaused and eternal which contradicts the Buddhist view of paticca samuppada and anicca.
“You contradict yourself Meenan! IF I am not present in future births and it is simply a flow of awareness without me as a sākṣi then what is the point of following Dharma?”
Your conception of this saakshi seems to me to be everything we are. So what is the point of this physical body as this saakshi is already has all the functionality of a human being?
Rebirth does not need an entity with the full functionality of a human being. All it needs is the mental impressions (karma) which is dead data and cannot do any of the human functions.
“The Buddha avoided all metaphysical speculation “
But he did not avoid the question as whether there exists eternal entities, uncaused entities, atman. He gave a definite negative answer to these questions.
“Surely he could have been honest and say the ultimate goal is extinction guys – period.”
Something can go extinct only if it existed in the first place. At death body disintegrates. Mind is an emerging property of the body. There is nothing existing at death after nibbana to go extinct.
Can you show a reference in Buddhist canon indicating that Buddha currently exists now or of avatars?
RS -
so ātman is a temporary conventional concept.
Buddhists have no problem calling the nama-rupa system as a conventional self for ease of speaking. However, such samanya lakshana entity does not really exist.
Buddha discouraged all such metaphysical speculation Meenan – since they are unknowable.
In any case Vedanta considers Brahman as uncaused and eternal which contradicts the Buddhist view of paticca samuppada and anicca.
I don’t see much difference ANITYA is a Vedanta concept the the paticca samuppada is a variation on the Vedanta concept.
Rebirth does not need an entity with the full functionality of a human being. All it needs is the mental impressions (karma) which is dead data and cannot do any of the human functions.
Again you are intentionally obfuscating - functionality applies only to the body not to the adhyātmika component of an entity. Again I humbly ask you in what are mental impressions made? If it is a flow of awareness how are “mental impression” retained. An impression implies a sākṣi otherwise to talk of impression in the ether is worthless – in Vedanta we call it gandharva-nagara-nyāya – like buying and selling real estate in the sky city of the Gandharvas.
But he did not avoid the question as whether there exists eternal entities, uncaused entities, atman. He gave a definite negative answer to these questions.
I have already explained to you – please study up on the concept of MĀYĀ in Vedanta. The Buddha taught nothing different.
Something can go extinct only if it existed in the first place. At death body disintegrates. Mind is an emerging property of the body. There is nothing existing at death after nibbana to go extinct.
So nothing existed in the beginning, nothing exists in the middle except a flow of awareness which has spontaneously arisen and which will eventually disappear into extinction. Mind is an epiphenomena of the brain – so how does reincarnation fit in? Your version of Buddhism makes no sense and is nothing but atheism in a glossy package. Why not dispense with all the cultural tinsel and prolix verbiage and just be a humanist atheist? You can be a nice guy, do nice things, keep fit with yoga and pranayama – throw in a few sessions of vipassana and accept death stoically. Why bother with all the study, dharma and mythology?
Can you show a reference in Buddhist canon indicating that Buddha currently exists now or of avatars?
MV -
“Again I humbly ask you in what are mental impressions made? If it is a flow of awareness how are “mental impression” retained.”
Ah I see your problem. You think that the impressions need a container (atman) to carry them from one birth to another. Note that a container is not always needed. What container carries the sun’s energy to earth?
To answer the exact mechanism of how karma of one birth forms the seed of the next, one needs an understanding of the nature of space which Buddha avoided. Even modern science does not have a firm grip on the concept of space.
“An impression implies a sākṣi”
It is not necessary to have an entity to transfer information.
please study up on the concept of MĀYĀ in Vedanta. The Buddha taught nothing different.
Maya and Shunyavada are completely different claims. The former means everything other than Brahman is an illusion. The latter claims that no entity has an inherent nature (svabhava).
“Your version of Buddhism makes no sense and is nothing but atheism in a glossy package. “
This is the view of the Pali Canon and its commentaries. I cannot claim credit for it.
“Why bother with all the study, dharma and mythology?”
Because I am convinced that the development of mind in one birth affects future births (even though there is no pot carrying the content of the mind to the next birth.) The idea of a pot is a child’s idea.
RS -
I think you are confused between paramārthika Satya and vyavahārika Satya.
So dear Meenan, lets do Occam’s razor job on your arguments.
1. We are spontaneously born, we live and we die – period - the ultimate endgame is extinction.
2. Consciousness is an epiphenomena of the brain and there is no Self. Self being a social construct.
3. Our thoughts, desires and wants are due to the wiring and firing of our brains.
4. Our actions somehow have abstract moral reactions which we will never experience because there is no Self to experience them.
5. Nevertheless, the social contract should be our MO - simply because it makes life easier for everyone.
6. Suffering is inherent in this life but can be remedied through CBT and pharmaceuticals.
7. The purpose of life is to be happy here and now, there are future births but they have nothing to do with us since we will not be reborn due to the absence of Self.
How is this different from the world view of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet and Sam Harris – the four Buddhas of the Atheist movement?
Why should we bother with all the oriental spice, chilli, gibberish and garnish and just join the occidental enlightenment movement and live simple lives? Buddhism as a movement is completely redundant apart from its entertainment value and mental gymnastics which are futile because there is no gymnast anyway.
MV -
For those who want to end the cycles of existence, Buddhism shows the way to end. Vast majority of humans aspire for better existence but not end of existence.
There is no everlasting, unchanging atman which is in control of the body. Body is an assemby of components with NO central controller.
Our thougts, desires and wants are conditioned by our experience and are not constant. They are ever changing. There is nothing we can point to within us and say this is an unchanging everlasting core which represents us thoughout births.
Actions of the mind-body complex (nama-rupa) affects the quality of any future existence seeded by the karma of this birth.
Our social contract should be metta, karuna and muditha.
There is no existence free of suffering. Hence, complete cessation of suffering is only possible with cessation of existence.
Liberation is impossible if you think you are an eternal Self.
Buddhism differs from Materialism because Buddhism posits rebirth with continuity of memory. Materialists do not hold that view.
Buddhism is perhaps the only religion which seriously addresses the issue of ending suffering. Others simply ring bells, chant some mumbo jumbo, do some elaborate but ineffectual rituals and accept donations.
RS -
Well according to Buddhist logic there is no “cycle of existence” because there is no Self to experience said cycles - cycles alone exist and they will inevitable stop anyway - like boulder that is rolled down a mountain.
Let’s get scientific Meenan, the body is comprised of 6 elements - oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. And they dissolve anyway.
Yes indeed - thoughts, desire and wants are due to the automatic firing of the brain without a core - all scientists agree.
But you talk of future births/existences but there can be no future births because there is no self to be reborn - it is simply impersonal flow of something. Consciousness is produced by the brain and cannot exist outside of the brain in the ether. What’s the point of worrying about future births when I myself will not be there to experience?
What’s the point of metta, Karuna, mudita (you left out upeksha)? The social contract is good enough for happy living.
Suffering will end when we die that is certain to all living beings, so all of us attain Nirvana automatically at the end of our lives. Why “strive” for something which we will all get gratis? Its like telling students to study hard at university but they’ll all get the same degree at the end!
Rebirth and continuity of memory imply a subject that pre-existed and will exist in the future and since you categorically deny the existence of a subject this assertion is an egregious contradiction Meenan - this is the Mahā-bhrama in Theravadan Buddhism.
Suffering in this life can be effectively controlled with CBT and pharmaceuticals - so why should we read tiresome prolix and tediously repetitive sūtras clouded with mythology, and engage in endless mental gymnastics to prove there is no self while existentially experiencing the very thing we are trying to deny? And then sitting for hours in pain on a cushion watching ourselves breathing when we could be out in the world bringing benefit to others and having fun.
Western Buddhist very wisely rationalised Buddhism - removed all the mythology, bell ringing and mumbo-jumbo as well as jettisoning the fiction of reincarnation and karma.
What are your views of Kataragama Temple and all their mumbo-jumbo?
MV -
Rebirth and continuity of memory imply a subject that pre-existed and will exist in the future”
Again this is your tripping point from which you are not able to free yourself.
How did the Sakkaya Ditti arise? When meditators recalled memory from very many past existences, they thought there is a true body (sat+kaya) which continued to exist even after death of the physical body. Vedanta is a reformulation of the the sakkaya ditti where the true+body is renamed with the fancy word of Atman.
But is that the only possible explanation for one to remember past lives? Clearly not. Memory (dead data) can be transferred from one existence to another without a continually existing agent throughout existences.
Realizing that the latter is the real reason for the ability to recall memory of past lives is the first step in liberation.
RS -
I’m not discussing Vedanta with you Meenan - because that is not your topic of expertise - rather stick with the apologetic of Buddhist non-self and flow theory.
You cannot adequately explain in what does memory inhere? If the socially /mentally constructed non-self changes from moment to moment and is insubstantial then how does this conscious flow arise? and how does consciousness exist without a body/mind from which consciousness arises? Can a wave exist without the ocean? So if there is no agent why bother about the “flow”? if a car is speeding down a mountain into the abyss with a driver who is bothered?
Memory is a tool - so to whom, and for whom does memory exist? If my thought patterns continue into another existence transferred through the ether and I am not there to witness anything why should I be bothered?
Again you keep contradicting your own doctrines - how can there be memory of past births if there was no self to be reborn? How is it possible to postulate liberation of non-self? So you are creating a phantasmagoria and then blowing it up - an exercise in futility Meenan! You should return to study Vedanta - it is the best magnifying glass to examine Buddhism.
MV -
“Can a wave exist without the ocean?”
More generally, Can wave exist without a medium? Most certainly yes. For example, the electromagnetic waves in vaccum.
“how does this conscious flow arise?”
Please do not confuse atman with consciousness (vinnaana). Consciousness is the participle of the verb “to be conscious.” One is conscious when an object come into contact with a sense organ. A lot of Vedantic self deception originates when participle forms of verbs are thrown around without much thought.
“how can there be memory of past births if there was no self to be reborn?”
Sigh! It looks to me you are not reading any of my responses. At least not in depth. So here is it one more time:
Imagine a series of candles, the first one is lit and the rest are not. When the first candle is about burn out, its fire is transferred to the second candle and when the second one is about to burn out, the fire is transferred to the third one and so on. In this way the fire is kept alive. One can decide to extinguish it rather than transferring it to the next candle. Such is the transfer of karma from one birth to the next. When one reaches nibbana, the fire is extinguished. No more candles and no more births.
Let us stop with this. Thank you.
RS - I know the silly candle metaphor - it doesn’t work with consciousness Meenan. The point is in Buddhism there is no moral agent and therefore Karma makes no sense.
MV -
“The point is in Buddhism there is no moral agent and therefore Karma makes no sense.”
The system called the nama-rupa is the moral agent while alive. Between lives, there is no being able see, think and act. Buddhism does NOT posit such a magical being (atman) who can think, evaluate morals, make decisions while NOT being embodied. Moreover, the Vedantins claim that the magical being (atman) can accomplish all these feats without nutriments and forever.
“So anātta remains an interesting philosophical postulate with no useful application in the acts of daily living.”
I disagree. The first step in the Buddhist path is “Right View (Samma Ditti). Starting with a wrong view means the project will not succeed.
The Right Views include
4 Arya Saccas
3 Lakkhanas
5 Nivaranas
7 Bhojangas
The 3 lakkhanas include anatta. With a permanent Self view, mind’s liberation is impossible.
RS -
What about sopānna concept of gradual liberation? When a student joins the University do you teach post graduate phD at the start or do you start with simple programming?
Vedanta is pragmatism. We accept as “valid” only those doctrines, teaching and views which are appropriate to the śrāvaka and his/her current svabhāva, bhūmika and adhikāra. If the teaching or view has no perceptible application then it is shelved as “invalid”.
From a vyavahārika point of view you, me and every other human being will have an existential sense of “self” which will only disintegrate at the highest levels of Jhana.
So therefore arguing about the paramārthika value of anātma is as futile as speculating about akāśa-kusuma - cultivation of sky-flowers.
What does the realisation of non-self even look like?
You are quoting from a 3rd party text . It is neither 1st account It is not written by Buddha himself, nor 2nd account it is not written by someone who listened to Buddha directly. If you can use just 1–2 hours of your busy life, read Buddha teaching yourself online directly. The best website is Access to Insight Having done that, you won’t need to rely on opinions of others. You would know what Buddha himself said.
Regarding this particular topic, Buddha didnot believe in caste system. He himself criticized it.
Response -
How do you know that all the Tripitaka is not 3rd party text? Do you think that Ananda really memorised all the Suttas in their prolix and verbose form? The Buddha says in the Tripitaka that he went to the heavens and spoke to all the devas including Indra, Brahma et all and preached the Dharma to them - did Ananda accompany him and record those conversations?
The Vedas can easily be memorised because they are in metric form, the Tripitaka are in prose which is extremely hard if not impossible to memorise. So it is highly improbable that the discourses were actually spoken by Buddha himself.
The point being made is that all the previous Buddhas, Bodhisattvas and early theoreticians of Buddhism were either Brahmins or Kshatriyas. The vast majority of the dialogues found on access to insight involve Brahmins, Kshatriyas or Vaishyas (gahapatis) - Suddas and panchamas do not feature at all.
And indeed being born a Hindu Kshatriya Buddha did denounce the discrimination and privilege of the caste system which is an economic model, but the model itself was workable and unavailable for deconstruction into socialism.
Claim - That is the earliest collection of Buddha teachings, done after Buddha’s death. You will find, in Buddha teachings, countless times buddha rejecting caste. Buddha accepted all comers into sangha.
Response -
This is true no doubt. The general gist of the Tripitaka is indeed the teaching of the Buddha but a large portion of it is mythology.
What exactly was the Buddha rejecting? The caste-system is an socio-economic model the most universal model at that time the world over. What the Buddha was denouncing was elitism and privilege based on birth and caste-discrimination - not the system per se. He was advocating meritocracy - he was not a SJW. He never said “down with the patriarchy and Brahminocracy” what he did was redefine what he saw as a true brahminical qualities.
The Brahmaṇa from Dhammapada
383. Exert yourself, O Brahmana! Cut off the stream (of craving), and discard sense desires. Knowing the destruction of all the conditioned things, become, O Brahmana, the knower of the Uncreate (Nibbana)!
384. When a Brahmana has reached the summit of two paths (meditative concentration and insight), he knows the truth and all his fetters fall away.
385. He for whom there is neither this shore nor the other shore, nor yet both, he who is free of cares and is unfettered -- him do I call a Brahmana.
386. He who is meditative, stainless and settled, whose work is done and who is free from cankers, having reached the highest goal -- him do I call a Brahmana.
387. The sun shines by day, the moon shines by night. The warrior shines in armor, the Brahmana shines in meditation. But the Buddha shines resplendent all day and all night.
388. Because he has discarded evil, he is called a Brahmana. Because he is serene in conduct, he is called a recluse. And because he has renounced his impurities, he is called a renunciate.
