Buddhists don't believe in G-d: why should they have a scripture then?

[tiki]

It is literally impossible for you to know that. Belief, yes; know, no. Because of this, I would suggest that the Buddhist approach makes vastly more sense because it doesn't allow for blind faith based on nothing more than hearsay.

What Buddhist approach? I think you speak for all Buddhists but possibly you can not understand how different is one side to the other. Also it is so with Hindus.

 

[LuisDantas]

What Buddhist approach? I think you speak for all Buddhists but possibly you can not understand how different is one side to the other. Also it is so with Hindus.

For the purposes of this thread, the Buddhist approach is one of valuing Dharma over deities. And except for a few largely misguided sects, Buddhism also values living dharma over written scripture.

 

[metis]

You say there is much difference but you put all Hindus in a pail and all Buddhists in a pail. It is not so.

Well, I certainly cannot understand how you drew that conclusion as I just talked about the significant variations and diversity found within both.

 

[metis]

What Buddhist approach? I think you speak for all Buddhists but possibly you can not understand how different is one side to the other. Also it is so with Hindus.

Again, you are either not reading and/or comprehending what I wrote, so please be more careful.

 

[tiki]

Again, you are either not reading and/or comprehending what I wrote, so please be more careful.

Or else you can not understand my words.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is just about impossible to find Buddhists who think of themselves as "also Hindus", except perhaps in communities where both are numerically common faiths.

You might actually have an easier time with Christian-Hindu syncretisms.

 

[metis]

Or else you can not understand my words.

It seems that you believe in whatever you want to believe someone is supposedly saying, regardless as to what they are actually saying. I have used the words "variation" and diversity" several times when referring to both Hindus and Buddhists, and yet you come back with the idea that I put each of them in a "pail"?

 

[tiki]

For the purposes of this thread, the Buddhist approach is one of valuing Dharma over deities. And except for a few largely misguided sects, Buddhism also values living dharma over written scripture.

Ya I don't say it is same way only it is not a big difference. There is more difference from Saivist Hindu to Vaishnava Hindu then from Saivist to Buddhist.

 

[tiki]

It seems that you believe in whatever you want to believe someone is supposedly saying, regardless as to what they are actually saying. I have used the words "variation" and diversity" several times when referring to both Hindus and Buddhists, and yet you come back with the idea that I put each of them in a "pail"?

OK it is true probably you read a lot on wikipedia so your big time expert.

 

[tiki]

It is just about impossible to find Buddhists who think of themselves as "also Hindus", except perhaps in communities where both are numerically common faiths.

You might actually have an easier time with Christian-Hindu syncretisms.

Ya probably they do not say there Hindu because maybe also they don't have big interest in labels.

 

[metis]

OK it is true probably you read a lot on wikipedia so your big time expert.

I think we've come to an end of this "conversation" since you have no clue about what my background is, so you make absurd and blatantly dishonest charges. Does your faith teach you that fabricating lies is acceptable?

Time for me to use the ignore option, so...

Goodbye.

 

[LuisDantas]

Ya probably they do not say there Hindu because maybe also they don't have big interest in labels.

Sorry to be blunt, but not too many Buddhists are interested in being appropriated by Hinduism.

 

[metis]

Sorry to be blunt, but not too many Buddhists are interested in being appropriated by Hinduism.

Yes, although over in eastern Asia it is not at all uncommon for many to mix and match from different sources, as undoubtedly you're aware of. It's funny that here in the west you don't run across mixing and matching that much, but surveys say it is on the increase here. I know quite a few "JuBu's", for example.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, although over in eastern Asia it is not at all uncommon for many to mix and match from different sources, as undoubtedly you're aware of. It's funny that here in the west you don't run across mixing and matching that much, but surveys say it is on the increase here. I know quite a few "JuBu's", for example.

You're right, of course, but those are not directly comparable situations.

For one, there is significant difference between adopting a new or second religion syncretism and being branded by others into a "honorary" or "cadet" member of it.

I hear it is quite common for Judaism to be presented as "incomplete" or "primitive" Christianity or Islam, for instance. I don't think it is a very respectful thing to think, personally. People should not feel entitled to tell others what they "really" believe in.

Of course, there are people who genuinely feel at home with either a mix or a boundary between two different religions, and that is entirely their business. But I figure that for the most part "Hindu Buddhists" or whatever are mainly a cultural as opposed to strictly religious thing. I have certainly had trouble finding people who strike me as having any great degree of knowledge of both religions that even want to mix those or equate them, let alone any who succeed at such a task.

 

[tiki]

Sorry to be blunt, but not too many Buddhists are interested in being appropriated by Hinduism.

Ya I don't say it is same way only it is not a big difference. There is more difference from Saivist Hindu to Vaishnava Hindu then from Saivist to Buddhist.

I don't say it is Hindu or not Hindu

 

[tiki]

You're right, of course, but those are not directly comparable situations.

For one, there is significant difference between adopting a new or second religion syncretism and being branded by others into a "honorary" or "cadet" member of it.

I hear it is quite common for Judaism to be presented as "incomplete" or "primitive" Christianity or Islam, for instance. I don't think it is a very respectful thing to think, personally. People should not feel entitled to tell others what they "really" believe in.

