Buddhism - Declined or Brutalized in the land of its birth?

[Gadkari]

Shows your ignorance.....Anatta is the Pali for An-Atma (Non-Self Concept) it has nothing to do with Ananta which is infinity...Anyways Buddha heavily discouraged speculation regarding Eternity cum Infinity

You are right and also wrong.

Buddhist concept of Anatman is what the Hindus call Paramatma.

The Hindu philosophy also has Atma which is the "soul of the self" but a part of the Param-atma which is the cosmic life force.

Buddhist philosphy of a certain order say that there is no "self soul" only the Param-Atma which is called Anatman. Non self soul.

 

[Gadkari]

Theravada and STRICTLY the Pali Canon..and among that only the Vinaya and Sutta Pitakas are considered coming down from Buddha.......There is No Creator God in Buddhism..Brahma is a God in Buddhism...if you can find me ONE SINGLE LINE from the Pali Canon (Vinaya and Sutta Pitakas) that says Buddha considers Brahma the Creator of the Universe/Reality , then I will retract all my statements and say that eventhough I am a Buddhist, I have severe faulty knowledge

My understanding is that the Vinaya sutra deals only with disciplinary rules for the Buddhist Sangha. How to obey the rules.

The Sutta Pitaka is a collection of stories of Buddha's past life and Dharmapada text which again only speaks of right conduct. Dharmapada speaks of Brahma and the Brahmin. It speaks of Deva and Ghandrava. It speaks of Shankara and Indra. It explains who a true Brahmin is.

These books does not explain who Brahma, shanarka, deva , Indra or Ghandarva is. Its a bit like saying that since a book on Medicine does not explain gravity, gravity does not exist in modern science.

@Gadkari If we are going to have a debate, we have to stick to the ground rules..and that is limit the discussion ONLY to the Pali Canon--and that too the First two Pitakas as Abhidhamma Pitaka is not considered the utterings of the Historical Buddha

That would be pointless since its the equivalent of asking me to debate Physics within the confines of a book of Medicine.

Its illogical and absurd.

IT does not serve the truth, only serves the narrow confines of winning a "debate".

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

My understanding is that the Vinaya sutra deals only with disciplinary rules for the Buddhist Sangha. How to obey the rules.

The Sutta Pitaka is a collection of stories of Buddha's past life and Dharmapada text which again only speaks of right conduct. Dharmapada speaks of Brahma and the Brahmin. It speaks of Deva and Ghandrava. It speaks of Shankara and Indra. It explains who as true Brahmin is.

These books does not explain who Brahma, shanarka, deva , Indra or Ghandarva is. Its a bit like saying that since a book on Medicine does not explain gravity, gravity does not exist in modern science.



That would be pointless since its the equivalent of asking me to debate Physics within the confines of a book of Medicine.

Its illogical and absurd.

IT does not serve the truth, only serves the narrow confines of wining a "debate".

I am only interested whether you can provide any evidence that Buddha believed that Brahma or any other deity created Reality or whether Buddha gave any explicit theory of Creation..Buddha left the question of Creation and Destruction of Universe open-ended with his 14 Unanswerable Questions...

The closest to a theory of Creation you will get from the Buddha is that this is a steady-state Universe going through endless expansions and contractions-------MahaParinibbana Sutta

Now may be the Hindu theory of the Creation of Universe is true, May be Modern Physic's theory of the Creation of Universe is true, May be Islam's version is true or may be Christianity version is true




I am ready to accept that Buddha may be a stupid fool who was DEAD wrong about everything, But I will not accept when words are put into his mouth which are not his Original Utterings


I have no problem if you say Buddha's worldview or approach is faulty...but show me a single evidence that Buddha said that Anatta is a different kind of soul, that the Universe has a Creator, and that whatever is written in the Four Vedas and the first two Upanishads are true


The closest you will find is that Buddha saying that even Vedic sages didnot proclaim the existence of a Creator..
Now whether that statement is true or not is not my concern, what is of my concern is whether Buddha said that or not

 

[The_Showstopper]

Also since this topic needs a story from the Islami perspective I will invite @The_Showstopper to provide references. He beats all others when asked to point out Hindu/Buddhist and even Jain atrocities.