389. One should not strike a Brahmana, nor should a Brahmana, when struck, give way to anger. Shame on him who strikes a Brahmana, and more shame on him who gives way to anger.
390. Nothing is better for a Brahmana than when he holds his mind back from what is endearing. To the extent the intent to harm wears away, to that extent does suffering subside.
391. He who does no evil in deed, word and thought, who is restrained in these three ways -- him do I call a Brahmana.
392. Just as a brahman priest reveres his sacrificial fire, even so should one devoutly revere the person from whom one has learned the Dhamma taught by the Buddha.
393. Not by matted hair, nor by lineage, nor by birth does one become a Brahmana. But he in whom truth and righteousness exist -- he is pure, he is a Brahmana.
394. What is the use of your matted hair, O witless man? What of your garment of antelope's hide? Within you is the tangle (of passion); only outwardly do you cleanse yourself. [28]
395. The person who wears a robe made of rags, who is lean, with veins showing all over the body, and who meditates alone in the forest -- him do I call a Brahmana.
396. I do not call him a Brahmana because of his lineage or high-born mother. If he is full of impeding attachments, he is just a supercilious man. But who is free from impediments and clinging -- him do I call a Brahmana.
397. He who, having cut off all fetters, trembles no more, who has overcome all attachments and is emancipated -- him do I call a Brahmana.
398. He who has cut off the thong (of hatred), the band (of craving), and the rope (of false views), together with the appurtenances (latent evil tendencies), he who has removed the crossbar (of ignorance) and is enlightened -- him do I call a Brahmana.
399. He who without resentment endures abuse, beating and punishment; whose power, real might, is patience -- him do I call a Brahmana.
400. He who is free from anger, is devout, virtuous, without craving, self-subdued and bears his final body -- him do I call a Brahmana.
401. Like water on a lotus leaf, or a mustard seed on the point of a needle, he who does not cling to sensual pleasures -- him do I call a Brahmana.
402. He who in this very life realizes for himself the end of suffering, who has laid aside the burden and become emancipated -- him do I call a Brahmana.
403. He who has profound knowledge, who is wise, skilled in discerning the right or wrong path, and has reached the highest goal -- him do I call a Brahmana.
404. He who holds aloof from householders and ascetics alike, and wanders about with no fixed abode and but few wants -- him do I call a Brahmana.
405. He who has renounced violence towards all living beings, weak or strong, who neither kills nor causes others to kill -- him do I call a Brahmana.
406. He who is friendly amidst the hostile, peaceful amidst the violent, and unattached amidst the attached -- him do I call a Brahmana.
407. He whose lust and hatred, pride and hypocrisy have fallen off like a mustard seed from the point of a needle -- him do I call a Brahmana.
408. He who utters gentle, instructive and truthful words, who imprecates none -- him do I call a Brahmana.
409. He who in this world takes nothing that is not given to him, be it long or short, small or big, good or bad -- him do I call a Brahmana.
410. He who wants nothing of either this world or the next, who is desire-free and emancipated -- him do I call a Brahmana.
411. He who has no attachment, who through perfect knowledge is free from doubts and has plunged into the Deathless -- him do I call a Brahmana.
412. He who in this world has transcended the ties of both merit and demerit, who is sorrowless, stainless and pure -- him do I call a Brahmana.
413. He, who, like the moon, is spotless and pure, serene and clear, who has destroyed the delight in existence -- him do I call a Brahmana.
414. He who, having traversed this miry, perilous and delusive round of existence, has crossed over and reached the other shore; who is meditative, calm, free from doubt, and, clinging to nothing, has attained to Nibbana -- him do I call a Brahmana.
415. He who, having abandoned sensual pleasures, has renounced the household life and become a homeless one; has destroyed both sensual desire and continued existence -- him do I call a Brahmana.
416. He who, having abandoned craving, has renounced the household life and become a homeless one, has destroyed both craving and continued existence -- him do I call a Brahmana.
417. He who, casting off human bonds and transcending heavenly ties, is wholly delivered of all bondages -- him do I call a Brahmana.
418. He who, having cast off likes and dislikes, has become tranquil, is rid of the substrata of existence and like a hero has conquered all the worlds -- him do I call a Brahmana.
419. He who in every way knows the death and rebirth of all beings, and is totally detached, blessed and enlightened -- him do I call a Brahmana.
420. He whose track no gods, no angels, no humans trace, the Arahat who has destroyed all cankers -- him do I call a Brahmana.
421. He who clings to nothing of the past, present and future, who has no attachment and holds on to nothing -- him do I call a Brahmana.
422. He, the Noble, the Excellent, the Heroic, the Great Sage, the Conqueror, the Passionless, the Pure, the Enlightened one -- him do I call a Brahmana.
423. He who knows his former births, who sees heaven and hell, who has reached the end of births and attained to the perfection of insight, the sage who has reached the summit of spiritual excellence -- him do I call a Brahmana.
Why do you say Tripitaka has mythology. I read most of these early Buddha teachings. I dont know what you mean by mythology?
Response -
Buddha went to swarga to teach the Hindu Gods, he also had regular visions and chats with them - Mahasamaya Sutta for example.
Thus have I heard:
On one occasion the Blessed One was living in the Maha-vana (great wood) near the city of Kapilavatthu in the province of the Sakyans together with a great retinue of monks, all of them arahants, and five hundred in number. Devas (gods) from ten thousand world-systems frequently assembled for the purpose of seeing the Blessed One and the bhikkhu-sangha (ordained monks).
Then to four devas of the Suddhavasa (pure Abodes) brahma world, this thought occurred: "The Blessed One is living in the Mahavana near the city of Kapilavatthu in the province of the Sakyans with a great retinue of monks, all of them arahants, and five hundred in number. Devas are frequently assembling there for the purpose of seeing the Blessed One and the bhikkhu-sangha. It is well if we were also to repair to the place where the Blessed One is, and each of us recite a stanza in his presence."
Who actually saw these millions of Devas and who recorded their conversations?
One way we can verify other planes of existence are not mythology is by following rules for reaching jhana . Once you are in 4th jhana, you will be able to remember past rebirths in this and other planes of existence, so you will know that devas, other planes of existence, are true. I am trying to reach jhana by meditating on brahmviharas but no luck so far. if you have any tips on how to reach jhana in Hinduism please share
Response -
How can one remember past births is there is no ātma? in what does memory inhere?
How did Buddha go to other planes of existence i.e. lokas? In his physical body or some sort of astral body?
We would say the way to meditate is one ātman - but you don’t believe there is an ātman. So who is trying to reach jhana stages?
Claim -
Who is trying to reach jhana— It is not “who” as it is not a noun. It is a verb. mind, body, etc are verbs - names given to unfolding action - and the unfolding action is trying to find a way to jhana. Everything in samsara is a verb as everything is unfolding action.
How does Buddha remember past births if there is no atman — I don’t know. buddha did not explain. How did buddha go to other Lokas — I don’t know. buddha didn’t explain.
I am trying to reach jhanas by trying to stabilize brahmaviharas (Metta Mudita karuna upekha) which is actually a Hindu practice but Buddha agreed that it is a valid way to reach jhana - is there a scripture in Hinduism which talks more about brahmaviharas?
Response -
Who is a noun, working is a verb. Mind is a noun, thinking is a verb. Body is a noun, action is a verb. Thinking, striving, seeing, clasping, walking, action etc. cannot occur without a subject. Every verb applies to a subject - no verb operates independently.
“Unfolding action” is a nonsense with a subject Sanjeevam. Everything indeed is in flux - that too is obvious, a river flows and is constantly changing but the river exists as a river - with all its contours, shallows, rapids, waterfalls etc. until it eventually reaches the sea and then loses its identity.
Patanjali Yoga Sutras talks about Brahmāvihāras.
CLAIM -
, I think it would be best to look at the discourses of the Tripitaka in Pali itself. When you take a look at almost every discourse given in the Sutta Pitaka, it starts in the following manner (let’s take a look at the Maha Samaya Sutta for example) - “Evaṃ me sutaṃ—
dasahi ca lokadhātūhi devatā yebhuyyena sannipatitā honti bhagavantaṃ dassanāya bhikkhusaṃghañca.”
As you can clearly see, it starts with “Evaṃ me sutaṃ”, which, when translated to English means “Thus have I heard”. Have you ever considered thinking about why such a phrase was included in the Tripitaka? This phrase has been added in order to confirm and ensure that the discourse originated from the Buddha’s own words.
Tradition holds it that it was the Buddha’s personal attendant and foremost disciple in recollecting the Dhamma Ananda Thera who used this formula the very first time, in order to bear witness that the discourse has been preached by the Buddha’s own purified words.
After the Buddha’s attainment of Parinibbana, there arose many rumours and seperations within the Sangha, that many of the Buddha’s original discourses were denied and condemned by his monks. In fact, many monks had protested against the Buddha’s code of conduct and they decided to live as seperate communities. Hence, the branches of Mahayana and Vajrayana took their place in this world. So, in order to keep the original teachings of the Buddha intact and free from the influences of rivalries, the Buddhist Councils wer e held. It is mentioned that in the First Buddhist Council that the Venerable Ananda Thero announced this formula.
With all these facts kept in mind, how can you say that the Tripitaka is based on mythology, when the Venerable Ananda Thero, who was foremost in memorizing the Buddha’s doctrine, boldly bore witness that he himself had heard this discourse from the Buddha himself??
RESPONSE -
Did I say Tripitaka was BASED on mythology? Dear Bhante - when engaging in discourse it is important to READ and respond and not to erect straw men. You need to reclaim the technique of honest debate that was famous among the Buddhist philosophers.
My remark was about the Buddha claiming to have visited the various heavens and spoken to the gods and taught them the Dharma, having Brahma and the gods come to visit the Buddha and request him to teach, the temptations of Mara and his daughters - etc. this is all the language of MYTHOLOGY.
Did Ananda Thero accompany the Buddha to meet the gods? Or did Buddha just claim to have met them? How did he travel? was it in his physical body or astral body (sūkṣa-śarīra? How can Buddhists claim to be atheist when there is so much interaction with the gods - even more so than in Hinduism.
The Mahayanis and Vajrayanis are the majority of Buddhists and they claim to hold the true teachings - so who is correct? You or them?
CLAIM -
I stand firm by the point that I was trying to make even in my previous answer. The Buddha’s visit to the divine realms, his conversation with the deities of those worlds, all of these concepts are mentioned in the Tripitaka and also its commentaries. What I meant by “Tripitaka is based on mythology” is a statement said by me to point out not the entire/ necessarily the factual details given in the Tripitaka, but certain areas of controversy, such as those topics you have mentioned. And I apologize if I did not read your answer properly and respond. But, let me get straight to the point.
You say that all these accouts are the “language of MYTHOLOGY”. Now, the Buddha, unlike ordinary people, was a person who was endowed with the highest psychic potency and supernatural ability. As far as I can tell, even in hinduism, there are ascetics, brahmins and recluses who are capable of such abilities of psychic power - like communicating with the devas, travelling to their worlds, performing marvellous feats etc. And how is it possible for even such ascetics to be endowed with such attributes?? It’s because they have developed their minds by engaging in meditation, and having purified their minds from ordinary defilements such as greed, they attain to dhyanas and samadhis. So, I don’t see why the Buddha, who is foremost amongst those who became purified, would not be able to interact with living beings.
The divine beings, such as gods/brahmas, are beings who hold the Buddha in the highest esteem, perhaps more so than the humans as well. When the Bodhisatta (Buddha-to-be), who was residing in the Tusita heaven, decided to descend to the human world to attain Buddhahood, it was the gods who request him to do so in the following manner ‘Kālo kho te mahāvīra, uppajja mātukucchiyaṃ; Sadevakaṃ tārayanto, bujjhassu amataṃ padaṃ’. Throughout the Buddha’s entire life, there’s a very strong connection with the divine beings. Now, these details might seem logically impossible and invalid to certain people, but a good Buddhist should believe in these accounts while having an unbreakable, firm and steady faith in the Buddha and his teachings.
In certain instances, the Venerable Ananda did accompany the Buddha in journeys. But, since he was not capable of psychic potency, it was through the Buddha’s powers that the Venerable Ananda travelled with the Buddha in such instances. When the Buddha did make his way to the divine realms, or atleast made the slighest communication with such a supernatural being, it is highely likely that he informed this incident to the Venerable Ananda.
The word “atheist refers to a person who disbelieves in the existence of God or gods. The concept of god in Abrahamic religions and Buddhism varies to a very great extent. In religions such as Islam and Chrstianity, the word “God” is independently and solely spoken about a “Supreme Deity/Creator” who possessess omnipotence and who is the forerunner of all that is existence. But, in Buddhism, it refers to a being who lives in a divine realm as a result of the meritorious deeds accumulated in the past and who is also a constituent of this world-cycle. His existence as a divine being is only temporary and he will inevitably pass away from that state and change his course of existence. So, as you can see, Buddhism is not atheistic, in the sense that it completely denies the existence of such a being called “god”. Yet, it totally ignores the notion and concept of a “supreme creator”.
Response -
All talk of gods and demons of a new born child taking 7 steps in each direction claiming to be the Buddha, temptation by Mara, previous life stories, discussing his advent in Tushita heaven - is all MYTHOLOGY dear Dulaj.
Even the Mimāmsakas at the time of the Buddha discredited the actual existence of these devas as “personalities” but rather as “principles”. so Agni is not a person but the principle of ignition, Brahma is not a person sitting on clouds he is the personification of the principle of creativity. Vayu is not a person he is the principle of the wind and motion. So it seems the Buddha had a retrogressive animistic view of the Devas, whereas the Rishis say them as eternal abiding principles of the Cosmos present within ourselves and not external deities.
Brhadaranyaka Upanishad says:– (4:10) statement:
“योऽन्यां देवतामुपास्ते अन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मीति न स वेद यथा पशुरेवं स देवानाम् —
yo anyām devatām upāste anyo asau anyo ahamasmi iti, na sa veda, yathā paśurevam sa devānām”,
“One who worships a separate deity thinking that the deity is completely different from himself, he is ignorant; he is like a utilitarian animal to the deities.”
Taittiriya Samhita 1. 2. 3.2
ye devā manojātā mano-yujas sudakṣā dakṣa-pitāras te naḥ || The gods, mind-born, yoked to the mind, having the blissful power of discrimination (dakṣā), and are the children of discernment.
You say about these accounts of the Buddha’s life in such a way because you only want to believe in something if it has been proved scientifically that it exists. As I mentioned in my previous answer, most of these details mentioned in the Tripitaka and its commentaries regarding certain instances of the Buddha’s life might seem as sheer mythology to someone who disbelieves in the Dharma of the Buddha. A good Buddhist must believe in these concepts out of faith for the Buddha and not in just some blind manner.
Besides, the teachings of the Buddha are not focused on anything except for the truth and original essence of life. So, there is no way that the Tripitaka can contain anything mythical based on some mysterious stories created by someone to arouse the defiled interest of the human mind. The teachings of the Buddha serve the purpose of leading its follower to the cessation of all suffering - Nibbana.
