Budhism stems from Hinduism

It is a known fact tha buhism stems from Hinduism. Yet many i've met and discussed religion about depict Budha as an oriental. I sometimes winder if those here understand that Budha (gautama) was hindu before becoming budhist? Please spare me your debate about pre-gautama period becaise it really does not carry historical weight aside from insinuating our siddharta gautama.

Sephiroth

HealthTech ... you should understand a few things about Buddhism.

Gautama Buddha WAS a Hindu - True. His parents were Hindus and therefore, they taught Him about the World through Hindusm. And since Gautama Buddha was born in a Kyastria family, it is Kyastria's Duty to Fight and Rule over Nation, so you could imagine how surprised the father was when the Brahmins who came to bless Gautama Buddha indicated that He will either become a great King who will rule over others OR a great Sage (which is how Hindus look at Him).

When Gautama Buddha left His home, He used whatever Hindusm knowledge He had learn to discover truth - thus He walk the Extreme path of Yogic manner. It was later that He discovered that Middle-Path is better way of Spiritualism and walked that path.

THAT is Hindusm which is known in India to this day. Gautama Buddha become a Great Sage (probably THE Greatest Mankind have ever known in the past 2,500 years) and I have noticed that India also started to rediscovered Buddhism (which in the past was followed by a small number of Monks and devoteed people, living in Monasteries - which made perfect target for Invaders).

However, what many Easterners (especially Chinese Buddhist) believe today is Oriental Buddhism - concept of Pure Land Buddhism.

If you read the Buddhism thread, you will know that there is a heated debate going on even on the basic level of understanding Buddhism. I for example still insist that True Buddhism is 4 Noble Path, 8 Folded Path and 5 Precepts which should be basic for ALL Buddhism (from the day this column started to now, I always stated this), WHILE some so-called Buddhists continued to indulge in ways like eating meat and self-indulgements.

So, debate here is indeed True Buddhism VS Oriental Buddhism. :hmm:

so does it matter whichever faith wins?
im just curious ...

Sephiroth

by fullofshxt   

so does it matter whichever faith wins?
im just curious ...  

Yes, it does. Because one faith will lead you to enlightnment and another will lead you astray.

Four Noble Truth, 8 Folded Path and 5 Precepts (for Monks and laymen) ARE the BASIC of Buddhism as established by Gautama Buddha.

If you are confused with what is stated in some Sutra, you should turn and refer to this Basics and see whether what stated in the Sutras are same as what is stated in the Basics. However, I noticed many people does all kind of things, which includes consumption of meat (and accepting such practise for Monks) as acceptable practise for Buddhism.

sephiroth..
astray huh ?
ok...

tell me ...
have you astray before?
if so...
tell me about your life being astray ..
how different is that life compare to a life which isn't astray?

when you say "englightment" how does it feel to be englightened?
have you been englighterend before?
how do you weight those who are englightened and those who are not?
and...
how do you know the hindus or the buddhists are englightered or not englightened?
mind sharing your experience?
im curious ...

Sephiroth

by fullofshxt   

have you astray before?
if so...
tell me about your life being astray ..
how different is that life compare to a life which isn't astray?  

Why ask me something which you will not understand? ;)

If you ask me what does it feel to be astray and not astray, I probably give you some example which we will end up debating whether it is act of astray or not till hell freezes over and go no where.

IF you wish to know feeling of returning from Sin and astray, simple ... sit down, list down all the good things you do, and all the bad things you do. Compare both and then choose one thing which you think you doing bad - anything like cursing, lying, doing hentai things etc.

Then choose not to do it for one small period of time ... say one week or one month. At end of that period, you sit down and analyse not what you have done but what you have felt and thought throughout that period you force yourself not to do it. What you will find? Your thoughts which leads you astray. That will show you your difference which you seek.

when you say "englightment" how does it feel to be englightened?
have you been englighterend before?
how do you weight those who are englightened and those who are not?

Simple question ... I will answer it also by question.
My question :- For what purpose do you live your life daily? :hmm:

and...
how do you know the hindus or the buddhists are englightered or not englightened?
mind sharing your experience?
im curious ...   

It all depends on how One lives his life. Which is why I ask what is the purpose of you living your life daily.


