Tagged: Hinduism Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 3:12 am on June 8, 2025 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Bharata, , , , Hinduism, , , , , ,   

    Buddhism: Dharma is a law of Nature… 

    Dharma is a law of Nature, not a law of men. That much must be acknowledged, even if the details are a little bit sketchy. After all, it would be much too easy just to call it the ‘law of the Buddha’, since it precedes that event by a thousand years or so, even if the details are still no less sketchy. But the Vedic Brahmanists used the word profusely, as if the meaning were obvious, and so we could probably surmise that the term meant something like Socrates’s ‘good life’ or just ‘living right.’

    Project that concept into the future Sanatana Dharma and you’ve got the phrase that traditional natives from India, Bharat(a), use to call the vast field of knowledge and belief that we call Hinduism. But I think that Buddhism refined the concept, even without limiting it, not really, as something analogous to the Middle Way, a path between luxury and lack. Add to that the early Buddhist association of dharma with jati, life, to refer to nature, dharmajati, and the symbiosis is complete.

    Dharma is irrevocably connected to nature, without much concern for who gets the credit. And that is the Holy Grail for modern creator-less religion, of course, something nature-based and at the same time rational and open to science. Bingo. That’s Buddhism without the superstition, meditation-based, Vipassana, discipline without all the deities. Now reference the Thai Forest Tradition, or any other forest tradition, and the circle is complete, also. Nature is our temple, and dharma is our practice.  

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 4:36 am on October 27, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , asceticism, , , , , , , Hinduism, , , , , , Padmasambhava, , , , Upanishads, ,   

    Buddhism is the Middle Path between Jainism and Brahmanism… 

    Brahmanism is what we now call ‘Hinduism’, but that term didn’t really exist way back when, only recently applied by the Brits to the plethora of sects and devotions which now constitute Hinduism. But it was in the midst of the Upanishad era at the time of the Buddha, which would redefine the previously Indra-based fire rituals which had reigned during the Vedic times. And with the advent of the new Upanishadic orientation, the resulting resemblance to Buddhism was profound—but still distinct.

    And so was Jainism distinct from both of them, at the same time that it shares much with them. But remember, that the ‘Hinduism’ that the Jain reacted to in the 6th century BCE is not the same as modern Hinduism, either, and that is partly because of this same three-way dialogue. Jainism was largely a reaction against the Brahmanists’ fire sacrifices, they being extreme nonviolent vegetarians. But many modern Hindus are also vegetarians, with Buddhists characteristically somewhere ‘in between.’

    That’s the Middle Path, specifically between the extreme asceticism of the Jains and the lavish rituals of the ‘Hindus’, but also between the many gods of Hinduism and the total lack of them in Jainism. Technically Buddhists don’t really have them, either, but, you know… Later versions of Buddhism were not so strict about that, such as the Tibetan version of Vajrayana, which came direct from India sometime after the 5th century and attested by Padmasambhava in the 8th century.

    But both Jains and Hindus were crazy about souls, Jains finding them everywhere and Hindus finding them cosmic, Atman, preferably in union with the cosmic dharma principle Brahman. But Buddhism found little of value in any of that, and so chose non-self anatta. So, they all evolved into different sects with different orientations, and we generally all get along nicely. The main difference is that Hinduism tilted toward a nationalism which international Buddhism could never assimilate. And Jains, ‘winners’ in Sanskrit, were ultimately the losers.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 8:16 am on September 7, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , Hinduism, , , , , , , ,   

    Buddhism: It’s a Process… 

    I am not the same person as yesterday, and I will be a different person tomorrow. I am not DNA code. I am skandhas, anatta, annicca, that is: I am a ‘heap’ of causes and conditions, nothing permanent, always changing. So don’t get too attached to yourself or to anyone else, because tomorrow offers no guarantees. Oh, and one more thing: there’s no soul, at least nothing like what the Christians or Hindus have in mind, eternal and/or cosmic, though Buddhism usually allows for at least a limited sort of rebirth.

    After all, we don’t want to get too dreary now, do we? Certainly not. But the principles listed here are foundational to Buddhism. And so, life and the world are at least somewhat illusory, at least in their most obvious manifestations as part of the visual and sensory feast that constitute our world of perceptions. But there is another principle that is even more important to some of us as Buddhists, and that’s the concept of the Middle path, which can be applied to almost anything, including itself, that hypothetical middle path which defines Buddhism by its very lack of definition.

    And such is the history of Buddhism, as it evolves almost dialectically, from thesis to antithesis to synthesis, only to start the process all over again. It is in that view that Buddhism emerged in the first place, as the middle path between the excesses of Hinduism and the extreme renunciation of Jainism. And it is that process which continues today, as Mahayana offers an alternative to the original Theravada, and to which Vajrayana and Zen start the process all over again. Now the original Theravada Buddhism would like to remake itself as Vipassana: meditation, that is, first and foremost. I like that idea.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 3:52 am on June 2, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: anatman, , , , , , , Hinduism, Indus River, , , , , , , , , ,   

    Buddhism vs. Hinduism, Non-Self vs. Cosmic Self…  

    Anatta/anatman (non-self) doesn’t mean that we are nothing, just not much: no permanent soul, certainly nothing cosmic like Brahman. And this is where the fundamental concept comes from, the debate with the Brahmanists that we now call Hindus, though at that time (500BCE) the term was unknown, at least to Indians themselves. Because that’s all that the term ever meant, really: people of the Indus River, i.e. Sindhu or Hindu, a river now identified with Pakistan. India is now more identified with the Ganges.  