Response -
Sorry buddy - this is where we Vedāntins differ from you Buddhists - we accept nothing on faith and apply logic to everything. We can reject all the mythology of the Puranas and Epics and still retain our philosophical integrity.
Mythology is the vehicle of philosophy and has no meaning in itself.
You say about these accounts of the Buddha’s life in such a way because you only want to believe in something if it has been proved scientifically that it exists. As I mentioned in my previous answer, most of these details mentioned in the Tripitaka and its commentaries regarding certain instances of the Buddha’s life might seem as sheer mythology to someone who disbelieves in the Dharma of the Buddha. A good Buddhist must believe in these concepts out of faith for the Buddha and not in just some blind manner.
Besides, the teachings of the Buddha are not focused on anything except for the truth and original essence of life. So, there is no way that the Tripitaka can contain anything mythical based on some mysterious stories created by someone to arouse the defiled interest of the human mind. The teachings of the Buddha serve the purpose of leading its follower to the cessation of all suffering - Nibbana.
Response -
Sorry buddy - this is where we Vedāntins differ from you Buddhists - we accept nothing on faith and apply logic to everything. We can reject all the mythology of the Puranas and Epics and still retain our philosophical integrity.
Mythology is the vehicle of philosophy and has no meaning in itself.
My opinion is based on simple logic - and logic is the basis of both Buddhism and Vedanta.
I appreciate the wonders of nature and certainly see the spiritual dimension we call it as the Nishkala.
Buddhism, like Hinduism from which it arose contains mythology - plain and simple. The Buddha was speaking the idiom of his day, the gods are all projections of the human mind and not independent entities living in some heaven.
We need to separate mythology from philosophy and not confuse the two.
Claim - When the Wright Brothers invented airplane, the crucial feature was the curvature of wings. This is what gives the aircrafts the needed lift. When the Wright brothers demonstrated their flight in France, one of the Frenchman copied the Wright Brothers’ design but missed the crucial feature of the curvature of the wings. Needless to say his plane did not fly. the Hindu response to the Buddhist doctrine of dependent origination is embarrasing .
Response - Brahman” is defined as the Ground-of-Being - it is the space-time in which the universe exists. Nothing comes from nothing and nothing exists without a substrate. Waves and whirlpools and currents cannot exist without a medium - space or water.
To deny a substrate while existing in one is insanity.
Claim - Waves and whirlpools and currents cannot exist without a medium
How about electro-magnetic waves? How about gravitational waves?
Positing a Brahman may be an achievement of human beings back in 500 BC. Today, it shows as the result of superficial enquiry.
Response -
Don’t you ever sleep?
Electro-magnetic waves pass through AIR and the vacuum of SPACE.
In the Upanishads Brahman is defined as space/ air or ākāśa. That Vacuum or śūnyata is what we call “Brahman”.
yad vai tad brahmetīdaṁ vāva tad yoyaṁ bahirdhā puruṣādākāśo yo vai sa bahirdhā puruṣādākāśaḥ || 3.12.7|| ayaṁ vāva sa yo’yamantaḥ puruṣa akāśo yo vai so’ntaḥ puruṣa ākāśaḥ || 3.12.8|| ayaṁ vāva sa yo’yamantarhṛdaya ākāśastad etat pūrṇamapravarti pūrṇam apravartinīṁ śriyaṁ labhate ya evaṁ veda || 3.12.9||
3:12:7-9: That which is (designated as) Brahman, even that is this ākāśa (space) outside the body. That which is the ākāśa outside the body, even that is the ākāśa inside the body. That which is the ākāśa inside the body, even that is this ākāśa within the (lotus of the) heart. This Brahman is all-filling and unchanging. He who knows (Brahman) thus, gets all-filling and unchanging prosperity.
Claim - I see. Brahman is the “ground of being” and is “vacuum.” Vedanta is the epitome of meaninglessness.
Response -
LOL and Buddhism is the epitome of meaningfulness. You name yourself Meenan Vishnu, you give yourself titles and qualifications live in San Francisco, have a job and relationships - but at the same time declare that you don’t exist and have no selfhood - in philosophy 101 we call this absurdity a contradiction which is the negation of second law of logic.
Then you teach people about the Heart Sūtra -
“There is no ignorance, and no end to ignorance. There is no old age and death, and no end to old age and death. There is no suffering, no cause of suffering ……………… blah blah blah.”
So what is the point of all this Dharma study, teaching and practice if the end is nihilism? This is really credible stuff.
By the way, scientists as you are you should know that the Cosmic Vacuum is not empty or nothingness - it is full of potential, from śūnya (zero) all mathematical possibilities emerge. + 1 or - 1
Claim - But at the same time declare that you don’t exist and have no selfhood “
What does not exist is an everlasting Atman over and above the body and mind. The body exists and various aggregates which constitute the mind arise from a working body.
Heart Sutra is not Pali Canon. Lots of confusing ideas were introduced in Buddhism when the texts were concocted in Sanskrit. You may want to read
Linguistic Approach to Buddhist Thought Hardcover – January 1, 1992
to get examples of confusion seeded by Sanskritization of Buddhist texts. I cannot defend Heart Sutra as I focus only on the Pali Canon. The Sanskrit texts I am trying wrap my mind around are the epistemological works.
“So what is the point of all this Dharma study, teaching and practice if the end is nihilism?”
It is an empirical observation and experience that suffering is real. Hence, the study and undertaking of the Noble path is a worthwhile activity.
“ it is full of potential, from śūnya (zero) all mathematical possibilities emerge. + 1 or - 1”
George Carlin: I got to tell the truth folks, I got to tell the truth. When it comes to bullshit, big time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe, in awe … to this.
Response - You can read Yoga Sūtras of Patañjali. Have you even read the Yoga Sūtras? Meenan - a man of your exceptional intelligence should be more objective and balanced in your opinions I would think. But since you think you don’t actually exist - no one meditating - just meditation happening.
The Buddhist understanding of Sūtras and the Hindu understanding are different. The Buddhist sutras are long, prolix, verbose and repetitive discourses. Sūtras for Hindus are terse statements which are virtually meaningless without a commentary and exposition by a guru.
Dhyāna vidhi is practically learned from a guru - just as Buddha learned to meditate from his Sramana teachers - there were no manuals before his time. The mystics of Asia, Europe and Middle East and the Americas also meditated - where did they learn it from? Sitting and watching your breath is not rocket science - you do not need a doctorate to learn or to teach. Just contemplating a sunset can provoke a deep meditative state. In Vipassana courses they spend 10 minutes teaching you the practice.
According to Patañjali when the meditator, act of meditation and object of meditation all merge - samādhi occurs. Sportsmen frequently experience this state without having read the yoga sūtras.
All the āgamas (Vajrayana and Hindu) have meditations known as Deity Yoga. I can explain it in a short article.
It is indeed uninformed and unlearned opinion. Do you think Buddhists would be imported from moon and mars to spread Buddhism, or else they will need to be born out of the womb of a woman in this world? Of course, they were born from their mothers in the ancient Indian society, where people were divided into different caste system. However, when they became Buddhists, they would automatically loose their caste heritage and became a true Buddhist as suggested by the Buddha in the Sundarika Sutta, the Dasadhamma Sutta etc. It is especially in the latter that the Buddha asks his students to reflect again and again ten things, one being “I have now become caste-less”. It is also important to note that Upali was a barber, someone from low caste, who was declared foremost among the holders of Vinaya, the monastic vows that all Buddhist bhikkhus should hold. He was also destined to be the person to recite the whole Vinaya for the Sangha, once the Buddha passed away, which shows the total abandonment of any notion of caste within Buddhism.
H
So what are you saying? The Bhakti cults of Hinduism and Tantra itself renounced the caste system 2500 years ago. Buddha was just one of many reformers - he was not the first neither was he the last.
All scholars agree that the caste-system is outdated and irrelevant both sociologically and spiritually. Neo-Vedanta is post-caste.
B
your quote <<The Bhakti cults of Hinduism and Tantra itself renounced the caste system 2500 years ago.>> First of all, there was no bhakti cults and Tantra at 2500 years ago. Please present your proof. As long as caste is attested in Veda and its injunctions, there is no way Hindus can defy it. Veda is the final word for you, remember? Don’t try to be too modernist, otherwise you will loose your identity. Or else, you can become a Buddhist - we don’t recognize caste at all. That is a non-sensical idea.
H
Where in the Veda is caste discrimination attested Doctor-ji? Where is your proof? Please present it. Tantra pre-existed Buddhism - all Mahayana, Vajrayana and Tantra-yana cults are derived from Hindu Tantra. The concept of prapatti/śaraṇāgati is in the Veda itself which the Buddha studied.
Vedanta is philosophy, caste is sociology - please don’t confuse the two - in academia we keep them separate.
This is caste discrimination in Buddhism from Lalita Vistara.
Why did the Bodhisattva reflect on families?
Because Bodhisattvas are not born in a low family, such as that of a Chaṇḍāla or of a basket-maker, or of a chariot-maker, or of a Pukkasa (one born of a Niṣādha by a Sudra female). It follows that they are born in one of two families, either in that of a Brāhmaṇa, or that of a Kṣatriya. When the Brāhmaṇs are the most respected on the earth Bodhisattvas are born in Brāhman families, but when Kṣatriyas are the most respected, they take their birth in Kṣatriya families. Since now, O Bhikṣukas, the Kṣatriyas are in the ascendant, the Bodhisattva will be born in a Kṣatriya family.
For these reasons the Bodhisattva, while dwelling in the noble mansion of Tuṣīta, reflected on the four great objects. Having reflected on these he became silent.
Noticeable thing is - This is different from Hinduism,Hinduism allows everybody to attain Moksha through their own self -efforts . Everybody was required in Hinduism to take SANYASA for attaining emancipation.
B -
there are writings of many Buddhist monks, this necessitates definition of “what is dhamma”. The dhamma in Buddhism means “direct words of Buddha”. While many Buddha teachers and disciplines were Brahmins, only buddh words are dhamma in Buddhism.
H -
You are referring to Buddha-vachana.
The metaphysics of Buddhism were worked out by people like Shantideva, Atisa, Nagarjuna, Bodhi-Dharma and all the other many theoreticians. This is the reason why there are so many different schools of Buddhism, like Theravāda, Mahāyāna, Yogācāra, Madhyāmika etc.
B -
Buddhism was a Samana/Sramana religion which means they rejected the vedas and brahminism/vedic religion. What nonsense are you telling?
Only brahmins labelled Sariputta, Moggallana as brahmins, they themselves rejected the caste system once they became upasaka.
There was major hatred and divide between the two groups. The vedic brahmins had an immense hatred towards the Buddhists and other *Mlecchas* who rejected the 3 vedas.
From Kalki Purana:
**Text 10**
tato digvijaye bhupan dharmahinan kahpriyan nigrhya bauddhdn devdpim marunca sthapayissyasi
Thereafter, You will set out to conquer the entire world and in the course of that conquest, You will defeat many sinful kings who are representatives of Kali. You will also annihilate many followers of Buddhism and finally, You will entrust the responsibility of ruling the world to Devapi and Maru
*Text 29*
punanha vidhkrta veda dharmdnusthana pihita nanddarsana samghrnam samsara karma tyaga vidhna brahmabhdsa vilasa catunm prakrti vimdna ndma sampadayan buddhdvatdrastvam asi
Then, in due course time, You appeared as Lord Buddha and displayed hatred for the Vedic principles that had been prescribed by the creator. You instructed Your followers to give up their attachment for this illusory material world by renouncing all desires for sense gratification Although You rejected the Vedas, You never disregarded worldly ethics.
Recently, You appeared as Lord Kalki in order to eliminate the dynasty of Kali by destroying the Buddhists, atheists, and mlecchas, thereby protecting the true path of religion What more can we say about your causeless mercy
The Brahmins were against the Buddha, and hated him and his followers so much.
This is the reason they got kings such as Pushyamitra Shunga, Shashanka, Mihirakula, Jalauka, Elara, and many others to massacre and destroy Buddhist followers and Buddhist monuments.
H -
Dear Maharaja - you are confusing Mythology and propaganda with History. Please don’t stress yourself over Hindu-Buddhist conflicts. It is only fanatics that are trying to revive the old conflicts for political purposes. You are a Hīnayāni and so therefore shouldn’t speak for Mahāyāna which you guys dislike so much.
The Sramanas were not a sect with a specific teaching and doctrine, they were “wanderers” as mentioned in the Tripitaka. They were made up of Jains and Brahmins who had become ascetics and had rejected all social rules and norms. They were opposed to the householders who were mainly Brahmins and Jains. They did not comprise a SECT.
For most of 2000 years Hindus and Buddhist lived in complete harmony - with occasional fanaticism. Even among the Hindus there were fanatics - Chola Kings persecuted Vaishnavas in Tamilnadu.
Your last King of Srilanka was a Hindu remember - how did you live then? Were you persecuted?
The Buddhist have fought Hindus and also other Buddhist. Please learn about the Buddhist wars between Thailand, Burma and Cambodia - where they destroyed each others monasteries and massacred civilians and performed all sorts of atrocities. (Don’t forget the Rohingya refugees.)
The facts are exactly I have have stated - 80% of the founders of Buddhism were all BRAHMINS. Of course they rejected the caste system - just as I do but it doesn’t change who they were. They brought their cultural and philosophical ideas and created Brahmanism for export.
The 29 Buddhas of your Theravada tradition are mostly Brahmins and Kshatriyas.
The Buddha himself accepts all the Hindu Devatas and the Śākyas were all brahminists. Buddha never rejected the Vedic religion - he rejected the idea that sacrifices and devas could give moksha - and even the Hindu texts themselves agreed.
Even today in Srilanka you all share the worship Kataragama. Please relax and start to practice the four Brahma-vihāras (notice the name here - Brahma) starting with MAITRI - loving kindness and KARUNA - compassion. Give up anger and hatred, be free, be happy and be safe.
B -
#1. Theravada followers as a whole don’t dislike Mahayana followers. Don’t generalize millions of people.
#2. Sramanas rejected Vedas and brahmin authority: Indian Buddhism Jains/Niganthas were another Sramana sect. A brahmin ascetic isn’t considered a ‘Sramana’, they are considered Muni.
#3. Don’t talk about Sri Lankan history with your half knowledge. Sri Vikrama Rajasinha was the last king, but he only took over one kingdom, not the entire Sri Lanka. If Sri Lanka was ever fully ruled by Tamil kings at any point in time, there won’t be any Buddhism remaining. Don’t forget the Tamil race arrived here through the invasion of king Ellalan/Elara, and their sole purpose was to destroy Buddhism and other “Mlecchas”
#4. The Sramanas rejected the vedic authority so they don’t go by labels which the brahmins impose on them. Get it?? You may call them brahmins or khattiyas or whatever, but they don’t go by that. It’s like you were born to a christian family but you rejected that, so you are by definition not a christian. Same logic applies here. Going by your logic that few Buddhist followers were brahmins, you’d still be a Christian by your very same logic, because that’s what you were born into. So even a Christian by birth who rejects the bible would still be a Christian by your logic.