Naah I think others are doing a good job here. Anyways they aren't worth your time. No?

 

[Gadkari]

I am only interested whether you can provide any evidence that Buddha believed that Brahma or any other deity created Reality or whether Buddha gave any explicit theory of Creation..Buddha left the question of Creation and Destruction of Universe open-ended with his 14 Unanswerable Questions...

The closest to a theory of Creation you will get from the Buddha is that this is a steady-state Universe going through endless expansions and contractions-------MahaParinibbana Sutta

Now may be the Hindu theory of the Creation of Universe is true, May be Modern Physic's theory of the Creation of Universe is true, May be Islam's version is true or may be Christianity version is true

So now you have gone beyond your original contention of only limiting the discussion to Vinaya and Sutta Pitaka. That is good.

You are now seeking a false equivalence based on your rather simplistic understanding of Hinduism. In Hinduism, Brahma did not "create" this reality.

Brahma IS the creative force that forms reality. Shiva is the cosmic dust that is put together by this creative force called Brahma. (Hence the roaring child of Brahma). Shakti IS the "Buddhi tatva" (DNA or strength of intelligence) that pushes evolution. Vishnu IS the consciousness that is prevalent all across the cosmos.

Buddha talks about the creation of the Universe in the Digha Nikaya

The Expansion and contraction of the Universe that he talks about is the same as in the Rg Veda and Bahmanda puran. Buddha calls it Abhasara Brahma.

I am ready to accept that Buddha may be a stupid fool who was DEAD wrong about everything, But I will not accept when words are put into his mouth which are not his Original Utterings

We have no idea what his "original uttering" are since Buddha did not write even a SINGLE book. All the books are written by his disciples.

I have no problem if you say Buddha's worldview or approach is faulty...but show me a single evidence that Buddha said that Anatta is a different kind of soul, that the Universe has a Creator, and that whatever is written in the Four Vedas and the first two Upanishads are true

Anatta means no permanent , unchanging soul and it only means that the soul is not part of your body or your mind. Its not part of your "self".

This is the same as in Hindu philosophy where the Atma is not the same as your mind or body.

Universe - creator has already been discussed above.

The only way you can truly know that the Vedas and Upanishads (No idea what you mean by first two) are true is if you yourself reach enlightenment. I cannot "prove" anything to anybody. I can only present Facts.

The closest you will find is that Buddha saying that even Vedic sages didnot proclaim the existence of a Creator..
Now whether that statement is true or not is not my concern, what is of my concern is whether Buddha said that or not

Buddha never commented on the Vedas. His teaching was not about understanding the nature of the cosmos. It was about understanding your true self and discovering the truth for yourself.

His teachings were a user manual to self realization and at worst, a path towards a more dharmic lifestyle.

But when he DID speak, his definition of Brahma, Mahabrahma, Kalpa (life of brahma and the universe) is the same as Hinduism.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Naah I think others are doing a good job here. Anyways they aren't worth your time. No?

Contribute if you want. Leave otherwise.

 

[The_Showstopper]

Contribute if you want. Leave otherwise.

ok

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

@Gadkari quote specific verses from the Digha Nikaya to support your argument..else this discussion wont move forward...if you are not able to do so, then let's give this discussion a rest..and let us agree to disagree

 

[padamchen]

@Juggernaut_is_here

In the midst of your theological debate with @Gadkari , as a practicing Buddhist, and an Indic one at that (unlike our friend @Tshering22 ), could you also contribute to the topic of the thread as well ?

Do you believe Buddhism died or was killed in India?

Cheers, Doc

 

[Gadkari]

@Juggernaut_is_here

In the midst of your theological debate with @Gadkari , as a practicing Buddhist, and an Indic one at that (unlike our friend @Tshering22 ), could you also contribute to the topic of the thread as well ?

