Is Buddhism a branch of Hinduism

[crossfire]

I have read quote by another Hindu member from a Buddhist monk of old saying that 'Buddhism is not nastika'. He counted it along with the other orthodox Hindu philosophies. I do not exactly remember which member posted that - Sayak/SomeRandom/Satyamevajayanti or some one else. Sunyata does not mean nihilism, as you may well be aware of it. The difference is that Buddha did not dwell upon it. There is Buddhadhatu, Dhammakaya and Tathagatagarbha. All that is not any different from undefined Hindu (Nirguna) Brahman. For Dhamma, there is no difference. The Noble Eight-Fold path is as valid for a Hindu as it is for a Buddhist. Regarding 'anatta' and 'anicca', it is no different from the the illusion in Mayavada/Advaita. 'Jnana' in Hinduism is no different from 'Bodhi/knowing/understanding/enlightenment' in Buddhism. That is why the theists/orthodox called Sankaracharya as a Buddhist. I consider both, Buddha and Sankara as my 'gurus'. And that is why B.R. Ambedkar asked his followers to embrace Buddhism in preference to Christianity or Islam. He knew that it would not be a break from Hinduism.

Buddha was careful to make sure his followers would not be mistaken for brahmins, even to the point of limiting their bathing in the Ganges. Buddha refuted the caste system, the need for mantras, and the need for worship, to begin with. Please show me where Buddha taught Hinduism.

So, tell me where is the difference between Buddhism and Advaita Hinduism?

To begin, Advaita is substance based (brahman,) whereas Buddhism is process based (dependent co-arising.) In Advaita, (correct me if I'm wrong,) my understanding of their definition of nondual is that atman is the same as brahman. In Buddhism, nondual awareness is awareness free from the like-dislike bias duality. This like-dislike bias results in a distortion of perception. These are just some of the more obvious points to begin with.

 

[Shantanu]

Buddha was careful to make sure his followers would not be mistaken for brahmins, even to the point of limiting their bathing in the Ganges. Buddha refuted the caste system, the need for mantras, and the need for worship, to begin with. Please show me where Buddha taught Hinduism.

To begin, Advaita is substance based (brahman,) whereas Buddhism is process based (dependent co-arising.) In Advaita, (correct me if I'm wrong,) my understanding of their definition of nondual is that atman is the same as brahman. In Buddhism, nondual awareness is awareness free from the like-dislike bias duality. This like-dislike bias results in a distortion of perception. These are just some of the more obvious points to begin with.

Aupmanyav's clarification is not sufficient for me to re-label myself as an Existential Hindu. I have to be more specific on my religious practice. I go by the emphasis of Buddhism on the cessation of suffering as the primary objective of the faith of Buddhism. I therefore remain an Existential Buddhist and not an Existential Hindu. My principles are always to adhere to the truth that can be scientifically proven. In this regard annata is to be refuted in my version of Buddhism whether you or @Amanaki like it or not.

 

[crossfire]

Aupmanyav's clarification is not sufficient for me to re-label myself as an Existential Hindu. I have to be more specific on my religious practice. I go by the emphasis of Buddhism on the cessation of suffering as the primary objective of the faith of Buddhism. I therefore remain an Existential Buddhist and not an Existential Hindu. My principles are always to adhere to the truth that can be scientifically proven. In this regard annata is to be refuted in my version of Buddhism whether you or @Amanaki like it or not.

If your doctrine does not include the Four Dharma Seals, Buddhists will not recognize your teachings as Buddhist, whether you like it or not.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Aupmanyav's clarification is not sufficient for me to re-label myself as an Existential Hindu. I have to be more specific on my religious practice. I go by the emphasis of Buddhism on the cessation of suffering as the primary objective of the faith of Buddhism. I therefore remain an Existential Buddhist and not an Existential Hindu. My principles are always to adhere to the truth that can be scientifically proven. In this regard annata is to be refuted in my version of Buddhism whether you or @Amanaki like it or not.

Why do you want to damage buddhism with falsehood? atleast the best you could do is study the buddhist texts and get a grip of what buddhism actually is

 

[Shantanu]

If your doctrine does not include the Four Dharma Seals, Buddhists will not recognize your teachings as Buddhist, whether you like it or not.

I am not concerned about that: false information has to be countered immediately on discovery.

 

[crossfire]

I am not concerned about that: false information has to be countered immediately on discovery.

You've already admitted that you reject the Four Dharma Seals. Your claim of Buddhism is therefore false.

 

[Shantanu]

Why do you want to damage buddhism with falsehood? atleast the best you could do is study the buddhist texts and get a grip of what buddhism actually is

I do not wish to waste my time in studying the Buddhist texts as I understand the gist of what is proclaimed.

 

[Shantanu]

You've already admitted that you reject the Four Dharma Seals. Your claim of Buddhism is therefore false.

The Four Seals are not of interest to me. Of substantial interest to me is how to alleviate the suffering of people, like Buddha wanted to find a cure for.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I do not wish to waste my time in studying the Buddhist texts as I understand the gist of what is proclaimed.