#5. You copied those gods from Buddhism. Buddha rejected the vedic religion, and vedic Religion didn’t have any concept of moksha/mokkha anyway. You copied that from Buddhism. The vedic brahmins at the time believed they were created from different parts of the deity Brahma, and after death, they unite with Brahma. There was no rebirth or reincarnation even, what to even speak of escape from reincarnation??
“But here the brahmins proficient in the three Vedas sink down where they have sat, only to be torn apart; all the while imagining that they’re crossing over to drier ground.
That’s why the three Vedas of the brahmins are called a ‘salted land’ and a ‘barren land’ and a ‘disaster’.””
-Gautama Buddha
Tevijja Sutta - Digha Nikaya 13
H -
I notice that you shamelessly generalise billions of Hindus dear MG but you don’t like it when applied to yourself. Should we blame all Buddhists for the atrocities against the Tamils and Rohingyas? According to your reasoning we should.
Buddha is called Śākya Muni because he was from a Brahmanist family.
Maybe you should review your most recent history dear MG. Sri Vikrama Rajasinha (1780 – January 30, 1832, born Kannasamy Nayaka) was the last of four Kings, to rule the last Sinhalese monarchy of the Kingdom of Kandy in Sri Lanka. The Nayak Kings were of Telugu origin who practiced Shaivite Hinduism and were patrons of Theravada Buddhism. Notice PATRONS OF THERAVADA BUDDHISM.
Caste is something YOU brought up - blaming “Brahmins” for the persecution of Buddhists who were themselves of “Brahmin families”. Jesus was a Jew, all his disciples were Jews, Christianity starting as a Jewish sect and then split when taken over by Greco-romans. Its roots are fully Jewish. Likewise Buddhism started as a sect of Brahmanism - its roots are fully Brahmin.
Dear MG your logic is deeply flawed. Buddha was the first Buddhist - the only cosmology and theology was that of the Jains and the Hindus so when Buddha spoke of the 33 gods and all he others - they were already in existence BEFORE his enlightenment and therefore he was talking about those gods which his audience the Brahmins knew. The majority of his followers were Brahmins. Brahmin was a category in those times - like Sinhalese today. If a Sinhalese person converts to Islam or Christianity does he change his ethnicity?
Buddha was completely right about the Vedic Brahmins who relied for their material success on the Vedas. The Vedas have to be transcended - even the Gita says the same thing.
2:45. 45. The Vedas deal with the three Modes of Material Nature (Guṇas), O Arjuna. You must free yourself from these three Guṇas and from the pairs of opposites. Abide in pure Sattva; never care to acquire things and to protect what has been acquired, but be established in the ātman.
46. For a Brahmin who knows the Self, the Vedas are of as much use as a flooded water reservoir for a thirsty person.
Reincarnation is already there in the Upanishads. You don’t believe in ātman so what reincarnates for you?
What is your rank in the BBS? please tell.
B -
But in the Buddhist texts we don’t find any hatred or encouraging killing of other religion followers, unlike in your Kalki Purana, and Ramayana there is immense hatred to those who don’t accept the vedas. That’s the difference. Our religion is pure whereas your texts themselves promote hatred and violence.
Brahmins only labelled Buddha as a Khattiya, no one else did. He did not agree to that label, and he himself said that once they become an upasaka or upasika, they drop their former titles. From Anguttara Nikaya 8.19:
“(4) “Just as, when the great rivers … reach the great ocean, they give up their former names and designations and are simply called the great ocean, so too, when members of the four social classes—khattiyas, brahmins, vessas, and suddas—go forth from the household life into homelessness in the Dhamma and discipline proclaimed by the Tathāgata, they give up their former names and clans and are simply called ascetics following the Sakyan son. This is the fourth astounding and amazing quality that the bhikkhus see in this Dhamma and discipline….” SuttaCentral
Again, would it make sense if we still referred to you as Christian, because you were born to Christian family, even though you follow a different religion now?
“The 33 gods” is the English translation of “Tavatimsa”, it’s one of the heavenly worlds in Buddhism, it has nothing to do with the brahmins gods. I knew you are going to misinterpret this and use it to undermine Nuddhism.
Dear MG you are a well educated and intelligent man even though you are a member of the odious racist BBS.
You are right the Buddhist text do not teach discrimination and persecution - so why do they do it? Let’s just keep the focus on Srilanka and the atrocities and persecution of minorities. Where do you find justification for this in your Tripitaka?
Buddhism teaches loving kindness and compassion so why are you so determined to agitate and stir up division and animosity?
Let me explain again. There were NO BUDDHISTS BEFORE BUDDHA - and therefore there cannot have been a “Buddhist pantheon”.
Buddha’s disciples were mostly BRAHMINS and he came from a BRAHMANIST family - therefore the god he spoke of were Brahmanist Gods. You can argue as long as you like but your argument is totally incoherent and self-contradictory - so please stop.
Reincarnation and Karma is mentioned in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad which predates Buddhism. They are also integral to Jainism which definitely predates Buddhism. So the claim can also be made that Buddhism took Karma and Reincarnation from the Jains.
Buddhists stole temples, chaityas, stupas, idolatry and puja and all their ceremonies from us. Where did Buddha say to construct temples and idols and to worship them? Why do Buddhist worship his relics? Why do the Mahayanists perform Vedic ceremonies including elaborate yajñas? All of Vajrayana Tantra comes directly from Hinduism.
So dear MG - we call this CROSS-POLLINATION and since Buddhism is a Brahmanist reformation movement its all good.
B -
You said:
“Buddha’s disciples were mostly BRAHMINS and he came from a BRAHMANIST family - therefore the god he spoke of were Brahmanist Gods. You can argue as long as you like but your argument is totally incoherent and self-contradictory - so please stop.”
I’ve already answered this in my previous post, please refer to:
“(4) “Just as, when the great rivers … reach the great ocean, they give up their former names and designations and are simply called the great ocean, so too, when members of the four social classes—khattiyas, brahmins, vessas, and suddas—go forth from the household life into homelessness in the Dhamma and discipline proclaimed by the Tathāgata, they give up their former names and clans and are simply called ascetics following the Sakyan son. This is the fourth astounding and amazing quality that the bhikkhus see in this Dhamma and discipline….” SuttaCentral
You can be born to Islam for example, reject it and do something else. Then you’re no longer a muslim.
Brihadaranyaka upanishad doesn’t confirm existence of rebirth, it mentions that rebirth may be a possibility.
The first mention of it is in the Buddhist texts.
Regarding Jainism:
In Majjhima Nikaya 101 (Devadaha Sutta) There is a discussion as such:
"Going to Niganthas who teach in this way, I have asked them, 'Is it true, friend Niganthas, that you teach in this way, that you have this view: "Whatever a person experiences — pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain — all is caused by what was done in the past. Thus, with the destruction of old actions through asceticism, and with the non-doing of new actions, there will be no flow into the future. With no flow into the future, there is the ending of action. With the ending of action, the ending of stress. With the ending of stress, the ending of feeling. With the ending of feeling, all suffering & stress will be exhausted"?'
"Having been asked this by me, the Niganthas admitted it, 'Yes.'
"So I said to them, 'But friends, do you know that you existed in the past, and that you did not not exist?'
"'No, friend.'
"'And do you know that you did evil actions in the past, and that you did not not do them?'
"'No, friend.'
"'And do you know that you did such-and-such evil actions in the past?'
"'No, friend.'
"'And do you know that so-and-so much stress has been exhausted, or that so-and-so much stress remains to be exhausted, or that with the exhaustion of so-and-so much stress all stress will be exhausted?'
"'No, friend.'
"'But do you know what is the abandoning of unskillful mental qualities and the attainment of skillful mental qualities in the here-&-now?'
"'No, friend.'
"'So, friends, it seems that you don't know that you existed in the past, and that you did not not exist... you don't know what is the abandoning of unskillful mental qualities and the attainment of skillful mental qualities in the here-&-now. That being the case, it is not proper for you to assert that, "Whatever a person experiences — pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain — all is caused by what was done in the past. Thus, with the destruction of old actions through asceticism, and with the non-doing of new actions, there will be no flow into the future. With no flow into the future, there is the ending of action. With the ending of action, the ending of stress. With the ending of stress, the ending of feeling. With the ending of feeling, all suffering & stress will be exhausted."
The Buddha asks the Niganthas/Jains whether they knew they existed in the past, and they reply no. Meaning they too borrowed kamma and samsara from the Buddha.
H -
Why are you struggling so hard to prove a nonsense? Please try to understand that there was no Buddhist cosmology until AFTER the Buddha, but there were Brahmins and Jains a thousand years BEFORE him.
Common logic would affirm that what comes first must influence what comes after.
I have disposed of the ridiculous claim that Buddhism influenced Hinduism in regards to rebirth and karma here.
LOL, What hindu cosmology do you speak of? You mean the Yuga cycle? Thats not even mentioned in the vedas friend. Only Puranas and Vishnu Smriti, both which came much after Buddha mention it.
“It is theorized that the concept of the four yugas originated some time after the compilation of the Vedas, but before the rest of the Hindu texts on the bases that the concept isn't mentioned in the four Vedas. It is believed that the four yugas—Krita (Satya), Treta, Dvapara, and Kali—are named after throws of an Indian game of long dice, marked with 4-3-2-1 respectively.
A complete description of the four yugas and their characteristics are found in the Vishnu Smriti, Mahabharata (e.g. Vanaparva 149, 183), Manusmriti (I.81-86), and Puranas (e.g. Brahma ch. 122-123; Matsya ch. 142-143; Naradiya, Purvardha, ch. 41).
O dear MG you have really drunk the cool-aid of the Boda Bala Sen propaganda machine.
Your Buddha certainly mentioned many things that he learned from the BRAHMINS who were his disciples. Buddha himself was a Brahmanist. So what if the Puranas were written later - the subject matter was already current but unwritten.
Writing was started in India and Srilanka around 250–232 BCE with Brahmi script so of course neither the Puranas nor Vedas no anything else was written down.
Chakkavatti Sihanada Sutta- was spoken by Buddha when he was lecturing to Brahmins who knew this stuff already.
It seems you still cannot grasp the fact that before Buddha there was no Buddhism or Buddhists ideas - Brahmins were already existing for thousands of years BEFORE Buddha.
Seriously - if you cannot use simple logic in your arguments there is no point in going around in circles. Please rejoin the BBS groups workshops on how to stir up hatred and animosity and continue to generate bad Karma. I’m done with these childish arguments.
A DEBATE BETWEEN A LEARNED BUDDHIST SCHOLAR MEENAN VISHNU(MV) and HINDU GURU RAMI SIVAN (RS)-
MS - The Vedāntin asks “who is doing the looking?” There cannot be a process without an observer.”
I know we have argued on this point till the cows came home. But I just could not pass this when I saw the word “observer” once again from you. FYI, there CAN be a process without any magical entity doing the observation. Take any man made system such as a autonomous robot, autonomous car etc.
This observer thing is such a tripping point to those who have soaked themselves in the Vedantic mud puddle that they do not see the obvious problem with it.
So I am going to try one more time since I consider you as a well read intelligent man.
Body is an assembly of organs put together by nature in such a way that it functions. A Vedantin thinks that such an assembly of organs is insufficient for it to function and that there must be an Atman controlling this assembly of organs for the assembly of organs to function. Well the question is what is this Atman? Is it just like the body, assembly of subcomponents, or is it made of some homogeneous “stuff”?
Let us consider both cases. (1) Atman is an assembly of subcomponents. Well Vedantins claim that a simple assembly of subcomponents cannot work by themselves and that one need a central controller, an Atman in order for the assembly to function. That is, this would imply that the Atman needs an ur-Atman.
Now consider case (2) Atman is made of homogeneous “stuff”. How can a homogeneous single stuff be multi-faceted? How can it observe, enjoy, suffer, wish, lament, and will? How does the non physical Atman interface with dead physical body and “operate” it?
Both (1) and (2) untenable. That is, belief in Atman is a belief in magic. Hence, Vedantins have not offered anything other than word play.
RS - Meena this is just gobbledygook - you compare machines to sentient beings. Your knowledge of Vedanta is not as great as your knowledge of Buddhism.
So to keep this really simple please answer the following questions.
MV -
(1a) Your claim that Materialism (Nastika) does not need a dharma/ethics is invalid. In fact, from the text quoted in the Sarva-darsana-sangraha, the Nastika text of Brhaspati-sutra was one of the first to advocate non-killing and vegetarianism.
(1b) Indeed, there is a difference between Buddhism and Materialism. Buddhist view is a middle path between Eternalism (Vedanta) and Annihilationism (Nastika). It is the middle view where future birth is seeded by the karma of previous births but there is no enduring substance (atman) between births.
(1c) Read Brahmajala Sutta’s section on the wrong view of Sakkaya Ditthi (Vedanta) and how it arises.
(2) Dharma is followed to bring about the liberation of mind preferably in this birth. If that is not possible sometimes in the future births. The liberation of mind from craving also stops future births. Since births inevitably leads to suffering, old age and death, stopping future births is preferable.
(3) This is false. Please show me one instance where Buddha implied an ever lasting, unchanging Atman. One of his repeated claim is that Atta ditti is the biggest obstacle to liberation.
(4) Again this is false. He denies the existence of any permanent entity. How can he concur with the Vedanta?
RS -
(1a) Your claim that Materialism (Nastika) does not need a dharma/ethics is invalid. In fact, from the text quoted in the Sarva-darsana-sangraha, the Nastika text of Brhaspati-sutra was one of the first to advocate non-killing and vegetarianism.
Materialism develops a natural organic ethic and is no need of enlightened beings – western atheist humanism in many ways superior to any Buddhist ethics. Buddhist are majority non-vegetarians and some Asians do the most horrendous things to animals. Buddhists have also engaged in destructive wars – the Khmers were notorious for ripping out the livers of their enemies while still alive and eating them. The Burmese and Thais massacred each other and looted monasteries. The Mongols – Mahayanists - were renowned for their cruelty.
(1b) Indeed, there is a difference between Buddhism and Materialism. Buddhist view is a middle path between Eternalism (Vedanta) and Annihilationism (Nastika). It is the middle view where future birth is seeded by the karma of previous births but there is no enduring substance (atman) between births.
I agree that Visisṭḥādvaita and Dvaita are “eternalist” but Advaita is not. The ātman merges into cosmic consciousness. The seeded nature of Karma is not logical – without a sākṣi – again proposing an eternal process without a subject.
This is neither validated by empirical experience – i.e. my body has constantly changed since birth and is now a totally different body but my awareness of self has remained unchanged. There is ample evidence from OBE and NDE and childhood memories to indicate the existence of a Self.