Do you believe Buddhism died or was killed in India?

Cheers, Doc

Are you serious asking what he "believes" ?

A man can believe anything, even that the earth is Flat.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

@Juggernaut_is_here

In the midst of your theological debate with @Gadkari , as a practicing Buddhist, and an Indication one at that unlike our friend @Tshering22 , could you also contribute to the topic of the thread as well ?

Do you believe Buddhism died or was killed in India?

Cheers, Doc

Buddhism was as MAJOR a force in India as Hinduism till the Pala Empire......The war for the Kannauj Traingle diminished Buddhism and destroyed India...Hinduism also didnot escape that war but came out of it better than Buddhism..Turkic invaders performed the last rites on Buddhism in India ....and Hinduism showed Higher IQ by copying and improving on Mahayana Buddhist innovations....Bhakti movement of Hinduism legitimately seduced away large throngs of followers from the Bodhisattva veneration movements


@padamchen I will write two detailed Thousand word essays as to what exactly happened with Buddhism in India and why it disappeared and why Jainism didnot....and this time with references to academic quarterlies on the History of Buddhism...it is not as cut and dried as people assume it to be, regarding the dissappearance of Buddhism from the subcontinent

 

[padamchen]

Buddhism was as MAJOR a force in India as Hinduism till the Pala Empire......The war for the Kannauj Traingle diminished Buddhism and destroyed India...Hinduism also didnot escape that war but came out of it better than Buddhism..Turkic invaders performed the last rites on Buddhism in India ....and Hinduism showed Higher IQ by copying and improving on Mahayana Buddhist innovations....Bhakti movement of Hinduism legitimately seduced away large throngs of followers from the Bodhisattva veneration movements

Did Hinduism actively (violently, physically) kill Buddhism in India as the historical references over the last many pages of the thread suggests?

Or is that a figment of the imagination of historians with an axe to grind against Hinduism?

Cheers, Doc

 

[Gadkari]

Buddhism was as MAJOR a force in India as Hinduism till the Pala Empire......The war for the Kannauj Traingle diminished Buddhism and destroyed India...Hinduism also didnot escape that war but came out of it better than Buddhism..Turkic invaders performed the last rites on Buddhism in India ....and Hinduism showed Higher IQ by copying and improving on Mahayana Buddhist innovations....Bhakti movement of Hinduism legitimately seduced away large throngs of followers from the Bodhisattva veneration movements

Are you aware of Adi Shankaracharya ? Notice how the region inside the 4 peetha remained Hindu ? while those outside the peeta became Islamic.

Mahayana borrowed from Hinduism, not the other way around. Look up Narayana (Vishnu) in Mahayana.

Bhakti movement also was aimed at countering Islam, not buddhism.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Did Hinduism actively (violently, physically) kill Buddhism in India as the historical references over the last many pages of the thread suggests?

Or is that a figment of the imagination of historians with an axe to grind against Hinduism?

Cheers, Doc

Both did it to each other..but if we are doing bodycount then Buddhism is more responsible was it completely wiped out the Ajivika sect violently...But most of the violence on one another was not because of doctrinal differences but a struggle to secure more royal patronage or charities from the populace........But there were extended periods of great amity where Buddhist Kings of Sri Lanka would request Hindu Kings of Guptas for permission to build Stupas and spires in the Buddhist Circuit

 

[padamchen]

Both did it to each other..but if we are doing bodycount then Buddhism is more responsible was it completely wiped out the Ajivika sect violently...But most of the violence on one another was not because of doctrinal differences but a struggle to secure more royal patronage or charities from the populace........But there were extended periods of great amity where Buddhist Kings of Sri Lanka would request Hindu Kings of Guptas for permission to build Stupas and spires in the Buddhist Circuit

Had Buddhism effectively died and been reduced to a fringe faith on the fringes of greater mainland India by the time of the first Islamic conquests?

Or was it a thriving faith that was killed by Islam?

Cheers, Doc