Hinduism: Ask your Questions

[Surya Deva]

Some responses to individual points more relevant to this thread:

Therefore completely negating your previous claim that the Abrahamic faiths are more different between them than the Dharmic faiths. Make up your mind.

Sorry, you betray a very immature mind. There is a difference between taking a perspective on something and creating new things. As explained earlier Abrahmic faiths are based on personality worship and their doctrine is based on the founder of that religion as its arbiter. The example I gave seeked to demonstrate this: Einstein did not create physics, but merely offered a new interpretation of the physical world by interpreting previous models. For example, he did not reject gravity as proposed by Newton, but rejected Newton's theory of it as a force it as being a resultant of space and time.

Likewise, the Buddhists have not rejected any of the Hindu ideas, but offered new theories on it. Reincarnation has become rebirth, they have not rejected that there is such thing as karma and the transmigration of something, but instead offered alternative theories that what is being transmitted is merely an aggregate of skandas, which is governed by cause and effect processes. This does not stop a lot of Buddhists from believing in reincarnation and some certainly believe it in the sense of Hindus do, of the transmigration of soul.

Likewise, the idea that devas, asuras and pretas are mental entities is again not universally embraced by Buddhists, many believe in their real existence.

It is similar in Hinduism. Not all Hindus subscribe to the real-existence of the individual soul and of spiritual beings.

I think if you approach this debate with me more rationally you will find I have reasonable amount of knowledge in both religions to appreciate the similarities and differences in them. I am finding, however, you seem to be coming from a very exclusivist and secetarian view.

 

[GURSIKH]

Suraj ji ,we want you happy , so be happy


buddhist , sikhs , jain , muslim , christian , ..................


All are hindus :d


fateh

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Suraj ji ,we want you happy , so be happy


buddhist , sikhs , jain , muslim , christian , ..................


All are hindus :d


fateh

Suraj is not saying they are Hindu's themselves, i think he meant more like things that can come under the Hinduism tag.

 

[Sui]

Something that came to mind while reading the exchanges here: in what ways does Hinduism promote and/or strive toward unity among mankind as a whole?

 

[LuisDantas]

Sorry, you betray a very immature mind.

For the record, I explicitly deny you the authority to judge my maturity. You did little to earn that right and much to give up on it, so I am acting accordingly. So please don't waste our time on such a pointless act.

 

[LuisDantas]

Likewise, the Buddhists have not rejected any of the Hindu ideas, but offered new theories on it. Reincarnation has become rebirth, they have not rejected that there is such thing as karma and the transmigration of something, but instead offered alternative theories that what is being transmitted is merely an aggregate of skandas, which is governed by cause and effect processes. This does not stop a lot of Buddhists from believing in reincarnation and some certainly believe it in the sense of Hindus do, of the transmigration of soul.

That, however, may only happen by challenging the very fundamentals of Buddhist Dharma. It is, quite simply, a result of failing to understand basic Buddhist doctrine.

Likewise, the idea that devas, asuras and pretas are mental entities is again not universally embraced by Buddhists, many believe in their real existence.

I never met a single one, personally. All the teachings I came across make it very clear that they are not to be taken as literal entities.

It is similar in Hinduism. Not all Hindus subscribe to the real-existence of the individual soul and of spiritual beings.

I think if you approach this debate with me more rationally you will find I have reasonable amount of knowledge in both religions to appreciate the similarities and differences in them. I am finding, however, you seem to be coming from a very exclusivist and secetarian view.

Of course you do find that. Because in your mind anything that disagrees with your preconceptions is sectarian. I am so sorry for you, Suraj, but I will not refrain from calling you on such serious mistakes.

 

[LuisDantas]

Luis,

I will gladly debate the similarities of Hinduism and Buddhism with you, but lets do so in another thread and you may create it. I will say this much, however, you are not exactly representative of Buddhism, perhaps you first need to decide whether you are a Buddhist, Atheist or Agnostic, before we can debate.

That is no more necessary than deciding whether I am Buddhist, Brazilian or Human, really.

If you don't understand that, then you have no business judging my knowledge of Buddhism. None at all.

You deny many beliefs and practices of Buddhism which hard buddhists accept.

Maybe so. But you'll have to present quality evidence for me to even begin to consider your claims. So far you had only arrogance and jaundiced views to show, therefore your credibility suffered accordingly.