This belief in seeded karma is also not validated by the Mahayana belief in Avataras of Bodhisattvas and reincarnation of lamas (tulkus) and all the Jataka tales of the previous incarnations of the Buddha. The results of actions having some adṛṣṭha quality in the absence of a subject is illogical since the original act required subject-object-action.
(1c) Read Brahmajala Sutta’s section on the wrong view of Sakkaya Ditthi (Vedanta) and how it arises.
Thank you.
(2) Dharma is followed to bring about the liberation of mind preferably in this birth. If that is not possible sometimes in the future births. The liberation of mind from craving also stops future births. Since births inevitably leads to suffering, old age and death, stopping future births is preferable.
Another teaching found throughout the Upanishads and Gita and all the shad-darshanas – moksha is liberation from suffering here and now.
You contradict yourself Meenan! IF I am not present in future births and it is simply a flow of awareness without me as a sākṣi then what is the point of following Dharma? Why should I be bothered by future births If I am not the one reaping the results of my karma? You are saying that the one who commits the crime here is not the one being rewarded in the next life it is just a play of karma generating Karma. Then who is it that stops Karma or experiences the stopping of Karma?
Your view makes no sense Meena. This is what the Buddha the truly enlightened one said:-
Kammas-sakomhi kamma-dayado kamma-yoni kamma-bandhu Kamma-patisarano, yam kammam karissami kalyanam va papakam va tassa dayado bhavissam-iti.
Due to the law of KAMMA, we are their Maker, their Heir, their Birthplace, their Attachment and their Pathway. We are destined toreceive the results of what we have done, both good and evil.
(3) This is false. Please show me one instance where Buddha implied an ever lasting, unchanging Atman. One of his repeated claim is that Atta ditti is the biggest obstacle to liberation.
(4) Again this is false. He denies the existence of any permanent entity. How can he concur with the Vedanta?
The Buddha avoided all metaphysical speculation – in Vedānta we call it the path of neti-neti he said whatever you think of as “Self” is non-self. Of course he didn’t propose a pudgala – but this is exactly what Vedanta says – Advaita Vedanta does not posit a permanent pudgala and the ultimate moksha is freedom from all conditioning – so ātman is a temporary conventional concept. And even Patanjali says perception of a Self in non-self is Avidya.
FINALLY – why did the Buddha – the fully enlightened one - give 30 positive metaphors for Nirvana (most of which are echoed in the Upanishads) if Nirvana is simply extinction? Surely he could have been honest and say the ultimate goal is extinction guys – period.
MV -
so ātman is a temporary conventional concept.
Buddhists have no problem calling the nama-rupa system as a conventional self for ease of speaking. However, such samanya lakshana entity does not really exist.
In any case Vedanta considers Brahman as uncaused and eternal which contradicts the Buddhist view of paticca samuppada and anicca.
“You contradict yourself Meenan! IF I am not present in future births and it is simply a flow of awareness without me as a sākṣi then what is the point of following Dharma?”
Your conception of this saakshi seems to me to be everything we are. So what is the point of this physical body as this saakshi is already has all the functionality of a human being?
Rebirth does not need an entity with the full functionality of a human being. All it needs is the mental impressions (karma) which is dead data and cannot do any of the human functions.
“The Buddha avoided all metaphysical speculation “
But he did not avoid the question as whether there exists eternal entities, uncaused entities, atman. He gave a definite negative answer to these questions.
“Surely he could have been honest and say the ultimate goal is extinction guys – period.”
Something can go extinct only if it existed in the first place. At death body disintegrates. Mind is an emerging property of the body. There is nothing existing at death after nibbana to go extinct.
Can you show a reference in Buddhist canon indicating that Buddha currently exists now or of avatars?
RS -
so ātman is a temporary conventional concept.
Buddhists have no problem calling the nama-rupa system as a conventional self for ease of speaking. However, such samanya lakshana entity does not really exist.
Buddha discouraged all such metaphysical speculation Meenan – since they are unknowable.
In any case Vedanta considers Brahman as uncaused and eternal which contradicts the Buddhist view of paticca samuppada and anicca.
I don’t see much difference ANITYA is a Vedanta concept the the paticca samuppada is a variation on the Vedanta concept.
Rebirth does not need an entity with the full functionality of a human being. All it needs is the mental impressions (karma) which is dead data and cannot do any of the human functions.
Again you are intentionally obfuscating - functionality applies only to the body not to the adhyātmika component of an entity. Again I humbly ask you in what are mental impressions made? If it is a flow of awareness how are “mental impression” retained. An impression implies a sākṣi otherwise to talk of impression in the ether is worthless – in Vedanta we call it gandharva-nagara-nyāya – like buying and selling real estate in the sky city of the Gandharvas.
But he did not avoid the question as whether there exists eternal entities, uncaused entities, atman. He gave a definite negative answer to these questions.
I have already explained to you – please study up on the concept of MĀYĀ in Vedanta. The Buddha taught nothing different.
Something can go extinct only if it existed in the first place. At death body disintegrates. Mind is an emerging property of the body. There is nothing existing at death after nibbana to go extinct.
So nothing existed in the beginning, nothing exists in the middle except a flow of awareness which has spontaneously arisen and which will eventually disappear into extinction. Mind is an epiphenomena of the brain – so how does reincarnation fit in? Your version of Buddhism makes no sense and is nothing but atheism in a glossy package. Why not dispense with all the cultural tinsel and prolix verbiage and just be a humanist atheist? You can be a nice guy, do nice things, keep fit with yoga and pranayama – throw in a few sessions of vipassana and accept death stoically. Why bother with all the study, dharma and mythology?
Can you show a reference in Buddhist canon indicating that Buddha currently exists now or of avatars?
MV -
“Again I humbly ask you in what are mental impressions made? If it is a flow of awareness how are “mental impression” retained.”
Ah I see your problem. You think that the impressions need a container (atman) to carry them from one birth to another. Note that a container is not always needed. What container carries the sun’s energy to earth?
To answer the exact mechanism of how karma of one birth forms the seed of the next, one needs an understanding of the nature of space which Buddha avoided. Even modern science does not have a firm grip on the concept of space.
“An impression implies a sākṣi”
It is not necessary to have an entity to transfer information.
please study up on the concept of MĀYĀ in Vedanta. The Buddha taught nothing different.
Maya and Shunyavada are completely different claims. The former means everything other than Brahman is an illusion. The latter claims that no entity has an inherent nature (svabhava).
“Your version of Buddhism makes no sense and is nothing but atheism in a glossy package. “
This is the view of the Pali Canon and its commentaries. I cannot claim credit for it.
“Why bother with all the study, dharma and mythology?”
Because I am convinced that the development of mind in one birth affects future births (even though there is no pot carrying the content of the mind to the next birth.) The idea of a pot is a child’s idea.
RS -
I think you are confused between paramārthika Satya and vyavahārika Satya.
So dear Meenan, lets do Occam’s razor job on your arguments.
1. We are spontaneously born, we live and we die – period - the ultimate endgame is extinction.
2. Consciousness is an epiphenomena of the brain and there is no Self. Self being a social construct.
3. Our thoughts, desires and wants are due to the wiring and firing of our brains.
4. Our actions somehow have abstract moral reactions which we will never experience because there is no Self to experience them.
5. Nevertheless, the social contract should be our MO - simply because it makes life easier for everyone.
6. Suffering is inherent in this life but can be remedied through CBT and pharmaceuticals.
7. The purpose of life is to be happy here and now, there are future births but they have nothing to do with us since we will not be reborn due to the absence of Self.
How is this different from the world view of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet and Sam Harris – the four Buddhas of the Atheist movement?
Why should we bother with all the oriental spice, chilli, gibberish and garnish and just join the occidental enlightenment movement and live simple lives? Buddhism as a movement is completely redundant apart from its entertainment value and mental gymnastics which are futile because there is no gymnast anyway.
MV -
Buddhism differs from Materialism because Buddhism posits rebirth with continuity of memory. Materialists do not hold that view.
Buddhism is perhaps the only religion which seriously addresses the issue of ending suffering. Others simply ring bells, chant some mumbo jumbo, do some elaborate but ineffectual rituals and accept donations.
RS -
Well according to Buddhist logic there is no “cycle of existence” because there is no Self to experience said cycles - cycles alone exist and they will inevitable stop anyway - like boulder that is rolled down a mountain.
Let’s get scientific Meenan, the body is comprised of 6 elements - oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. And they dissolve anyway.
Yes indeed - thoughts, desire and wants are due to the automatic firing of the brain without a core - all scientists agree.
But you talk of future births/existences but there can be no future births because there is no self to be reborn - it is simply impersonal flow of something. Consciousness is produced by the brain and cannot exist outside of the brain in the ether. What’s the point of worrying about future births when I myself will not be there to experience?
What’s the point of metta, Karuna, mudita (you left out upeksha)? The social contract is good enough for happy living.
Suffering will end when we die that is certain to all living beings, so all of us attain Nirvana automatically at the end of our lives. Why “strive” for something which we will all get gratis? Its like telling students to study hard at university but they’ll all get the same degree at the end!
Rebirth and continuity of memory imply a subject that pre-existed and will exist in the future and since you categorically deny the existence of a subject this assertion is an egregious contradiction Meenan - this is the Mahā-bhrama in Theravadan Buddhism.
Suffering in this life can be effectively controlled with CBT and pharmaceuticals - so why should we read tiresome prolix and tediously repetitive sūtras clouded with mythology, and engage in endless mental gymnastics to prove there is no self while existentially experiencing the very thing we are trying to deny? And then sitting for hours in pain on a cushion watching ourselves breathing when we could be out in the world bringing benefit to others and having fun.
Western Buddhist very wisely rationalised Buddhism - removed all the mythology, bell ringing and mumbo-jumbo as well as jettisoning the fiction of reincarnation and karma.
What are your views of Kataragama Temple and all their mumbo-jumbo?
MV -
Rebirth and continuity of memory imply a subject that pre-existed and will exist in the future”
Again this is your tripping point from which you are not able to free yourself.
How did the Sakkaya Ditti arise? When meditators recalled memory from very many past existences, they thought there is a true body (sat+kaya) which continued to exist even after death of the physical body. Vedanta is a reformulation of the the sakkaya ditti where the true+body is renamed with the fancy word of Atman.
But is that the only possible explanation for one to remember past lives? Clearly not. Memory (dead data) can be transferred from one existence to another without a continually existing agent throughout existences.
Realizing that the latter is the real reason for the ability to recall memory of past lives is the first step in liberation.
RS -
I’m not discussing Vedanta with you Meenan - because that is not your topic of expertise - rather stick with the apologetic of Buddhist non-self and flow theory.
You cannot adequately explain in what does memory inhere? If the socially /mentally constructed non-self changes from moment to moment and is insubstantial then how does this conscious flow arise? and how does consciousness exist without a body/mind from which consciousness arises? Can a wave exist without the ocean? So if there is no agent why bother about the “flow”? if a car is speeding down a mountain into the abyss with a driver who is bothered?
Memory is a tool - so to whom, and for whom does memory exist? If my thought patterns continue into another existence transferred through the ether and I am not there to witness anything why should I be bothered?
Again you keep contradicting your own doctrines - how can there be memory of past births if there was no self to be reborn? How is it possible to postulate liberation of non-self? So you are creating a phantasmagoria and then blowing it up - an exercise in futility Meenan! You should return to study Vedanta - it is the best magnifying glass to examine Buddhism.
MV -
“Can a wave exist without the ocean?”
More generally, Can wave exist without a medium? Most certainly yes. For example, the electromagnetic waves in vaccum.
“how does this conscious flow arise?”
Please do not confuse atman with consciousness (vinnaana). Consciousness is the participle of the verb “to be conscious.” One is conscious when an object come into contact with a sense organ. A lot of Vedantic self deception originates when participle forms of verbs are thrown around without much thought.
“how can there be memory of past births if there was no self to be reborn?”
Sigh! It looks to me you are not reading any of my responses. At least not in depth. So here is it one more time:
Imagine a series of candles, the first one is lit and the rest are not. When the first candle is about burn out, its fire is transferred to the second candle and when the second one is about to burn out, the fire is transferred to the third one and so on. In this way the fire is kept alive. One can decide to extinguish it rather than transferring it to the next candle. Such is the transfer of karma from one birth to the next. When one reaches nibbana, the fire is extinguished. No more candles and no more births.
Let us stop with this. Thank you.
RS -
I know the silly candle metaphor - it doesn’t work with consciousness Meenan. The point is in Buddhism there is no moral agent and therefore Karma makes no sense.
MV -
“The point is in Buddhism there is no moral agent and therefore Karma makes no sense.”
The system called the nama-rupa is the moral agent while alive. Between lives, there is no being able see, think and act. Buddhism does NOT posit such a magical being (atman) who can think, evaluate morals, make decisions while NOT being embodied. Moreover, the Vedantins claim that the magical being (atman) can accomplish all these feats without nutriments and forever.
“So anātta remains an interesting philosophical postulate with no useful application in the acts of daily living.”
I disagree. The first step in the Buddhist path is “Right View (Samma Ditti). Starting with a wrong view means the project will not succeed.
The Right Views include
The 3 lakkhanas include anatta. With a permanent Self view, mind’s liberation is impossible.
RS -
What about sopānna concept of gradual liberation? When a student joins the University do you teach post graduate phD at the start or do you start with simple programming?
Vedanta is pragmatism. We accept as “valid” only those doctrines, teaching and views which are appropriate to the śrāvaka and his/her current svabhāva, bhūmika and adhikāra. If the teaching or view has no perceptible application then it is shelved as “invalid”.
From a vyavahārika point of view you, me and every other human being will have an existential sense of “self” which will only disintegrate at the highest levels of Jhana.
So therefore arguing about the paramārthika value of anātma is as futile as speculating about akāśa-kusuma - cultivation of sky-flowers.
What does the realisation of non-self even look like?
Claim -
You are quoting from a 3rd party text . It is neither 1st account It is not written by Buddha himself, nor 2nd account it is not written by someone who listened to Buddha directly. If you can use just 1–2 hours of your busy life, read Buddha teaching yourself online directly. The best website is Access to Insight Having done that, you won’t need to rely on opinions of others. You would know what Buddha himself said.
Regarding this particular topic, Buddha didnot believe in caste system. He himself criticized it.
Response -
How do you know that all the Tripitaka is not 3rd party text? Do you think that Ananda really memorised all the Suttas in their prolix and verbose form? The Buddha says in the Tripitaka that he went to the heavens and spoke to all the devas including Indra, Brahma et all and preached the Dharma to them - did Ananda accompany him and record those conversations?
The Vedas can easily be memorised because they are in metric form, the Tripitaka are in prose which is extremely hard if not impossible to memorise. So it is highly improbable that the discourses were actually spoken by Buddha himself.
The point being made is that all the previous Buddhas, Bodhisattvas and early theoreticians of Buddhism were either Brahmins or Kshatriyas. The vast majority of the dialogues found on access to insight involve Brahmins, Kshatriyas or Vaishyas (gahapatis) - Suddas and panchamas do not feature at all.
