buddhist hinduism?

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Re: buddhist hinduism?

Postby Enochian » Sat Jul 16, 2011 5:19 pm

Namdrol,

Would you admit that everything is "connected"?

That even us regular sentient beings are somehow "connected" to the Buddhas?

I thought I read somewhere that the Buddhas know every thought in the universe, implying some profound connection between Buddhas and regular sentient beings.
There is an ever-present freedom from grasping the mind.

Mind being defined as the thing always on the Three Times.
Enochian
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: buddhist hinduism?

Postby Malcolm » Sat Jul 16, 2011 5:25 pm

Enochian wrote:Namdrol,

Would you admit that everything is "connected"?



Everything is a condition for everything but itself.

Since the Buddhas have realized the nature of reality which pervades everything, theoretically, there are no limits to what a Buddha can know. If something can be known by a consciousness, it can be known by a Buddha .

The subject of the omniscience of a Buddha is quite complicated.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10202
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: buddhist hinduism?

Postby platypus » Sat Jul 16, 2011 6:16 pm

Jikan wrote:
platypus wrote:Dharmakaya and adi-buddha seem quite like Hindu concepts to me.


Would you please explain your meaning a bit? There are a few ways to interpret this, and I don't want to get you wrong.
I see the dharmakaya explained as where all buddhas emanate from like a ground of being, where all things arise from and it is true nature, the same with Buddha nature. It is the essential reality of all things. The difference between an awakened being and a non awakened being is they do not realise it yet. This reminded me of advaita vedanta where all beings are essentially brahman. The only difference between jiva and those who have attained moksha is that they haven't realised it yet. And are fooled by Maya. The other thing is on some level they are real but ultimately they are no different from brahman. Their atman is one with brahman. Even if you say Dharmakaya is essentially non conceptual and empty. So is brahman, in advaita brahman emanates avatara, but is non conceptual. And if all dharmas arise ultimately from Dharmakaya, this is essentially the same as jiva and Maya arising out of brahman.
I am awaiting schooling if I am wrong.
platypus
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 9:05 am

Re: buddhist hinduism?

Postby Malcolm » Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:54 pm

platypus wrote:I see the dharmakaya explained as where all buddhas emanate from like a ground of being...


Buddhism does not propose a truly existent ground of being.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10202
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: buddhist hinduism?

Postby Enochian » Sat Jul 16, 2011 9:07 pm

Namdrol wrote:
platypus wrote:I see the dharmakaya explained as where all buddhas emanate from like a ground of being...


Buddhism does not propose a truly existent ground of being.



What about a dependently originated ground of being?
There is an ever-present freedom from grasping the mind.

Mind being defined as the thing always on the Three Times.
Enochian
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: buddhist hinduism?

Postby Malcolm » Sat Jul 16, 2011 9:21 pm

Enochian wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
platypus wrote:I see the dharmakaya explained as where all buddhas emanate from like a ground of being...


Buddhism does not propose a truly existent ground of being.



What about a dependently originated ground of being?



That is a contradiction in terms -- from what causes and conditions would such a ground of being originate?

Buddhist logic on this is airtight. There is nothing in the universe that is not dependently originated. Whatever is dependently originated is free from the extremes of existence and non-existence. Since there are no beings in a dependently originated universe, there also no ground of being. What is the use of a ground of being if there are no beings for which it is purported to be a ground?

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10202
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: buddhist hinduism?

Postby platypus » Sat Jul 16, 2011 9:55 pm

Namdrol wrote:
platypus wrote:I see the dharmakaya explained as where all buddhas emanate from like a ground of being...


Buddhism does not propose a truly existent ground of being.
So all dharmas do not arise from dharmakaya?
platypus
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 9:05 am

Re: buddhist hinduism?

Postby platypus » Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:00 pm

Namdrol wrote:

That is a contradiction in terms -- from what causes and conditions would such a ground of being originate?

Buddhist logic on this is airtight. There is nothing in the universe that is not dependently originated. Whatever is dependently originated is free from the extremes of existence and non-existence. Since there are no beings in a dependently originated universe, there also no ground of being. What is the use of a ground of being if there are no beings for which it is purported to be a ground?

N

that's what advaita says too, that jiva are ultimately one with brahman and simply maya.
platypus
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 9:05 am

Re: buddhist hinduism?

Postby mudra » Sun Jul 17, 2011 12:09 am

platypus wrote:
Namdrol wrote:

That is a contradiction in terms -- from what causes and conditions would such a ground of being originate?

Buddhist logic on this is airtight. There is nothing in the universe that is not dependently originated. Whatever is dependently originated is free from the extremes of existence and non-existence. Since there are no beings in a dependently originated universe, there also no ground of being. What is the use of a ground of being if there are no beings for which it is purported to be a ground?

N

that's what advaita says too, that jiva are ultimately one with brahman and simply maya.


Hi platypus -
Mostly it is Hindus (whatever that term really means given the multifarious aspects of various Brahmanic, Vaishnavite, Shivaite, Vedic, advaita etc views that encompasses) who are obsessed with trying to figure out how "Buddhism and Hinduism are fundamentally the same, the play of Maya is the same in Buddhism as in Hinduism/advaita" etc.

There are shared cultural and contextual backgrounds to the two 'religions' but in terms of basic 'view' they are radically different. One with Brahman? I don't think so: it might be a well established "Hindu" view but it is not a Buddhist view at all.