I think as I said earlier, and some others, you are holding onto a rather distorted and romanticised version of Buddhism which is at conflict with traditional Buddhism itself. I think you would benefit from the anekantavada philosophy of Jainism

Perhaps. If someone who knows what he is talking about suggests that to me I may well consider the idea.

 

[Surya Deva]

I never met a single one, personally. All the teachings I came across make it very clear that they are not to be taken as literal entities.

Luis, I am not sure about your background, but in civil and sensible cultures, one does not completely reject anothers point or knowledge. It a sign of maturity to acknowledge somebody and I am really sorry you struggle with this. You are being really rude and arrogant towards me, and your belittling any knowledge I have on Buddhism. The irony is what I said was true, and I will now demonstrate it:

From religion facts.com on Buddhism:


The Buddha's teachings and Theravada Buddhism are essentially atheistic, although neither deny the existence of beings that might be called "gods." (See Is Buddhism Atheistic? for more information.)
In Mahayana Buddhism, however, the universe is populated with celestial buddhas and bodhisattvas who are worshipped as gods and goddesses.

Again, I really think you need to explore Buddhism further. It is common knowledge within Buddhism of the existence of devas, pretas, and buddha beings residing in 7 levels of the universe.

Whether you accept Buddhism as being a part of Hinduism or not is irrelevant in this thread. What is relevant is what do Hindus believe and Hindus generally accept Buddhism as being a part of it or a close sister religion. Please treat this thread only to ask questions about Hinduism and to learn about what we believe. If you want to debate our beliefs, please open up a thread in the debate forum.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Something that came to mind while reading the exchanges here: in what ways does Hinduism promote and/or strive toward unity among mankind as a whole?

Aum Dyauh Shantir Antarikshagum Shanti
Prithivi Shanti -raapah Saantihr-oshadhaya Shaantir
Vanaspatayah Shantir Vishwe - devah Shantih Brahma
Shantih Sarvagum Shantih Shantih - Reva
Shantihi Sama Shanti-Redhi, Om Shantih Shantih Shantih
May there be peace in Heaven
Peace in the Atmosphere or Universe
May there be peace on Earth
Peace across the waters
May peace flow from herbs, plants and trees
May all the celestial beings pervade peace
May peace pervade all quarters
May that peace come to me too
O Lord! (Bhagwan) MAY THERE BE PEACE PEACE PEACE


A famous prayer in Hinduism. The Shaanti Paath.

 

[LuisDantas]

Luis, I am not sure about your background, but in civil and sensible cultures, one does not completely reject anothers point or knowledge.

My point exactly, thank you very much. I hope you learn that what you say.

 

[Surya Deva]

Luis, perhaps it is too much to expect an apology from you. Realise when your ego is in control and when your self is in control

There is another really good one Don, a personal favourite and famous one:

Sangacchadhvam samvadadhvam
Samvo manamsi janatam
Devabhagam yatha purve
Sanjanana upasate

Samano mantrahsamitissamani
Samanam manahsahacittamesak
Samanam mantramabhimantrayevah
Samanena vo havisa johomi

Samani va akutih
Samana hrdayani vah
Samanamastu vomano
Yathavahsusahasati

Let us move together, let us radiate the same thought-wave, let us come to know our minds together. Let us share our wealth without differentiation, like sages of the past, so that all may enjoy the universe. Let our aspirations be united, let our hearts be inseparable. Let our minds be as one mind, so that we live in harmony and become one with the Supreme.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Luis, perhaps it is too much to expect an apology from you. Realise when your ego is in control and when your self is in control

There is another really good one Don, a personal favourite and famous one:

Sangacchadhvam samvadadhvam
Samvo manamsi janatam
Devabhagam yatha purve
Sanjanana upasate

Samano mantrahsamitissamani
Samanam manahsahacittamesak
Samanam mantramabhimantrayevah
Samanena vo havisa johomi

Samani va akutih
Samana hrdayani vah
Samanamastu vomano
Yathavahsusahasati

Let us move together, let us radiate the same thought-wave, let us come to know our minds together. Let us share our wealth without differentiation, like sages of the past, so that all may enjoy the universe. Let our aspirations be united, let our hearts be inseparable. Let our minds be as one mind, so that we live in harmony and become one with the Supreme.

That is very nice, Suraj! I would frubal you, but i need to spread some more love first

 

[Breathe]

I never met a single one, personally.