Just my empty thoughts :

A tree lives to give shade and home for birds, fruits for Man and beast. That is it's purpose.

Beasts lives as beast of burden, companion or simply as steps to ensure Nature is in balance (like snakes to ensure rat population in control). That is it's purpose.

Wind blows to bring comfort, to provide seasons and even spread seeds of plants.
Water flows to bring coldness and as drinking water, or simply as beautiful shade of blue in the sea (I love the sea because of this).

Earth provides food and place to live, and in its own ways,rigid mountains and beautiful green forest that is beautiful.
The Sky exists to bring rain, beautiful clouds and sometimes, just to sit and lose oneself onto the blue Sky.

ALL things in Nature ARE Enlightened, but Man ...
Yet ... Poor Poor Man ...
He seeks Enlightenment without knowing,
that ALL things ARE enlightened but Man.

Sephiroth said "Why ask me something which you will not understand?"

bcos you sound like u know a lot of buddhism and hinduism..
for me, as someone who isn't clear about buddhism and hinduism has a natural tendency to ask and to know more ..
now..

fair isn't it ?
unless you don't know anything about englightments

ahahahahahaahahahahahaha

u said:
-----
If you ask me what does it feel to be astray and not astray, I probably give you some example which we will end up debating whether it is act of astray or not till hell freezes over and go no where
-----

why do u think it would lead to a debate?
if your answers are devine and acceptable im sure i can find ways to accept them..
im sure i can also give you respect for your capability ..

you use the word "astray"
its a word with strong meaning ..
when an accuser who labels someone who live a life in astray provides the foundation of the accuser as being more godly...

now are you god?
if you are ..
then i am sure you are capable of telling which of hour followers had gone astray and which have not..

isn't that logical?

wahahahahahahahaahahahahaha

Sephiroth

Hmph ... Poor Man laughing. ;)

om ami deva hri

Sephiroth

Actually for Buddhism, it's Om Padme Hum

That's meaning for that, can't remember.

padme hum is compassion mantra for tibet
deva hri is amitabha for tibet ....
basho sato hung is tibet use to blessed

Sephiroth

Om Padme Hum can be used for other nations also, not only Tibet.

yep but origin

Sephiroth

Origin? Or Original? :stp:

If you say your word is Original, I have bad news for you. The starting Syllabus in the mantra - Om itself is from Hindusm therefore, nothing is original. :no:

It does not mean that Buddhism is lower than Hindusm, it just means Buddhism is latest and without the burden of rituals and practise which exists in Hindusm, making it a suitable choice on how to lead a proper life in a fast world. :hmm:

Originally posted by Sephiroth at 2-8-2006 08:52 AM
Actually for Buddhism, it's Om Padme Hum

That's meaning for that, can't remember.

Actually it's Om Mani Padme Hum  ('Hail to the Jewel of the Lotus')  

[ Last edited by  Dark at 12-8-2006 02:25 AM ]

ariyamusafir

The fact is that all Buddhist schools you can find in our time all have their fundamentals base on the four noble truth. Before the Buddha's parinibbana, there were no different schools. Anyway, Pure Land is a sub-school of Mahayana. Even Pure Land have the four noble truths and the noble eight fold path as their basics.

The below is an explaination by Dr. K Sri Dhammananda, a chief monk.

Two Main Schools of Buddhism
The real followers of the Buddha can practise this religion without adhering to any school or sect.

A few hundred years after the Buddha's passing away, there arose eighteen different schools or sects all of which claimed to represent the original Teachings of the Buddha. The differences between these schools were basically due to various interpretations of the Teachings of the Buddha. Over a period of time, these schools gradually merged into two main schools: Theravada and Mahayana. Today, a majority of the followers of Buddhism are divided into these two schools.