Dharmakaya and "Adi Buddha" are not Brahman or Atman (or even Superman for that matter).
User avatar
mudra
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:55 am

Re: buddhist hinduism?

Postby Malcolm » Sun Jul 17, 2011 1:17 am

platypus wrote:
Namdrol wrote:

That is a contradiction in terms -- from what causes and conditions would such a ground of being originate?

Buddhist logic on this is airtight. There is nothing in the universe that is not dependently originated. Whatever is dependently originated is free from the extremes of existence and non-existence. Since there are no beings in a dependently originated universe, there also no ground of being. What is the use of a ground of being if there are no beings for which it is purported to be a ground?

N

that's what advaita says too, that jiva are ultimately one with brahman and simply maya.


There is no jiva, from a Buddhist POV. Nor is there Brahmin.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10202
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: buddhist hinduism?

Postby Malcolm » Sun Jul 17, 2011 1:17 am

platypus wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
platypus wrote:I see the dharmakaya explained as where all buddhas emanate from like a ground of being...


Buddhism does not propose a truly existent ground of being.
So all dharmas do not arise from dharmakaya?


No, they do not.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10202
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: buddhist hinduism?

Postby Enochian » Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:13 am

This is my understanding of Mādhyamaka is two sentences:

Everything exists as thoughtforms merely designated upon causes and conditions. This applies to yourself, the Buddhas, the causes and conditions themselves, and even the principle of causality itself.
There is an ever-present freedom from grasping the mind.

Mind being defined as the thing always on the Three Times.
Enochian
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: buddhist hinduism?

Postby Enochian » Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:32 am

Namdrol wrote:
That is a contradiction in terms -- from what causes and conditions would such a ground of being originate?

Buddhist logic on this is airtight. There is nothing in the universe that is not dependently originated. Whatever is dependently originated is free from the extremes of existence and non-existence. Since there are no beings in a dependently originated universe, there also no ground of being. What is the use of a ground of being if there are no beings for which it is purported to be a ground?

N



Thats what I thought. You through me off when you said before that there is no "truly existent ground of being" implying there may be another type of ground of being.
There is an ever-present freedom from grasping the mind.

Mind being defined as the thing always on the Three Times.
Enochian
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: buddhist hinduism?

Postby xabir » Sun Jul 17, 2011 3:23 am

platypus wrote:I see the dharmakaya explained as where all buddhas emanate from like a ground of being,
Dharmakaya means emptiness, not a ground of being. See this http://www.jenchen.org.sg/vol9no3a.htm
xabir
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:14 pm

Re: buddhist hinduism?

Postby Enochian » Sun Jul 17, 2011 9:43 pm

So what does this passage from the 2004 academic book, The Essential Vedanta, sound like to everyone?

I added the boldness for emphasis.

"Sarvajnatman.....argued for "reflexionism" in understanding the relations that obtain between the individual self (jiva), the world, and Brahman, and favored the view that ignorance resides in Brahman. Sarvajnatman was a very able thinker. He drew a sharp distinction between adhisthana (the ground of appearances; the true Brahman) and adhara (the object to which false appearances refer; Brahman as modified by ignorance).

:spy:
There is an ever-present freedom from grasping the mind.

Mind being defined as the thing always on the Three Times.
Enochian
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: buddhist hinduism?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Mon Jul 18, 2011 11:50 am

Sounds like dualism to me. Actually tri-alism. We know that there is no individual self that stands in opposition to an objective phenomenal world which all dwells within an all-encompassing cosmic consciousness so why even bother bringing it up?
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7910
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: buddhist hinduism?

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Mon Jul 18, 2011 12:40 pm

Enochian wrote:"...and favored the view that ignorance resides in Brahman..."


Ignorance is not a thing that resides anywhere.
Ignorance is a condition of not knowing, and this not knowing is expressed in actions that result in suffering.

It can be seen as a "hole" in one's understanding, the way a hole can be seen in a donut,
but the hole doesn't 'reside' there. It's simply an area where there is no donut.

The term, I think, is an expression of what is not there (wisdom)
So, it's like saying "what's there is what is not there".
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: buddhist hinduism?

Postby Enochian » Mon Jul 18, 2011 6:32 pm

I guess no one got my point.

The distinguishing between adhisthana and adhara sounds like distinguishing rigpa and sems.

And there was also the bit about "reflexionism".

By the way, I am not a Monist or Hindu in any way. I just feel compelled to argue from from all viewpoints.
There is an ever-present freedom from grasping the mind.

Mind being defined as the thing always on the Three Times.
Enochian
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: buddhist hinduism?

Postby Karma Dondrup Tashi » Mon Jul 18, 2011 6:37 pm

Enochian wrote:This is my understanding of Mādhyamaka is two sentences:

Everything exists as thoughtforms ...


You lost me at "exists" and "thoughtforms".
User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
 
Posts: 1011
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: buddhist hinduism?

Postby Enochian » Mon Jul 18, 2011 6:54 pm

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:
Enochian wrote:This is my understanding of Mādhyamaka is two sentences:

Everything exists as thoughtforms ...


You lost me at "exists" and "thoughtforms".



Read Emptiness by Gesh Tashi Tsering.

I am an obsessed follower of Mādhyamaka philosophy, so I am pretty sure what I have written is correct.
There is an ever-present freedom from grasping the mind.

Mind being defined as the thing always on the Three Times.
Enochian
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:19 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Gwenn Dana, hop.pala, MSNbot Media, Sherlock, smcj and 28 guests

>