And indeed being born a Hindu Kshatriya Buddha did denounce the discrimination and privilege of the caste system which is an economic model, but the model itself was workable and unavailable for deconstruction into socialism.
Claim - That is the earliest collection of Buddha teachings, done after Buddha’s death. You will find, in Buddha teachings, countless times buddha rejecting caste. Buddha accepted all comers into sangha.
Response -
This is true no doubt. The general gist of the Tripitaka is indeed the teaching of the Buddha but a large portion of it is mythology.
What exactly was the Buddha rejecting? The caste-system is an socio-economic model the most universal model at that time the world over. What the Buddha was denouncing was elitism and privilege based on birth and caste-discrimination - not the system per se. He was advocating meritocracy - he was not a SJW. He never said “down with the patriarchy and Brahminocracy” what he did was redefine what he saw as a true brahminical qualities.
The Brahmaṇa from Dhammapada
383. Exert yourself, O Brahmana! Cut off the stream (of craving), and discard sense desires. Knowing the destruction of all the conditioned things, become, O Brahmana, the knower of the Uncreate (Nibbana)!
384. When a Brahmana has reached the summit of two paths (meditative concentration and insight), he knows the truth and all his fetters fall away.
385. He for whom there is neither this shore nor the other shore, nor yet both, he who is free of cares and is unfettered -- him do I call a Brahmana.
386. He who is meditative, stainless and settled, whose work is done and who is free from cankers, having reached the highest goal -- him do I call a Brahmana.
387. The sun shines by day, the moon shines by night. The warrior shines in armor, the Brahmana shines in meditation. But the Buddha shines resplendent all day and all night.
388. Because he has discarded evil, he is called a Brahmana. Because he is serene in conduct, he is called a recluse. And because he has renounced his impurities, he is called a renunciate.
389. One should not strike a Brahmana, nor should a Brahmana, when struck, give way to anger. Shame on him who strikes a Brahmana, and more shame on him who gives way to anger.
390. Nothing is better for a Brahmana than when he holds his mind back from what is endearing. To the extent the intent to harm wears away, to that extent does suffering subside.
391. He who does no evil in deed, word and thought, who is restrained in these three ways -- him do I call a Brahmana.
392. Just as a brahman priest reveres his sacrificial fire, even so should one devoutly revere the person from whom one has learned the Dhamma taught by the Buddha.
393. Not by matted hair, nor by lineage, nor by birth does one become a Brahmana. But he in whom truth and righteousness exist -- he is pure, he is a Brahmana.
394. What is the use of your matted hair, O witless man? What of your garment of antelope's hide? Within you is the tangle (of passion); only outwardly do you cleanse yourself. [28]
395. The person who wears a robe made of rags, who is lean, with veins showing all over the body, and who meditates alone in the forest -- him do I call a Brahmana.
396. I do not call him a Brahmana because of his lineage or high-born mother. If he is full of impeding attachments, he is just a supercilious man. But who is free from impediments and clinging -- him do I call a Brahmana.
397. He who, having cut off all fetters, trembles no more, who has overcome all attachments and is emancipated -- him do I call a Brahmana.
398. He who has cut off the thong (of hatred), the band (of craving), and the rope (of false views), together with the appurtenances (latent evil tendencies), he who has removed the crossbar (of ignorance) and is enlightened -- him do I call a Brahmana.
399. He who without resentment endures abuse, beating and punishment; whose power, real might, is patience -- him do I call a Brahmana.
400. He who is free from anger, is devout, virtuous, without craving, self-subdued and bears his final body -- him do I call a Brahmana.
401. Like water on a lotus leaf, or a mustard seed on the point of a needle, he who does not cling to sensual pleasures -- him do I call a Brahmana.
402. He who in this very life realizes for himself the end of suffering, who has laid aside the burden and become emancipated -- him do I call a Brahmana.
403. He who has profound knowledge, who is wise, skilled in discerning the right or wrong path, and has reached the highest goal -- him do I call a Brahmana.
404. He who holds aloof from householders and ascetics alike, and wanders about with no fixed abode and but few wants -- him do I call a Brahmana.
405. He who has renounced violence towards all living beings, weak or strong, who neither kills nor causes others to kill -- him do I call a Brahmana.
406. He who is friendly amidst the hostile, peaceful amidst the violent, and unattached amidst the attached -- him do I call a Brahmana.
407. He whose lust and hatred, pride and hypocrisy have fallen off like a mustard seed from the point of a needle -- him do I call a Brahmana.
408. He who utters gentle, instructive and truthful words, who imprecates none -- him do I call a Brahmana.
409. He who in this world takes nothing that is not given to him, be it long or short, small or big, good or bad -- him do I call a Brahmana.
410. He who wants nothing of either this world or the next, who is desire-free and emancipated -- him do I call a Brahmana.
411. He who has no attachment, who through perfect knowledge is free from doubts and has plunged into the Deathless -- him do I call a Brahmana.
412. He who in this world has transcended the ties of both merit and demerit, who is sorrowless, stainless and pure -- him do I call a Brahmana.
413. He, who, like the moon, is spotless and pure, serene and clear, who has destroyed the delight in existence -- him do I call a Brahmana.
414. He who, having traversed this miry, perilous and delusive round of existence, has crossed over and reached the other shore; who is meditative, calm, free from doubt, and, clinging to nothing, has attained to Nibbana -- him do I call a Brahmana.
415. He who, having abandoned sensual pleasures, has renounced the household life and become a homeless one; has destroyed both sensual desire and continued existence -- him do I call a Brahmana.
416. He who, having abandoned craving, has renounced the household life and become a homeless one, has destroyed both craving and continued existence -- him do I call a Brahmana.
417. He who, casting off human bonds and transcending heavenly ties, is wholly delivered of all bondages -- him do I call a Brahmana.
418. He who, having cast off likes and dislikes, has become tranquil, is rid of the substrata of existence and like a hero has conquered all the worlds -- him do I call a Brahmana.
419. He who in every way knows the death and rebirth of all beings, and is totally detached, blessed and enlightened -- him do I call a Brahmana.
420. He whose track no gods, no angels, no humans trace, the Arahat who has destroyed all cankers -- him do I call a Brahmana.
421. He who clings to nothing of the past, present and future, who has no attachment and holds on to nothing -- him do I call a Brahmana.
422. He, the Noble, the Excellent, the Heroic, the Great Sage, the Conqueror, the Passionless, the Pure, the Enlightened one -- him do I call a Brahmana.
423. He who knows his former births, who sees heaven and hell, who has reached the end of births and attained to the perfection of insight, the sage who has reached the summit of spiritual excellence -- him do I call a Brahmana.
Claim -
Why do you say Tripitaka has mythology. I read most of these early Buddha teachings. I dont know what you mean by mythology?
Response -
Buddha went to swarga to teach the Hindu Gods, he also had regular visions and chats with them - Mahasamaya Sutta for example.
Thus have I heard:
On one occasion the Blessed One was living in the Maha-vana (great wood) near the city of Kapilavatthu in the province of the Sakyans together with a great retinue of monks, all of them arahants, and five hundred in number. Devas (gods) from ten thousand world-systems frequently assembled for the purpose of seeing the Blessed One and the bhikkhu-sangha (ordained monks).
Then to four devas of the Suddhavasa (pure Abodes) brahma world, this thought occurred: "The Blessed One is living in the Mahavana near the city of Kapilavatthu in the province of the Sakyans with a great retinue of monks, all of them arahants, and five hundred in number. Devas are frequently assembling there for the purpose of seeing the Blessed One and the bhikkhu-sangha. It is well if we were also to repair to the place where the Blessed One is, and each of us recite a stanza in his presence."
Who actually saw these millions of Devas and who recorded their conversations?
CLAIM -
One way we can verify other planes of existence are not mythology is by following rules for reaching jhana . Once you are in 4th jhana, you will be able to remember past rebirths in this and other planes of existence, so you will know that devas, other planes of existence, are true. I am trying to reach jhana by meditating on brahmviharas but no luck so far. if you have any tips on how to reach jhana in Hinduism please share
Response -
How can one remember past births is there is no ātma? in what does memory inhere?
How did Buddha go to other planes of existence i.e. lokas? In his physical body or some sort of astral body?
We would say the way to meditate is one ātman - but you don’t believe there is an ātman. So who is trying to reach jhana stages?
Claim -
Who is trying to reach jhana— It is not “who” as it is not a noun. It is a verb. mind, body, etc are verbs - names given to unfolding action - and the unfolding action is trying to find a way to jhana. Everything in samsara is a verb as everything is unfolding action.
How does Buddha remember past births if there is no atman — I don’t know. buddha did not explain. How did buddha go to other Lokas — I don’t know. buddha didn’t explain.
I am trying to reach jhanas by trying to stabilize brahmaviharas (Metta Mudita karuna upekha) which is actually a Hindu practice but Buddha agreed that it is a valid way to reach jhana - is there a scripture in Hinduism which talks more about brahmaviharas?
Response -
Who is a noun, working is a verb. Mind is a noun, thinking is a verb. Body is a noun, action is a verb. Thinking, striving, seeing, clasping, walking, action etc. cannot occur without a subject. Every verb applies to a subject - no verb operates independently.
“Unfolding action” is a nonsense with a subject Sanjeevam. Everything indeed is in flux - that too is obvious, a river flows and is constantly changing but the river exists as a river - with all its contours, shallows, rapids, waterfalls etc. until it eventually reaches the sea and then loses its identity.
Patanjali Yoga Sutras talks about Brahmāvihāras.
CLAIM -
, I think it would be best to look at the discourses of the Tripitaka in Pali itself. When you take a look at almost every discourse given in the Sutta Pitaka, it starts in the following manner (let’s take a look at the Maha Samaya Sutta for example) - “Evaṃ me sutaṃ—
Ekaṃ samayaṃ bhagavā sakkesu viharati kapilavatthusmiṃ mahāvane mahatā bhikkhusaṃghena saddhiṃ pañcamattehi bhikkhusatehi sabbeheva arahantehi;
dasahi ca lokadhātūhi devatā yebhuyyena sannipatitā honti bhagavantaṃ dassanāya bhikkhusaṃghañca.”
As you can clearly see, it starts with “Evaṃ me sutaṃ”, which, when translated to English means “Thus have I heard”. Have you ever considered thinking about why such a phrase was included in the Tripitaka? This phrase has been added in order to confirm and ensure that the discourse originated from the Buddha’s own words.
Tradition holds it that it was the Buddha’s personal attendant and foremost disciple in recollecting the Dhamma Ananda Thera who used this formula the very first time, in order to bear witness that the discourse has been preached by the Buddha’s own purified words.
After the Buddha’s attainment of Parinibbana, there arose many rumours and seperations within the Sangha, that many of the Buddha’s original discourses were denied and condemned by his monks. In fact, many monks had protested against the Buddha’s code of conduct and they decided to live as seperate communities. Hence, the branches of Mahayana and Vajrayana took their place in this world. So, in order to keep the original teachings of the Buddha intact and free from the influences of rivalries, the Buddhist Councils wer e held. It is mentioned that in the First Buddhist Council that the Venerable Ananda Thero announced this formula.
With all these facts kept in mind, how can you say that the Tripitaka is based on mythology, when the Venerable Ananda Thero, who was foremost in memorizing the Buddha’s doctrine, boldly bore witness that he himself had heard this discourse from the Buddha himself??
RESPONSE -
Did I say Tripitaka was BASED on mythology? Dear Bhante - when engaging in discourse it is important to READ and respond and not to erect straw men. You need to reclaim the technique of honest debate that was famous among the Buddhist philosophers.
My remark was about the Buddha claiming to have visited the various heavens and spoken to the gods and taught them the Dharma, having Brahma and the gods come to visit the Buddha and request him to teach, the temptations of Mara and his daughters - etc. this is all the language of MYTHOLOGY.
Did Ananda Thero accompany the Buddha to meet the gods? Or did Buddha just claim to have met them? How did he travel? was it in his physical body or astral body (sūkṣa-śarīra? How can Buddhists claim to be atheist when there is so much interaction with the gods - even more so than in Hinduism.
The Mahayanis and Vajrayanis are the majority of Buddhists and they claim to hold the true teachings - so who is correct? You or them?
CLAIM -
I stand firm by the point that I was trying to make even in my previous answer. The Buddha’s visit to the divine realms, his conversation with the deities of those worlds, all of these concepts are mentioned in the Tripitaka and also its commentaries. What I meant by “Tripitaka is based on mythology” is a statement said by me to point out not the entire/ necessarily the factual details given in the Tripitaka, but certain areas of controversy, such as those topics you have mentioned. And I apologize if I did not read your answer properly and respond. But, let me get straight to the point.
You say that all these accouts are the “language of MYTHOLOGY”. Now, the Buddha, unlike ordinary people, was a person who was endowed with the highest psychic potency and supernatural ability. As far as I can tell, even in hinduism, there are ascetics, brahmins and recluses who are capable of such abilities of psychic power - like communicating with the devas, travelling to their worlds, performing marvellous feats etc. And how is it possible for even such ascetics to be endowed with such attributes?? It’s because they have developed their minds by engaging in meditation, and having purified their minds from ordinary defilements such as greed, they attain to dhyanas and samadhis. So, I don’t see why the Buddha, who is foremost amongst those who became purified, would not be able to interact with living beings.
The divine beings, such as gods/brahmas, are beings who hold the Buddha in the highest esteem, perhaps more so than the humans as well. When the Bodhisatta (Buddha-to-be), who was residing in the Tusita heaven, decided to descend to the human world to attain Buddhahood, it was the gods who request him to do so in the following manner ‘Kālo kho te mahāvīra,
uppajja mātukucchiyaṃ;
Sadevakaṃ tārayanto,
bujjhassu amataṃ padaṃ’. Throughout the Buddha’s entire life, there’s a very strong connection with the divine beings. Now, these details might seem logically impossible and invalid to certain people, but a good Buddhist should believe in these accounts while having an unbreakable, firm and steady faith in the Buddha and his teachings.
In certain instances, the Venerable Ananda did accompany the Buddha in journeys. But, since he was not capable of psychic potency, it was through the Buddha’s powers that the Venerable Ananda travelled with the Buddha in such instances. When the Buddha did make his way to the divine realms, or atleast made the slighest communication with such a supernatural being, it is highely likely that he informed this incident to the Venerable Ananda.
The word “atheist refers to a person who disbelieves in the existence of God or gods. The concept of god in Abrahamic religions and Buddhism varies to a very great extent. In religions such as Islam and Chrstianity, the word “God” is independently and solely spoken about a “Supreme Deity/Creator” who possessess omnipotence and who is the forerunner of all that is existence. But, in Buddhism, it refers to a being who lives in a divine realm as a result of the meritorious deeds accumulated in the past and who is also a constituent of this world-cycle. His existence as a divine being is only temporary and he will inevitably pass away from that state and change his course of existence. So, as you can see, Buddhism is not atheistic, in the sense that it completely denies the existence of such a being called “god”. Yet, it totally ignores the notion and concept of a “supreme creator”.