My friend Mei does, from Japan. (Pure Land Buddhism), even some of my friends from Thailand (Theravada) believe in literal entities. So, there are some out there. Even though Theravada Buddhists are generally seen as atheistic, I managed to meet a fair few who believed in the Hindu gods.

All the teachings I came across make it very clear that they are not to be taken as literal entities.

Honestly, it depends how one reads it. The same could be said if one reads Genesis and looks at the names of the people and their meanings. Adam = person, Eve = living one, Cain = metalworker*, Abel = farmer*. (* = I'm not sure if this is 100% correct, but it's something like this), but many people still believe that they were real people. I suppose it's a tough call how much you take as metaphor, and how much you take literally. To take too much literally, or too much as metaphor, I guess it can ruin a religion's richness.

In my Buddhist days, I was in a similar boat to you. I took them as metaphors, I didn't even bother about the existence of God, angels, demigods, etc, so I can understand your point of view.

I don't know whether or not the Buddha meant for the beings to exist, or be purely metaphorical, but I lean towards the belief that he meant the former.

Just my two cents Hope I wasn't intruding or anything!

 

[want to be hindu]

Something that came to mind while reading the exchanges here: in what ways does Hinduism promote and/or strive toward unity among mankind as a whole?

We see that the nature of the cosmos is Unity. By striving for unity this makes our egotism less, we become less selfish and we come closer to realizing our true nature.

When Jesus said " Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." We who follow the Ideas of Advaita Vedanta believe that all forms of life are a part of the One, we call God. By doing good to others we are really doing good to ourselves.

 

[want to be hindu]

My friend Mei does, from Japan. (Pure Land Buddhism), even some of my friends from Thailand (Theravada) believe in literal entities. So, there are some out there. Even though Theravada Buddhists are generally seen as atheistic, I managed to meet a fair few who believed in the Hindu gods.

I went to a Kali Temple out side of Darjeeling. Buddhists went to one side of the Temple to have the Buddhist Monks do puja to ma Kali. Hindus priests did the prayers standing right next to them. Hindu and Buddhist together praying to Kali. When some Buddhist monks heard me chanting the Adya Stotram ( the Adya Stotam is a Hindu Tantric Text that teaches all the Goddess's are the same as Ma Kali )they wanted me to go with them to Bhutan to a Kali festival they said they would sneak me in I would not need a visa. One of the Buddhist Monks said he loves the Adya Strotram. My wife got upset and was afraid we would end up in an Indian Jail. We did not go with them. I think in India and Nepal there is a feeling that Hinduism and Buddhism is a lot alike. Later my wife said she was sorry for pushing the panic button. I think it would have been great.

 

[LuisDantas]

My friend Mei does, from Japan. (Pure Land Buddhism), even some of my friends from Thailand (Theravada) believe in literal entities. So, there are some out there. Even though Theravada Buddhists are generally seen as atheistic, I managed to meet a fair few who believed in the Hindu gods.

Buddhism is agnostic, not atheistic. In all schools, in fact, although it is indeed easy to mistake many of them for theistic.

Honestly, it depends how one reads it. The same could be said if one reads Genesis and looks at the names of the people and their meanings. Adam = person, Eve = living one, Cain = metalworker*, Abel = farmer*. (* = I'm not sure if this is 100% correct, but it's something like this), but many people still believe that they were real people. I suppose it's a tough call how much you take as metaphor, and how much you take literally. To take too much literally, or too much as metaphor, I guess it can ruin a religion's richness.

In my Buddhist days, I was in a similar boat to you. I took them as metaphors, I didn't even bother about the existence of God, angels, demigods, etc, so I can understand your point of view.

I don't know whether or not the Buddha meant for the beings to exist, or be purely metaphorical, but I lean towards the belief that he meant the former.

Just my two cents Hope I wasn't intruding or anything!

No, you aren't. You are respectful, and that's all I ask.

As for the matter of literal existence, well, it is very much a phylosofical dead end. From the very beggining the Brahma of the Buddhist Suttas is, shall we say, less than perfectly equal to the exhalted personage that we would expect.

Besides, it seems to me that if the Buddha believed in the literal existence of Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva and their avatars he would probably teach some sort of Bhakti Yoga, which he apparently didn't. In fact, what Bhakti we have in Buddhism was basically reintroduced by Mahayana sects centuries after the death of the Buddha.