Basically Mahayana Buddhism grew out of the Buddha's teaching that each individual carries within himself the potential for Buddhahood. Theravadins say that this potential can be realized through individual effort. Mahayanists, on the other hand, believe that they can seek salvation through the intervention of other superior beings called Bodhisattas. According to them, Bodhisattas are future Buddhas who, out of compassion for their fellow human beings, have delayed their own attainment of Buddhahood until they have helped others towards liberation. In spite of this basic difference, however, it must be stressed that doctrinally there is absolutely no disagreement concerning the Dhamma as contained in the sacred Tripitaka texts. Because Buddhists have been encouraged by the Master to carefully inquire after the truth, they have been free to interpret the scriptures according to their understanding. But above all, both Mahayana and Theravada are one in their reverence for the Buddha.(For a short, excellent exposition on this topic, read Dr. W. Rahula, 'Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism' published by The Buddhist Missionary Society.)

The areas of agreement between the two schools are as follows:

1. Both accept Sakyamuni Buddha as the Teacher.
2. The Four Noble Truths are exactly the same in both schools.
3. The Eightfold Path is exactly the same in both schools.
4. The Pattica-Samuppada or teaching on Dependent Origination is the same in both schools.
5. Both reject the idea of a supreme being who created and governed this world.
6. Both accept Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta and Sila, Samadhi, Panna without any difference.

Some people are of the view that Theravada is selfish because it teaches that people should seek their own salvation. But how can a selfish person gain Enlightenment? Both schools accept the three Yana or Bodhi and consider the Bodhisatta Ideal as the highest. The Mahayana has created many mystical Bodhisattas, while the Theravada believes that a Bodhisatta is a man amongst us who devotes his entire life for the attainment of perfection, and ultimately becomes a fully Enlightened Buddha for the well-being and happiness of the world.

The terms Hinayana (Small Vehicle) and Mahayana (Great Vehicle) are not known in the Theravada Pali literature. They are not found in the Pali Canon (Tripitaka) or in the Commentaries on the Tripitaka.

Theravada Buddhists follow orthodox religious traditions that had prevailed in India two thousand five hundred years ago. They perform their religious services in the Pali language. They also expect to attain the final goal (Nibbana) by becoming a Supreme Enlightened Buddha, Pacceka Buddha, or an Arahant (the highest stage of sainthood). The Majority of them prefer the Arahantahood. Buddhists in Sri Lanka, Burma, and Thailand belong to this school. Mahayanists have changed the old religious customs. Their practices are in accordance with the customs and traditions of the countries where they live. Mahayanists perform their religious services in their mother tongue. They expect to attain the final goal (Nibbana) by becoming Buddhas. Hence, they honor both the Buddha and Bodhisatta (one who is destined to be a Buddha with the same respect. Buddhists in China, Japan and Korea belong to this school. Most of those in Tibet and Mongolia follow another school of Buddhism which is known as Vajrayana. Buddhist scholars believe that this school inclines more towards the Mahayana sect.

It is universally accepted by scholars that the terms Hinayana and Mahayana are later invention. Historically speaking, the Theravada already existed long before these terms came into being. That Theravada, considered to be the original teaching of the Buddha, was introduced to Sri Lanka and established there in the 3rd century B.C., during the time of Emperor Asoka of India. At that time there was nothing called Mahayana. Mahayana as such appeared much later, about the beginning of the Christian era. Buddhism that went to Sri Lanka, with its Tripitaka and Commentaries, in the 3rd Century B.C., remained there intact as Theravada, and did not come into the scene of the Hinayana-Mahayana dispute that developed later in India. It seems therefore not legitimate to include Theravada in either of these two categories. However, after the inauguration of the World Fellowship of Buddhists in 1950, well-informed people, both in the East and in the West, use the term Theravada, and not the term Hinayana, with reference to Buddhism prevalent in South-east Asian countries. There are still outmoded people who use the term Hinayana. In fact, the Samdhi Nirmorcana Sutra (a Mahayana Sutra) clearly says that the Sravakayana - Theravada and the Mahayana constitute one Yana (ekayana) and that they are not two different and distinct 'vehicles'. Although different schools of Buddhism held different opinions on the teaching of the Buddha, they never had any violence or blood shed for more than two thousands years. This is the uniqueness of Buddhist tolerance.

http://www.tipitaka.net/pali/ebo ... ols%20of%20Buddhism

ariyamusafir

Also, would like to emphasize that BUddhism does not sterm from Hindusm. Please read the below article by Dr. K. Sri Dhammananda

Is Buddhism Similar to Other Contemporary Teachings in India?
The Dhamma realized by the Buddha was unheard before.