Response -
All talk of gods and demons of a new born child taking 7 steps in each direction claiming to be the Buddha, temptation by Mara, previous life stories, discussing his advent in Tushita heaven - is all MYTHOLOGY dear Dulaj.
Even the Mimāmsakas at the time of the Buddha discredited the actual existence of these devas as “personalities” but rather as “principles”. so Agni is not a person but the principle of ignition, Brahma is not a person sitting on clouds he is the personification of the principle of creativity. Vayu is not a person he is the principle of the wind and motion. So it seems the Buddha had a retrogressive animistic view of the Devas, whereas the Rishis say them as eternal abiding principles of the Cosmos present within ourselves and not external deities.
Brhadaranyaka Upanishad says:– (4:10) statement:
“योऽन्यां देवतामुपास्ते अन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मीति न स वेद यथा पशुरेवं स देवानाम् —
yo anyām devatām upāste anyo asau anyo ahamasmi iti, na sa veda, yathā paśurevam sa devānām”,
“One who worships a separate deity thinking that the deity is completely different from himself, he is ignorant; he is like a utilitarian animal to the deities.”
Taittiriya Samhita 1. 2. 3.2
ye devā manojātā mano-yujas sudakṣā dakṣa-pitāras te naḥ ||
The gods, mind-born, yoked to the mind, having the blissful power of discrimination (dakṣā), and are the children of discernment.
Claim -
You say about these accounts of the Buddha’s life in such a way because you only want to believe in something if it has been proved scientifically that it exists. As I mentioned in my previous answer, most of these details mentioned in the Tripitaka and its commentaries regarding certain instances of the Buddha’s life might seem as sheer mythology to someone who disbelieves in the Dharma of the Buddha. A good Buddhist must believe in these concepts out of faith for the Buddha and not in just some blind manner.
Besides, the teachings of the Buddha are not focused on anything except for the truth and original essence of life. So, there is no way that the Tripitaka can contain anything mythical based on some mysterious stories created by someone to arouse the defiled interest of the human mind. The teachings of the Buddha serve the purpose of leading its follower to the cessation of all suffering - Nibbana.
Response -
Sorry buddy - this is where we Vedāntins differ from you Buddhists - we accept nothing on faith and apply logic to everything. We can reject all the mythology of the Puranas and Epics and still retain our philosophical integrity.
Mythology is the vehicle of philosophy and has no meaning in itself.
Claim -
You say about these accounts of the Buddha’s life in such a way because you only want to believe in something if it has been proved scientifically that it exists. As I mentioned in my previous answer, most of these details mentioned in the Tripitaka and its commentaries regarding certain instances of the Buddha’s life might seem as sheer mythology to someone who disbelieves in the Dharma of the Buddha. A good Buddhist must believe in these concepts out of faith for the Buddha and not in just some blind manner.
Besides, the teachings of the Buddha are not focused on anything except for the truth and original essence of life. So, there is no way that the Tripitaka can contain anything mythical based on some mysterious stories created by someone to arouse the defiled interest of the human mind. The teachings of the Buddha serve the purpose of leading its follower to the cessation of all suffering - Nibbana.
Response -
Sorry buddy - this is where we Vedāntins differ from you Buddhists - we accept nothing on faith and apply logic to everything. We can reject all the mythology of the Puranas and Epics and still retain our philosophical integrity.
Mythology is the vehicle of philosophy and has no meaning in itself.
My opinion is based on simple logic - and logic is the basis of both Buddhism and Vedanta.
I appreciate the wonders of nature and certainly see the spiritual dimension we call it as the Nishkala.
Buddhism, like Hinduism from which it arose contains mythology - plain and simple. The Buddha was speaking the idiom of his day, the gods are all projections of the human mind and not independent entities living in some heaven.
We need to separate mythology from philosophy and not confuse the two.
Claim - When the Wright Brothers invented airplane, the crucial feature was the curvature of wings. This is what gives the aircrafts the needed lift. When the Wright brothers demonstrated their flight in France, one of the Frenchman copied the Wright Brothers’ design but missed the crucial feature of the curvature of the wings. Needless to say his plane did not fly. the Hindu response to the Buddhist doctrine of dependent origination is embarrasing .
Response - Brahman” is defined as the Ground-of-Being - it is the space-time in which the universe exists. Nothing comes from nothing and nothing exists without a substrate. Waves and whirlpools and currents cannot exist without a medium - space or water.
To deny a substrate while existing in one is insanity.
Claim - Waves and whirlpools and currents cannot exist without a medium
How about electro-magnetic waves? How about gravitational waves?
Positing a Brahman may be an achievement of human beings back in 500 BC. Today, it shows as the result of superficial enquiry.
Response -
Don’t you ever sleep?
Electro-magnetic waves pass through AIR and the vacuum of SPACE.
In the Upanishads Brahman is defined as space/ air or ākāśa. That Vacuum or śūnyata is what we call “Brahman”.
yad vai tad brahmetīdaṁ vāva tad yoyaṁ bahirdhā puruṣādākāśo yo vai sa bahirdhā puruṣādākāśaḥ || 3.12.7|| ayaṁ vāva sa yo’yamantaḥ puruṣa akāśo yo vai so’ntaḥ puruṣa ākāśaḥ || 3.12.8|| ayaṁ vāva sa yo’yamantarhṛdaya ākāśastad etat pūrṇamapravarti pūrṇam apravartinīṁ śriyaṁ labhate ya evaṁ veda || 3.12.9||
3:12:7-9: That which is (designated as) Brahman, even that is this ākāśa (space) outside the body. That which is the ākāśa outside the body, even that is the ākāśa inside the body. That which is the ākāśa inside the body, even that is this ākāśa within the (lotus of the) heart. This Brahman is all-filling and unchanging. He who knows (Brahman) thus, gets all-filling and unchanging prosperity.
Claim - I see. Brahman is the “ground of being” and is “vacuum.” Vedanta is the epitome of meaninglessness.
Response -
LOL and Buddhism is the epitome of meaningfulness. You name yourself Meenan Vishnu, you give yourself titles and qualifications live in San Francisco, have a job and relationships - but at the same time declare that you don’t exist and have no selfhood - in philosophy 101 we call this absurdity a contradiction which is the negation of second law of logic.
Then you teach people about the Heart Sūtra -
“There is no ignorance, and no end to ignorance. There is no old age and death, and no end to old age and death. There is no suffering, no cause of suffering ……………… blah blah blah.”
So what is the point of all this Dharma study, teaching and practice if the end is nihilism? This is really credible stuff.
By the way, scientists as you are you should know that the Cosmic Vacuum is not empty or nothingness - it is full of potential, from śūnya (zero) all mathematical possibilities emerge. + 1 or - 1
Claim - But at the same time declare that you don’t exist and have no selfhood “
What does not exist is an everlasting Atman over and above the body and mind. The body exists and various aggregates which constitute the mind arise from a working body.
Heart Sutra is not Pali Canon. Lots of confusing ideas were introduced in Buddhism when the texts were concocted in Sanskrit. You may want to read
Linguistic Approach to Buddhist Thought Hardcover – January 1, 1992
by Genjun H. Sasaki (Author)
to get examples of confusion seeded by Sanskritization of Buddhist texts. I cannot defend Heart Sutra as I focus only on the Pali Canon. The Sanskrit texts I am trying wrap my mind around are the epistemological works.
“So what is the point of all this Dharma study, teaching and practice if the end is nihilism?”
It is an empirical observation and experience that suffering is real. Hence, the study and undertaking of the Noble path is a worthwhile activity.
“ it is full of potential, from śūnya (zero) all mathematical possibilities emerge. + 1 or - 1”
George Carlin: I got to tell the truth folks, I got to tell the truth. When it comes to bullshit, big time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe, in awe … to this.
Response - You can read Yoga Sūtras of Patañjali. Have you even read the Yoga Sūtras? Meenan - a man of your exceptional intelligence should be more objective and balanced in your opinions I would think. But since you think you don’t actually exist - no one meditating - just meditation happening.
The Buddhist understanding of Sūtras and the Hindu understanding are different. The Buddhist sutras are long, prolix, verbose and repetitive discourses. Sūtras for Hindus are terse statements which are virtually meaningless without a commentary and exposition by a guru.
Dhyāna vidhi is practically learned from a guru - just as Buddha learned to meditate from his Sramana teachers - there were no manuals before his time. The mystics of Asia, Europe and Middle East and the Americas also meditated - where did they learn it from? Sitting and watching your breath is not rocket science - you do not need a doctorate to learn or to teach. Just contemplating a sunset can provoke a deep meditative state. In Vipassana courses they spend 10 minutes teaching you the practice.
According to Patañjali when the meditator, act of meditation and object of meditation all merge - samādhi occurs. Sportsmen frequently experience this state without having read the yoga sūtras.
All the āgamas (Vajrayana and Hindu) have meditations known as Deity Yoga. I can explain it in a short article.
AN EXAMPLE OF HINDU-BUDDHIST ARGUMENTS -
H- HINDU
B -BUDDHIST
EXAMPLE -
B
It is indeed uninformed and unlearned opinion. Do you think Buddhists would be imported from moon and mars to spread Buddhism, or else they will need to be born out of the womb of a woman in this world? Of course, they were born from their mothers in the ancient Indian society, where people were divided into different caste system. However, when they became Buddhists, they would automatically loose their caste heritage and became a true Buddhist as suggested by the Buddha in the Sundarika Sutta, the Dasadhamma Sutta etc. It is especially in the latter that the Buddha asks his students to reflect again and again ten things, one being “I have now become caste-less”. It is also important to note that Upali was a barber, someone from low caste, who was declared foremost among the holders of Vinaya, the monastic vows that all Buddhist bhikkhus should hold. He was also destined to be the person to recite the whole Vinaya for the Sangha, once the Buddha passed away, which shows the total abandonment of any notion of caste within Buddhism.
H
So what are you saying? The Bhakti cults of Hinduism and Tantra itself renounced the caste system 2500 years ago. Buddha was just one of many reformers - he was not the first neither was he the last.
All scholars agree that the caste-system is outdated and irrelevant both sociologically and spiritually. Neo-Vedanta is post-caste.
B
your quote <<The Bhakti cults of Hinduism and Tantra itself renounced the caste system 2500 years ago.>> First of all, there was no bhakti cults and Tantra at 2500 years ago. Please present your proof. As long as caste is attested in Veda and its injunctions, there is no way Hindus can defy it. Veda is the final word for you, remember? Don’t try to be too modernist, otherwise you will loose your identity. Or else, you can become a Buddhist - we don’t recognize caste at all. That is a non-sensical idea.
H
Where in the Veda is caste discrimination attested Doctor-ji? Where is your proof? Please present it. Tantra pre-existed Buddhism - all Mahayana, Vajrayana and Tantra-yana cults are derived from Hindu Tantra. The concept of prapatti/śaraṇāgati is in the Veda itself which the Buddha studied.
Vedanta is philosophy, caste is sociology - please don’t confuse the two - in academia we keep them separate.
This is caste discrimination in Buddhism from Lalita Vistara.
Why did the Bodhisattva reflect on families?
Because Bodhisattvas are not born in a low family, such as that of a Chaṇḍāla or of a basket-maker, or of a chariot-maker, or of a Pukkasa (one born of a Niṣādha by a Sudra female). It follows that they are born in one of two families, either in that of a Brāhmaṇa, or that of a Kṣatriya. When the Brāhmaṇs are the most respected on the earth Bodhisattvas are born in Brāhman families, but when Kṣatriyas are the most respected, they take their birth in Kṣatriya families. Since now, O Bhikṣukas, the Kṣatriyas are in the ascendant, the Bodhisattva will be born in a Kṣatriya family.
For these reasons the Bodhisattva, while dwelling in the noble mansion of Tuṣīta, reflected on the four great objects. Having reflected on these he became silent.
Noticeable thing is - This is different from Hinduism,Hinduism allows everybody to attain Moksha through their own self -efforts . Everybody was required in Hinduism to take SANYASA for attaining emancipation.
B -
there are writings of many Buddhist monks, this necessitates definition of “what is dhamma”. The dhamma in Buddhism means “direct words of Buddha”. While many Buddha teachers and disciplines were Brahmins, only buddh words are dhamma in Buddhism.
H -
You are referring to Buddha-vachana.
The metaphysics of Buddhism were worked out by people like Shantideva, Atisa, Nagarjuna, Bodhi-Dharma and all the other many theoreticians. This is the reason why there are so many different schools of Buddhism, like Theravāda, Mahāyāna, Yogācāra, Madhyāmika etc.
B -
Buddhism was a Samana/Sramana religion which means they rejected the vedas and brahminism/vedic religion. What nonsense are you telling?
Only brahmins labelled Sariputta, Moggallana as brahmins, they themselves rejected the caste system once they became upasaka.
There was major hatred and divide between the two groups. The vedic brahmins had an immense hatred towards the Buddhists and other *Mlecchas* who rejected the 3 vedas.
From Kalki Purana:
**Text 10**
tato digvijaye bhupan dharmahinan kahpriyan nigrhya bauddhdn devdpim marunca sthapayissyasi
Thereafter, You will set out to conquer the entire world and in the course of that conquest, You will defeat many sinful kings who are representatives of Kali. You will also annihilate many followers of Buddhism and finally, You will entrust the responsibility of ruling the world to Devapi and Maru
*Text 29*
punanha vidhkrta veda dharmdnusthana pihita nanddarsana samghrnam samsara karma tyaga vidhna brahmabhdsa vilasa catunm prakrti vimdna ndma sampadayan buddhdvatdrastvam asi
Then, in due course time, You appeared as Lord Buddha and displayed hatred for the Vedic principles that had been prescribed by the creator. You instructed Your followers to give up their attachment for this illusory material world by renouncing all desires for sense gratification Although You rejected the Vedas, You never disregarded worldly ethics.
**Text 30**
adhuna kahkula ndsavatdro bauddha pdsanda mlecchadindnca vedadharma setu panpdlandya krtavatarah kalh mpendsman stntva nirayddudhrta vanasi tavdnukampam kimiha kathaydmah
Recently, You appeared as Lord Kalki in order to eliminate the dynasty of Kali by destroying the Buddhists, atheists, and mlecchas, thereby protecting the true path of religion What more can we say about your causeless mercy
Source:
http://om-aditya.ru/userfiles/ufiles/purany/sri_kalki_purana.pdf (http://om-aditya.ru/userfiles/ufiles/purany/sri_kalki_purana.pdf)
The Brahmins were against the Buddha, and hated him and his followers so much.
This is the reason they got kings such as Pushyamitra Shunga, Shashanka, Mihirakula, Jalauka, Elara, and many others to massacre and destroy Buddhist followers and Buddhist monuments.
