Kim O'Hara wrote:If words from texts are about things that happened a long time ago, they are history, aren't they? And then you have to decide between useful, reliable, accurate history and the rest.
If words from texts are not about things that happened a long time ago, they can't tell us anything about things that happened a long time ago, can they? And then you can't know anything about things that happened a long time ago.
Huifeng wrote:The original post asked a historical question, therefore history is the correct domain from which to answer.
How can "personal experience" tell us which influenced which over the course of centuries? It can't -- unless maybe you are claiming that you can recall past lives from China for a few hundred years...
jeeprs wrote:The ground of existence is not the object of negation, and is not what is being negated. The idea that beings exist 'in themselves' is what is being negated. But the dharmadhātu cannot be negated, because without it nothing would exist.
LastLegend wrote:It is true that the original question asked for a historical question. Therefore, we are answering in the context of that. But how much do we know to pass on such information as something accurate or who influenced who?
If knowledge of the subject is denied it cannot be asserted whether any tradition borrowed from any other, and the validity of the question is removed. If historical knowledge is possible, then there are various methods to investigate past events.
Huifeng wrote:Going for a pyrrhic victory, are you?
Huifeng wrote:Similar situation with Brahmanism, Buddhism and Hinduism. Brahmanism borrows heavily from Buddhism and we end up with so-called Hinduism. People conflate Brahmanism and Hinduism, see that Hinduism is like Buddhism, and assume Buddhism borrows from Hinduism / Brahmanism.
“I have seen,” the Buddha says, “the ancient Way, the Old Road that was taken by the formerly All-Awakened, and that is the path I follow”; and since he elsewhere praises the Brāhmaṇs of old who remembered the Ancient Way that leads to Brahma, there can be no doubt that the Buddha is alluding to “the ancient narrow path that stretches far away, whereby the contemplatives, knowers of Brahma, ascend, set free” (vimuktāḥ), mentioned in verses that were already old when Yajñavalkya cites them in the earliest Upaniṣad.
jeeprs wrote:The meaning of 'substance' is not at all the same in philosophy as it is in science.
jeeprs wrote: To say they don't exist, or that there really are no beings, is nihilistic in my opinion.
jeeprs wrote:"From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness....'
And so on.
[A]lthough the obstructions are innumerable, they are all derived from one basic, obstructing block, that is, the idea of being. Once this bedrock of being is crushed, all the constructions built upon it will also be demolished. The idea of being, that primordial root from which all other ideas sprout is, therefore, the source of all obstructions. This inveterate, stubborn, and all-pervasive idea of being is the prime obstruction that stands in the way of Totality and our liberation. Instead of glorifying it and deifying it as many philosophers and theologians of both the Eastern and Western traditions have done, Buddhism stresses the unsatisfactory and illusory aspects of being and the importance of destroying it. A Zen proverb has made this point very clear: “All things return to the One; but to what is this One reducible?” The greatest breakthrough that can ever be achieved by man is the pulverizing of the block of “being” and of “one,” which, psychologically speaking, is a deep-rooted tendency to grasp things, a form of clinging manifested as an arbitrary assertion. Totality is inaccessible without a through annihilation of this basic clinging, and Non-Obstruction cannot be realized without an understanding of the truth of “Non-being,” which is sunyata (Voidness) --- the core and essence of Buddhism.