I don't particularly value the matter of existence of deities; when all is said and done, it is a very personal matter despite superficial appearances. But Suraj is being dishonest on many of his claims on the matter, be it due to true ignorance or of sheer arrogance, and I shall have none of it. He must learn his place already, quite frankly. If he doesn't, I will call him on it again if need be. I have no respect to waste with those who show no desire to earn it.

It is however certainly possible to believe in the literal existence of deities in Buddhism. But very soon it turns out to be self-limiting; the instructors teach not to rely on their favor in any literal way (and praise upon them for it! ) and even the teachings themselves are, well, quite clearly alegorical.

It is legitimate to disagree with me on this matter. But it should be made respectfully. In other words, Suraj, spare me.

 

[LuisDantas]

Luis, perhaps it is too much to expect an apology from you.

It is indeed. Earn my respect back first.

And, I suppose, hope (if that is the word) for a situation that gives me a reason to apologise to you.

Because such a situation certainly did not happen. I have been very direct and rude to you, that's all. I hope and pray you don't give me the need to do so again.

 

[Breathe]

hindu, that sounds awesome! I would've loved to go, even just to watch. If you ever get the chance to go again, I hope you can watch it. Kali Ma, wow. I like Kali a lot. My favourite Hindu deities are: Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna, Kali, and I also like Ganesha, Brahma and Hanuman. I'm interested in Shakti, but I don't know enough about her.

A question I'd like to know: how does one find out that a god[dess] exists? What they look like, what they are god of, etc?

 

[Breathe]

Buddhism is agnostic, not atheistic. In all schools, in fact, although it is indeed easy to mistake many of them for theistic.

Yeah, you're right. Sometimes, I think humans need to worship some God or gods, of some kind. "The God Gene", if you will! To me, I think it's nice to keep Buddhism as agnostic, but because I believe in God, I suppose leaving Buddhism was a natural thing for me.

No, you aren't. You are respectful, and that's all I ask.

Thank you.

As for the matter of literal existence, well, it is very much a phylosofical dead end. From the very beggining the Brahma of the Buddhist Suttas is, shall we say, less than perfectly equal to the exhalted personage that we would expect.

I agree with you on this. However, I'm not sure how much of what Buddha taught are in the Holy Book of Buddhism any more, but that's for another thread. If you feel like discussing that, just PM me with the thread.

Besides, it seems to me that if the Buddha believed in the literal existence of Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva and their avatars he would probably teach some sort of Bhakti Yoga, which he apparently didn't.

True, unless Buddha was some kind of Deist. *grins*
I think the fact there are many gods within Hinduism could have made it more difficult for the Buddha to believe in them. Some people are that way: some want one God, others want several. I don't know if this is the case though, it could be speculation, but I don't know if the concept of Brahman was solidified in Buddha's time.

In fact, what Bhakti we have in Buddhism was basically reintroduced by Mahayana sects centuries after the death of the Buddha.

As an ex-practitioner of Theravada, I always found Mahayana to be a bit, well.. strange! I'm fascinated with the different denominations of Buddhism, though.

I don't particularly value the matter of existence of deities; when all is said and done, it is a very personal matter despite superficial appearances.

You're right. I found it rather uncomfortable being in the sangha after I started believing in a Supreme Creator God, thoguh others have no problem with it. Beforehand, I was an apathetic agnostic, I think that's the term. I didn't know if God was real or not, I wasn't sure if I believed in one, but I didn't care and it didn't matter.

It is however certainly possible to believe in the literal existence of deities in Buddhism. But very soon it turns out to be self-limiting; the instructors teach not to rely on their favor in any literal way (and praise upon them for it! ) and even the teachings themselves are, well, quite clearly alegorical.

Can you please elaborate on why you believe that believing in the existence of deities in Buddhism could be self-limiting (probably best in PM's or another thread)? I've never heard this as a reason before, but I believe it could depend on how one views the deities (or the deity).

 

[Surya Deva]

Luis, a buddhist is suppose to keep their ego in check. You have clearly been proven wrong by several here, some of which are Buddhists themselves, now have the humility to accept you were wrong and move on. Personallly, if I were in your position I would feel very embarrased right now, but I have something called humility

I have been very direct and rude to you, that's all

Yep, and that is your problem. A buddhist is never rude to anybody, they are accepting, open minded and content. You clearly are not a proper Buddhist.

I suggest you stop trying to impose your Buddhism on us, because it clear to many here that it is not proper buddhism, nor are you educated in it sufficiently. Next time, keep this in consideration, before you condem others on what they know about Buddhism.