H -
Dear Maharaja - you are confusing Mythology and propaganda with History. Please don’t stress yourself over Hindu-Buddhist conflicts. It is only fanatics that are trying to revive the old conflicts for political purposes. You are a Hīnayāni and so therefore shouldn’t speak for Mahāyāna which you guys dislike so much.
The Sramanas were not a sect with a specific teaching and doctrine, they were “wanderers” as mentioned in the Tripitaka. They were made up of Jains and Brahmins who had become ascetics and had rejected all social rules and norms. They were opposed to the householders who were mainly Brahmins and Jains. They did not comprise a SECT.
For most of 2000 years Hindus and Buddhist lived in complete harmony - with occasional fanaticism. Even among the Hindus there were fanatics - Chola Kings persecuted Vaishnavas in Tamilnadu.
Your last King of Srilanka was a Hindu remember - how did you live then? Were you persecuted?
The Buddhist have fought Hindus and also other Buddhist. Please learn about the Buddhist wars between Thailand, Burma and Cambodia - where they destroyed each others monasteries and massacred civilians and performed all sorts of atrocities. (Don’t forget the Rohingya refugees.)
The facts are exactly I have have stated - 80% of the founders of Buddhism were all BRAHMINS. Of course they rejected the caste system - just as I do but it doesn’t change who they were. They brought their cultural and philosophical ideas and created Brahmanism for export.
The 29 Buddhas of your Theravada tradition are mostly Brahmins and Kshatriyas.
The Buddha himself accepts all the Hindu Devatas and the Śākyas were all brahminists. Buddha never rejected the Vedic religion - he rejected the idea that sacrifices and devas could give moksha - and even the Hindu texts themselves agreed.
Even today in Srilanka you all share the worship Kataragama. Please relax and start to practice the four Brahma-vihāras (notice the name here - Brahma) starting with MAITRI - loving kindness and KARUNA - compassion. Give up anger and hatred, be free, be happy and be safe.
B -
#1. Theravada followers as a whole don’t dislike Mahayana followers. Don’t generalize millions of people.
#2. Sramanas rejected Vedas and brahmin authority: Indian Buddhism Jains/Niganthas were another Sramana sect. A brahmin ascetic isn’t considered a ‘Sramana’, they are considered Muni.
#3. Don’t talk about Sri Lankan history with your half knowledge. Sri Vikrama Rajasinha was the last king, but he only took over one kingdom, not the entire Sri Lanka. If Sri Lanka was ever fully ruled by Tamil kings at any point in time, there won’t be any Buddhism remaining. Don’t forget the Tamil race arrived here through the invasion of king Ellalan/Elara, and their sole purpose was to destroy Buddhism and other “Mlecchas”
#4. The Sramanas rejected the vedic authority so they don’t go by labels which the brahmins impose on them. Get it?? You may call them brahmins or khattiyas or whatever, but they don’t go by that. It’s like you were born to a christian family but you rejected that, so you are by definition not a christian. Same logic applies here. Going by your logic that few Buddhist followers were brahmins, you’d still be a Christian by your very same logic, because that’s what you were born into. So even a Christian by birth who rejects the bible would still be a Christian by your logic.
#5. You copied those gods from Buddhism. Buddha rejected the vedic religion, and vedic Religion didn’t have any concept of moksha/mokkha anyway. You copied that from Buddhism. The vedic brahmins at the time believed they were created from different parts of the deity Brahma, and after death, they unite with Brahma. There was no rebirth or reincarnation even, what to even speak of escape from reincarnation??
“But here the brahmins proficient in the three Vedas sink down where they have sat, only to be torn apart; all the while imagining that they’re crossing over to drier ground.
That’s why the three Vedas of the brahmins are called a ‘salted land’ and a ‘barren land’ and a ‘disaster’.””
-Gautama Buddha
Tevijja Sutta - Digha Nikaya 13
H -
I notice that you shamelessly generalise billions of Hindus dear MG but you don’t like it when applied to yourself. Should we blame all Buddhists for the atrocities against the Tamils and Rohingyas? According to your reasoning we should.
Buddha is called Śākya Muni because he was from a Brahmanist family.
Maybe you should review your most recent history dear MG. Sri Vikrama Rajasinha (1780 – January 30, 1832, born Kannasamy Nayaka) was the last of four Kings, to rule the last Sinhalese monarchy of the Kingdom of Kandy in Sri Lanka. The Nayak Kings were of Telugu origin who practiced Shaivite Hinduism and were patrons of Theravada Buddhism. Notice PATRONS OF THERAVADA BUDDHISM.
Caste is something YOU brought up - blaming “Brahmins” for the persecution of Buddhists who were themselves of “Brahmin families”. Jesus was a Jew, all his disciples were Jews, Christianity starting as a Jewish sect and then split when taken over by Greco-romans. Its roots are fully Jewish. Likewise Buddhism started as a sect of Brahmanism - its roots are fully Brahmin.
Dear MG your logic is deeply flawed. Buddha was the first Buddhist - the only cosmology and theology was that of the Jains and the Hindus so when Buddha spoke of the 33 gods and all he others - they were already in existence BEFORE his enlightenment and therefore he was talking about those gods which his audience the Brahmins knew. The majority of his followers were Brahmins. Brahmin was a category in those times - like Sinhalese today. If a Sinhalese person converts to Islam or Christianity does he change his ethnicity?
Buddha was completely right about the Vedic Brahmins who relied for their material success on the Vedas. The Vedas have to be transcended - even the Gita says the same thing.
2:45. 45. The Vedas deal with the three Modes of Material Nature (Guṇas), O Arjuna. You must free yourself from these three Guṇas and from the pairs of opposites. Abide in pure Sattva; never care to acquire things and to protect what has been acquired, but be established in the ātman.
46. For a Brahmin who knows the Self, the Vedas are of as much use as a flooded water reservoir for a thirsty person.
Reincarnation is already there in the Upanishads. You don’t believe in ātman so what reincarnates for you?
What is your rank in the BBS? please tell.
B -
But in the Buddhist texts we don’t find any hatred or encouraging killing of other religion followers, unlike in your Kalki Purana, and Ramayana there is immense hatred to those who don’t accept the vedas. That’s the difference. Our religion is pure whereas your texts themselves promote hatred and violence.
Brahmins only labelled Buddha as a Khattiya, no one else did. He did not agree to that label, and he himself said that once they become an upasaka or upasika, they drop their former titles. From Anguttara Nikaya 8.19:
“(4) “Just as, when the great rivers … reach the great ocean, they give up their former names and designations and are simply called the great ocean, so too, when members of the four social classes—khattiyas, brahmins, vessas, and suddas—go forth from the household life into homelessness in the Dhamma and discipline proclaimed by the Tathāgata, they give up their former names and clans and are simply called ascetics following the Sakyan son. This is the fourth astounding and amazing quality that the bhikkhus see in this Dhamma and discipline….” SuttaCentral
Again, would it make sense if we still referred to you as Christian, because you were born to Christian family, even though you follow a different religion now?
“The 33 gods” is the English translation of “Tavatimsa”, it’s one of the heavenly worlds in Buddhism, it has nothing to do with the brahmins gods. I knew you are going to misinterpret this and use it to undermine Nuddhism.
Tavatimsa, Tāvatiṃsa: 3 definitions
Tāvatimsa
And who told you there was no Buddhist cosmology? There are many suttas like Abhibhu Sutta (SuttaCentral), Janavasabha Sutta (DN 18 Janavasabha Sutta: With God Janavasabha), Atanatiya Sutta (DN 32 Āṭānāṭiya Sutta: Discourse on Ātānātiya), Kokalika Sutta (Chapter 6 Brahma-Samyutta (With Brahmas)) and many more where cosmology is mentioned.
And yes the upanishads mention reincarnation but that’s because they came after Buddhism.
The vedas didn’t have any reincarnation or kamma originally.
Don’t even mention Gita because Gita came 400 years after The Buddha at best, and has stolen many things from Buddhism.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095503426
H -
Dear MG you are a well educated and intelligent man even though you are a member of the odious racist BBS.
You are right the Buddhist text do not teach discrimination and persecution - so why do they do it? Let’s just keep the focus on Srilanka and the atrocities and persecution of minorities. Where do you find justification for this in your Tripitaka?
Buddhism teaches loving kindness and compassion so why are you so determined to agitate and stir up division and animosity?
Let me explain again. There were NO BUDDHISTS BEFORE BUDDHA - and therefore there cannot have been a “Buddhist pantheon”.
Buddha’s disciples were mostly BRAHMINS and he came from a BRAHMANIST family - therefore the god he spoke of were Brahmanist Gods. You can argue as long as you like but your argument is totally incoherent and self-contradictory - so please stop.
Reincarnation and Karma is mentioned in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad which predates Buddhism. They are also integral to Jainism which definitely predates Buddhism. So the claim can also be made that Buddhism took Karma and Reincarnation from the Jains.
Buddhists stole temples, chaityas, stupas, idolatry and puja and all their ceremonies from us. Where did Buddha say to construct temples and idols and to worship them? Why do Buddhist worship his relics? Why do the Mahayanists perform Vedic ceremonies including elaborate yajñas? All of Vajrayana Tantra comes directly from Hinduism.
So dear MG - we call this CROSS-POLLINATION and since Buddhism is a Brahmanist reformation movement its all good.
B -
You said:
“Buddha’s disciples were mostly BRAHMINS and he came from a BRAHMANIST family - therefore the god he spoke of were Brahmanist Gods. You can argue as long as you like but your argument is totally incoherent and self-contradictory - so please stop.”
I’ve already answered this in my previous post, please refer to:
“(4) “Just as, when the great rivers … reach the great ocean, they give up their former names and designations and are simply called the great ocean, so too, when members of the four social classes—khattiyas, brahmins, vessas, and suddas—go forth from the household life into homelessness in the Dhamma and discipline proclaimed by the Tathāgata, they give up their former names and clans and are simply called ascetics following the Sakyan son. This is the fourth astounding and amazing quality that the bhikkhus see in this Dhamma and discipline….” SuttaCentral
You can be born to Islam for example, reject it and do something else. Then you’re no longer a muslim.
Brihadaranyaka upanishad doesn’t confirm existence of rebirth, it mentions that rebirth may be a possibility.
The first mention of it is in the Buddhist texts.
Regarding Jainism:
In Majjhima Nikaya 101 (Devadaha Sutta) There is a discussion as such:
"Going to Niganthas who teach in this way, I have asked them, 'Is it true, friend Niganthas, that you teach in this way, that you have this view: "Whatever a person experiences — pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain — all is caused by what was done in the past. Thus, with the destruction of old actions through asceticism, and with the non-doing of new actions, there will be no flow into the future. With no flow into the future, there is the ending of action. With the ending of action, the ending of stress. With the ending of stress, the ending of feeling. With the ending of feeling, all suffering & stress will be exhausted"?'
"Having been asked this by me, the Niganthas admitted it, 'Yes.'
"So I said to them, 'But friends, do you know that you existed in the past, and that you did not not exist?'
"'No, friend.'
"'And do you know that you did evil actions in the past, and that you did not not do them?'
"'No, friend.'
"'And do you know that you did such-and-such evil actions in the past?'
"'No, friend.'
"'And do you know that so-and-so much stress has been exhausted, or that so-and-so much stress remains to be exhausted, or that with the exhaustion of so-and-so much stress all stress will be exhausted?'
"'No, friend.'
"'But do you know what is the abandoning of unskillful mental qualities and the attainment of skillful mental qualities in the here-&-now?'
"'No, friend.'
"'So, friends, it seems that you don't know that you existed in the past, and that you did not not exist... you don't know what is the abandoning of unskillful mental qualities and the attainment of skillful mental qualities in the here-&-now. That being the case, it is not proper for you to assert that, "Whatever a person experiences — pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain — all is caused by what was done in the past. Thus, with the destruction of old actions through asceticism, and with the non-doing of new actions, there will be no flow into the future. With no flow into the future, there is the ending of action. With the ending of action, the ending of stress. With the ending of stress, the ending of feeling. With the ending of feeling, all suffering & stress will be exhausted."
Devadaha Sutta: At Devadaha
The Buddha asks the Niganthas/Jains whether they knew they existed in the past, and they reply no. Meaning they too borrowed kamma and samsara from the Buddha.
H -
Why are you struggling so hard to prove a nonsense? Please try to understand that there was no Buddhist cosmology until AFTER the Buddha, but there were Brahmins and Jains a thousand years BEFORE him.
Common logic would affirm that what comes first must influence what comes after.
I have disposed of the ridiculous claim that Buddhism influenced Hinduism in regards to rebirth and karma here.
Did Hinduism take the doctrines of rebirth and karma from Buddhism since there is no mention of them in the Veda Samhita?
And also clarified you concept of anātta here for you.
Why do Hindus have to respect Buddha when he has introduced the concept of anatta which is in direct conflict with Hinduism?
B -
LOL, What hindu cosmology do you speak of? You mean the Yuga cycle? Thats not even mentioned in the vedas friend. Only Puranas and Vishnu Smriti, both which came much after Buddha mention it.
“It is theorized that the concept of the four yugas originated some time after the compilation of the Vedas, but before the rest of the Hindu texts on the bases that the concept isn't mentioned in the four Vedas. It is believed that the four yugas—Krita (Satya), Treta, Dvapara, and Kali—are named after throws of an Indian game of long dice, marked with 4-3-2-1 respectively.
A dice game is mentioned in the Rigveda, Atharvaveda, Upanishads, Puranas, Ramayana, and Mahabharata, while the four yugas are mentioned after the Vedas, but with no mention of being related to a dice game.
[9]
A complete description of the four yugas and their characteristics are found in the Vishnu Smriti, Mahabharata (e.g. Vanaparva 149, 183), Manusmriti (I.81-86), and Puranas (e.g. Brahma ch. 122-123; Matsya ch. 142-143; Naradiya, Purvardha, ch. 41).
[14]
Also found in Bhagavata Purana (3.11.18-20).”
Yuga Cycle - Wikipedia
It is copied from our Cakkavatti Sihanada Sutta basically.
Manu-smriti | Hindu law
H -
O dear MG you have really drunk the cool-aid of the Boda Bala Sen propaganda machine.
Your Buddha certainly mentioned many things that he learned from the BRAHMINS who were his disciples. Buddha himself was a Brahmanist. So what if the Puranas were written later - the subject matter was already current but unwritten.
Writing was started in India and Srilanka around 250–232 BCE with Brahmi script so of course neither the Puranas nor Vedas no anything else was written down.
Chakkavatti Sihanada Sutta- was spoken by Buddha when he was lecturing to Brahmins who knew this stuff already.
It seems you still cannot grasp the fact that before Buddha there was no Buddhism or Buddhists ideas - Brahmins were already existing for thousands of years BEFORE Buddha.
Seriously - if you cannot use simple logic in your arguments there is no point in going around in circles. Please rejoin the BBS groups workshops on how to stir up hatred and animosity and continue to generate bad Karma. I’m done with these childish arguments.