I do not mean to sound rude or bad, but do you thin you can understand buddhism in one day or one week when people like my self use a lifetime of study daily to reach enlightenment?

 

[crossfire]

The Four Seals are not of interest to me. Of substantial interest to me is how to alleviate the suffering of people, like Buddha wanted to find a cure for.

If you want to alleviate suffering, go for it. Buddha does not have a corner on that market. There are many non-Buddhists who also wish to alleviate suffering.

 

[Spirit of Light]

The Four Seals are not of interest to me. Of substantial interest to me is how to alleviate the suffering of people, like Buddha wanted to find a cure for.

Buddha already found it and the answer is in the 4 noble truths and how to get out of suffering is in 8 folded path, you do not re discover buddhism with making your version and not being even known with the teaching

 

[Shantanu]

I do not mean to sound rude or bad, but do you thin you can understand buddhism in one day or one week when people like my self use a lifetime of study daily to reach enlightenment?

I do not wish to reach enlightenment: only find a cure for why human beings suffer like Buddha wanted to find, but his true teachings were hijacked by later monks who wrote out the scriptures as far as I can judge.

 

[Shantanu]

If you want to alleviate suffering, go for it. Buddha does not have a corner on that market. There are many non-Buddhists who also wish to alleviate suffering.

I call myself a Buddhist because I understand what Buddha wanted to do, not what Buddhists have been practicing since his death based on apparent falsehoods that are written into scripture.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I do not wish to reach enlightenment: only find a cure for why human beings suffer like Buddha wanted to find, but his true teachings were hijacked by later monks who wrote out the scriptures as far as I can judge.

They wrote it down to make it more accessible to all people not only a few in Nepal and India

 

[crossfire]

I call myself a Buddhist because I understand what Buddha wanted to do, not what Buddhists have been practicing since his death based on apparent falsehoods that are written into scripture.

lol! You've admitted that you haven't even examinined the suttas!

 

[Shantanu]

They wrote it down to mae it more accessible to all people not only a few in Nepal and India

They wrote it down to create a monster of a religion for spreading the teaching worldwide. That is not my goal. My goal is to create the ideal religion based on my own personally derived knowledge.

 

[Shantanu]

lol! You've admitted that you haven't even examinined the suttas!

I do not wish to waste my precious time examining the Buddhist Suttas: I have written out my own Suttas as an Existential Buddhist.

 

[Shantanu]

I think such things as what is a religion and what is a branch are based on human word definitions and nothing to get hung up about.

Use the incorrect label to describe yourself and it will restrict you. This will take away your liberty to even interact with people. This is part of my Existential Buddhism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Please show me where Buddha taught Hinduism. Buddha refuted the caste system ..

To begin, Advaita is substance based (brahman,) whereas Buddhism is process based (dependent co-arising.) In Advaita, (correct me if I'm wrong,) my understanding of their definition of nondual is that atman is the same as brahman. In Buddhism, nondual awareness is awareness free from the like-dislike bias duality. This like-dislike bias results in a distortion of perception. These are just some of the more obvious points to begin with.

Crossfire, kindly note (and if you have any doubts, kindly go through my posts), I never said that Buddha taught Hinduism. Buddha taught 'dhamma' which is not different from Hindu 'dharma'.

And who said Brahman is substance? Brahman is not definable. It is not this as well as not that ('Neti-neti'). Substance also is Brahman and non-substance also is Brahman. A RigVeda line which I quote frequently is 'Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.' (Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.). The hymn categorically says that 'The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?' Brahman is like physical energy (the closest I can describe it), substance as well as non-substance. Atman means 'This Self' as well as 'That Self'. They are not two selves but only one, 'Eko sad, Dwiteeyo nasti' (What exists is one, there is no second). It does not mean 'This Soul' and 'God'. The non-dual awareness in Hinduism also is just that. A few examples from BhagawadGita:

"The humble sages, by virtue of true knowledge, see with equal vision a learned and gentle brāhmaṇa, a cow, an elephant, a dog and an outcaste." Gita 5.18
"Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent [the material body] there is no endurance and of the eternal [Brahman] there is no change. This they have concluded by studying the nature of both." Gita 2.16
"One who neither hates nor desires the fruits of his activities is known to be always renounced. Such a person, free from all dualities, easily overcomes material bondage and is completely liberated, O mighty-armed Arjuna." Gita 5.3
"A person who neither rejoices upon achieving something pleasant nor laments upon obtaining something unpleasant, who is self-intelligent, who is unbewildered, and who knows Brahman is already situated in transcendence." Gita 5.20

 

[George-ananda]

Use the incorrect label to describe yourself and it will restrict you. This will take away your liberty to even interact with people. This is part of my Existential Buddhism.

I understand but these things are too tricky to put a label on something that mean different things to different people. To get a serious discussion we probably will need to explain ourselves in sentences.

For example, how many people in a hundred really understand what 'Existential Buddhism' means? It must be explained again and again.