The Buddha said in His first sermon, the Dhammacakka Sutta, that the Dhamma which He preached was unheard of before. Knowledge of the Dhamma which arose was clear to His vision, to His knowledge, to His wisdom, to His penetration, and to His Enlightenment.

Some people claim that the Buddha did not preach a new doctrine but merely reformed the old teaching which was existing in India. However, the Buddha was no mere reformer of Hinduism as some protagonists of this ancient creed make Him out to be. The Buddha's way of life and doctrine were substantially different from the way of life and the religious beliefs people had in India. The Buddha lived, taught and died as a non-Vedic and non-Brahmanic religious Teacher. Nowhere did the Buddha acknowledge His indebtedness to the existing religious beliefs and practices. The Buddha considered Himself as initiating a rational religious method, as opening a new path. In fact He had revolutionized the religious way of life in a dignified manner.

That was the main reason why many other religious groups could not agree with Him. He was condemned, criticized and insulted by the most noted teachers and sects of the Vedic-Brahmanic tradition. It was with the intention of destroying or absorbing the Buddha and His Teaching, that the Brahmans of the pre-Christian era went so far as to accept the Buddha as an Avatara or incarnation of their God. Yet some others despised Him as a vasalaka, a mundaka, a samanaka, a nastika and sudra. (These words were used in India during the Buddha's time to insult a religious man).

There is no doubt that the Buddha reformed certain customs, religious duties, rites and ethics and ways of living. The greatness of His character was like a pin-point that pricked the balloon of false beliefs and practices so that they could burst and reveal their emptiness.

But as far as the fundamental, philosophical and psychological teachings are concerned, it is groundless to say that the Buddha had copied ideas from any existing religion at that time. For instance, the idea of the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path and Nibbana, were not known before His coming. Although the belief in kamma and rebirth was very common, the Buddha gave quite logical and reasonable explanations to this belief and introduced it as natural law of cause and effect. Despite all these the Buddha did not ridicule any sincere existing religious belief or practice. He appreciated the value in many where he found Truth and he even gave a better explanation of their beliefs. That is why He once said that the Truth must be respected wherever it is. However, He was never afraid to speak out against hypocrisy and falsehood.

Is Buddhism a Theory or a Philosophy?
The enlightenment of the Buddha is not a product of mere intellect.

During the time of the Buddha there were many learned men in India who pursued knowledge simply for its own sake. These people were full of theoretical knowledge. Indeed, some of them went from city to city challenging anyone to a debate and their greatest thrill was to defeat an opponent in such verbal combats. But the Buddha said that such people were no nearer to the realization of the truth because in spite of their cleverness and knowledge they did not have true wisdom to overcome greed, hatred and delusion. In fact, these people were often proud and arrogant. Their egoistic concepts disturbed the religious atmosphere.

According to the Buddha, one must first seek to understand one's own mind. This was to be done through concentration which gives one a profound inner wisdom or realization. And this insight is to be gained not by philosophical argument or worldly knowledge but by the silent realization of the illusion of the Self.

Buddhism is a righteous way of life for the peace and happiness of every living being. It is a method to get rid of miseries and to find liberation. The Teachings of the Buddha are not limited to one nation or race. It is neither a creed nor a mere faith. It is a Teaching for the entire universe. It is a Teaching for all time. Its objectives are selfless service, good-will, peace, salvation and deliverance from suffering.

Salvation in Buddhism is an individual affair. You have to save yourself just as you have to eat, drink and sleep by yourself. The advice rendered by the Buddha points the Way to liberation; but His advice was never intended to be taken as a theory or philosophy. When He was questioned as to what theory He propounded, the Buddha replied that He preached no theories and whatever he did preach was a result of His own experience. Thus His Teaching does not offer any theory. Theory cannot bring one nearer to spiritual perfection. Theories are the very fetters that bind the mind and impede spiritual progress. The Buddha said, 'Wise men give no credence to passing theories. They are past believing everything they see and hear.'

Theories are product of the intellect and the Buddha understood the limitations of the human intellect. He taught that enlightenment is not a product of mere intellect. One cannot achieve emancipation by taking an intellectual course. This statement may seem irrational but it is true. Intellectuals tend to spend too much of their valuable time in study, critical analysis and debate. They usually have little or no time for practice.