Of course, there are people who genuinely feel at home with either a mix or a boundary between two different religions, and that is entirely their business. But I figure that for the most part "Hindu Buddhists" or whatever are mainly a cultural as opposed to strictly religious thing. I have certainly had trouble finding people who strike me as having any great degree of knowledge of both religions that even want to mix those or equate them, let alone any who succeed at such a task.

Probably mostly people that grew up in it and didn't read wikipedia - and I DON'T mean you - no there is not a clean pretty line for were does one thing stop and the other start. No body in the thread told whats a Hindu because there is not a line around it.

What I tried to say and couple people liked to ignore is SOME people consider Buddhism to be Hindu sect. Probably they do it because there is so much that is the SAME. Ya there is very much that is different same as there is very much that is different. Shakti person is NOT same as Tantra person but both they are called Hindu. There is more difference between some Hindu sects than difference between Buddhism and other Hindu sects. I no I said it before but some people can't get it.

Also I'm gonna say it again because couple people can not read it. I do not say Buddhism is sect of Hinduism. Only I say they are similar. Also I don't CARE if its sect or is not a sect because all it is only labels and not important to me.

 

[LuisDantas]

Probably mostly people that grew up in it and didn't read wikipedia - and I DON'T mean you - no there is not a clean pretty line for were does one thing stop and the other start. No body in the thread told whats a Hindu because there is not a line around it.

What I tried to say and couple people liked to ignore is SOME people consider Buddhism to be Hindu sect. Probably they do it because there is so much that is the SAME. Ya there is very much that is different same as there is very much that is different. Shakti person is NOT same as Tantra person but both they are called Hindu. There is more difference between some Hindu sects than difference between Buddhism and other Hindu sects.

Aye, that is true. But that does not suggest or imply that Buddhism may reasonably be taken as quasi-Hinduism. Hinduism is a powerfully Dharmic religion, and its variety of doctrines is indeed impressive, dazzling even, to the point that I am not even sure it is best described as a religion as opposed to a family of religions that share (and sometimes reject) some elements, mainly language, concepts and scripture.

It is a testament for how awesomely useful Hinduism's framework is, and how valid as a religious language it is. It even has room for doctrines that just can't really be reconciled with each other in any meaningful sense. Which is fine.

I no I said it before but some people can't get it.

For what it is worth, I am one of those people who do not get it.

Jain Dharma is not Hinduism. Sikh Dharma is not Hinduism. And Buddha Dharma is not Hinduism. It has arisen in a historical environment that happened to be Hindu, and it does share a few concepts. But it is (IMO rather definitely and clearly) a different religion, and it does not serve either of them to minimize the distinctions.

Also I'm gonna say it again because couple people can not read it. I do not say Buddhism is sect of Hinduism. Only I say they are similar. Also I don't CARE if its sect or is not a sect because all it is only labels and not important to me.

Fair enough. Maybe I misunderstood you.

 

[psychoslice]

A statue is a statue, not an idol in Buddhism. Nor is the Buddha viewed as a deity. However, many Buddhists will pray to various deities for help, but the general view is that these are minor characters on the world stage as they, also like humans, come and go.

You may think that, but I believe many do use rituals and statues for something to cling to, all these must be dropped if one wants realization of their true inner Buddha. .

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm fairly new to Buddhism but the scriptures often relate to the Buddhist practice and not to God. That said Buddhism can't escape the native theistic beliefs of the lands it have evolved in.

That's usually the case as indigenous religions oftentimes tend to get intertwined in the mix.

 

[metis]

You're right, of course, but those are not directly comparable situations.

For one, there is significant difference between adopting a new or second religion syncretism and being branded by others into a "honorary" or "cadet" member of it.

I hear it is quite common for Judaism to be presented as "incomplete" or "primitive" Christianity or Islam, for instance. I don't think it is a very respectful thing to think, personally. People should not feel entitled to tell others what they "really" believe in.

Of course, there are people who genuinely feel at home with either a mix or a boundary between two different religions, and that is entirely their business. But I figure that for the most part "Hindu Buddhists" or whatever are mainly a cultural as opposed to strictly religious thing. I have certainly had trouble finding people who strike me as having any great degree of knowledge of both religions that even want to mix those or equate them, let alone any who succeed at such a task.

As pretty much what you're saying, a lot depends on what level we're talking about, and my mixing-and-matching statement mostly deals with those mostly in eastern Asia who often follow how they were brought up and in which community. A friend of mine who studied Hinduism in India found that, at the traditional village level, all sorts of variations were to be found, including some that would raise the eyebrows of some Hindu scholars, no doubt, and often these variations were in existence from one family to another even within a small village.

Here in the west, we become infatuated with belief, but in eastern Asia there's a greater emphasis on practice (observance), and that typically varies from community to community, often widely so. This is one reason why Buddhism in Asia versus the west often looks quite different. Even in Judaism we have run across a similar difference whereas in the east the Law was important but the morality and well-being of the community was even more so. Therefore, different practices emerged to the point whereas a Jew from Poland may feel at least somewhat out of place in a very traditional Ethiopian or Indian Jewish setting.