A great thinker (philosopher, scientist, metaphysician, etc.) can also turn out to be an intelligent fool. He may be an intellectual giant endowed with the power to perceive ideas quickly and to express thoughts clearly. But if he pays no attention to his action and their consequences, and if he is only bent on fulfilling his own longings and inclinations at any cost then, according to the Buddha, he is an intellectual fool, a man of inferior intelligence. Such a person will indeed hinder his won spiritual progress.

The Buddha's Teaching contains practical wisdom that cannot be limited to theory or to philosophy because philosophy deals mainly with knowledge but it is not concerned with translating the knowledge into day-to-day practices.

Buddhism lays special emphasis on practice and realization. The philosopher sees the miseries and disappointments of life but, unlike the Buddha, he offers no practical solution to overcome our frustrations which are part of the unsatisfactory nature of life. The philosopher merely pushes his thoughts to dead ends. Philosophy is useful because it has enriched our intellectual imagination and diminished dogmatic assurance which closes the mind to further progress. To that extent, Buddhism values philosophy, but it has failed to quench spiritual thirst.

Remember that the chief aim of a Buddhist is to attain purity and enlightenment. Enlightenment vanquishes ignorance which is the root of birth and death. However, this vanquishing of ignorance cannot be achieved except by the exercise of one's confidence. All other attempts, especially mere intellectual attempts are not very effective. This is why the Buddha concluded: 'These [metaphysical]questions are not calculated to profit; they are not concerned with the Dhamma; they do not lead to right conduct, or to detachment, or to purification from lusts, or to quietude, or to a calm heart, or to real knowledge, or to higher insight, or to Nibbana.' (Malunkyaputta Sutta _ Majjhima Nikaya) In place of metaphysical speculation, the Buddha was more concerned with teaching a practical understanding of the Four Noble Truths that he discovered: what Suffering is: what the origin of Suffering is; what the cessation of Suffering is; how to overcome Suffering and realize final Salvation. These Truths are all practical matters to be fully understood and realized by anyone who really experiences emancipation.

Enlightenment is the dispelling of ignorance; it is the ideal of the Buddhist life. We can now clearly see that enlightenment is not an act of the intellect. Mere speculation has something alien to it and does not come so intimately into contact with life. This is why the Buddha placed great emphasis on personal experience. Meditation is a practical scientific system to verify the Truth that comes through personal experience. Through meditation, the will tries to transcend the condition it has put on itself, and this is the awakening of consciousness. Metaphysics merely ties us down in a tangled and matted mass of thoughts and words.

http://www.tipitaka.net/pali/ebo ... hings%20in%20India?

Sephiroth

There is NO need to accept Schools and Subschools when one knows the Four Noble, and can follow the Eightfold Path on their own.

In many circumstances, this schools can be troublesome and burden to the followers when people of influence within it wants to expand it by making all sort of interpretation in behave of Buddha.

ALL Buddhist needs to know is - There was NO Schools (unless you count Hindusm School) during Gautama Buddha's time.

ariyamusafir

That is what I have said previously, a long time ago. Different schools existed only much after the parinibbana of the Buddha. Prior to that, there were no split into such school. before the parinibbana of the Buddha, the Buddha tought his students, his deciple. That which I meant by pure, unmixed, original, that is the one which previously, in most of my heated debates with you, I emphasized time and time again that I want to follow, the original teachings of the Buddha, and we should all follow to the very original, UNMIXED and pure (that which I mean by pure is non mix lah) teachings of the Buddha! Be it Buddha Gotama, Buddha Amitabha, Buddha Kassapa, Buddha Padumuttara and other Buddhas.

However, we should never insult or make false accusations, wild accusations, or slanderous remarks on these different schools. Why? The reason being that these schools ALSO follow fundemental teachings, is also Buddhism, but some have adopted to intergrate different culture from different location which was never an issue in Buddhism. Just like Tibetan Buddhism, it is also Buddhism, also base on the four noble truth and the noble eight-fold path, but at the same time, they practise their own tradition, their own culture.