    But the distinction that the Buddha wanted to make between his worldview and that of the Brahmanists was that he saw nothing like the cosmic Atman ‘self’ that they propose to unite with the equally cosmic Brahman god-stuff that exists as the creative principle of the Universe. And while Hindus recognize Buddhism as but one of many Hindu Veda-based sects, Buddhism is having none of that, and the self/non-self debate is at the heart of that issue.  

    In fact, Buddhism relegates ‘self’ to ‘heaps’ of random qualities called ‘skandhas’ or ‘khandhas’ in Sanskrit or Pali. They are form, feeling, perception, consciousness, and reasoning, of which we all share equal and certain quantities. No one collection of such qualities is more important than any other, just as no one person is better than any other. The racist caste system of India will forever define the difference between Hinduism and Buddhism, and the atman/anatman distinction is at the heart of that.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 4:59 am on April 21, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , Hinduism, , , , ,   

    Buddhism 202: Nature is the Law of Life  

    Nature is a law, not a mountain. Rivers and oceans have no more independent existence than you or I. But this is a bone of contention among religions, now, isn’t it, and possibly the main point of division between competing philosophies? Because, if an eternal soul divides Hinduism from Buddhism in India, then the same issue is what divides almost all Western religions from their secular counterparts. After all, isn’t that why most Asians become Christians? Eternal life is Christianity’s main selling point internationally.

    But Nature tends to get a pass from such easy distinctions. Mountains are sacred and rivers aren’t bad. Beaches draw the riffraff, but sublime locations can still be had, if one cares to take a walk and distance oneself from the madding and maddening crowds. And isn’t that what makes a place spiritual, anyway, the silence and the solitude and the serenity implicit in such sublime locations? Bring in the tourist hordes, and the nicest places can quickly go downhill fast, training wheels optional. 

    But that’s neither here nor there from the standpoint of the law that is dharma. The only important thing from the standpoint of dharma is the fact that these phenomena occur in regular and predictable ways, subject to certain causes and conditions. Thus, nature is not random, not entirely, anyway, and not within the time scales utilized by human perception. The implicit beauty is just eye candy for hungry hearts. More important are the principles that govern such relationships. In Thai nature is ธรรมชาติ, dhammashart, the law of life… 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 4:06 am on January 20, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Branhmanism, , Divine Feminine, , , Hinduism, , , , , , , ,   

    Buddhism and the Divine Feminine  

    Is a creator God a product of patriarchy? Probably. Buddhism doesn’t need it, regardless. Buddhism embodies the Divine Feminine, whether it knows it or not. This goes way back, of course, even before the Abrahamic religions, at least as far back as the Sanskrit-era Dyaus Pitr (think Deus Pater) ‘Sky Father’ of the proto-Hindu Rigveda, and probably before that. But Sky Father was always with Earth Mother Prithvi Mata, and that pretty much defines the Hindu/Buddhist dichotomy that dominated the philosophical debates of 500 BCE India, Hinduism the more male-dominant principle, Buddhist the more female-dominant. 

    And this is important, even if it is seldom stated, or even acknowledged, given the lesser status of Buddhist nuns, in comparison to their male counterparts. But it’s there, and it’s true, from what I can see, and that is good. It means that Buddhism is non-agressive, and that is purpose-built, in stark opposition to the early Brahmanistic war god Indra, which Buddhism refuses to acknowledge as its heritage. It also means that Buddhism is more concerned with down-to-earth issues of kindness, and craving, than abstract considerations of dualism vs. non-dualism. 

    Thus, Buddhism embodies many of the qualities often associated with the ‘divine feminine,’ such as ‘intuition, nurturing, creativity, empathy, and wisdom’ (www.anahana.com). So, it should be unnecessary to say that Buddhism is not a conquering religion, unless you count the hearts and minds conquered, not bodies inscribed with epithets and enlisted in future wars with imaginary enemies. Buddhism is better than that. Conquer yourself and you will have conquered the world, your world… 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 6:51 am on November 12, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Hinduism, , , , , ,   

    Buddhism in the Real World: To Be or Not To Be… 

    When you believe in yourself, don’t believe too much, just enough to accomplish what you need, not enough to inflate your ego. But this is a hard thing to measure, so must simply somehow be ‘felt,’ as if it were a real substantial thing. It’s not. This is the problem which often occurs when all the ‘other’ religions, philosophies, theoretical sciences, and sundry spiritualities like Hinduism, Buddhism, quantum physics, and chaos theory all get lumped together as co-equal partners in ‘New Age’ metaphysics. 

    The problem, of course, is that many are mutually contradictory. Many things simply can’t be had both ways, Buddhism and Hinduism being the best examples. Hindus believe in an eternal soul. Buddhists don’t. Still Hindus consider Buddhists a renegade sect and constantly try to surround them and close the circle (zero?) while no one is looking. Karma, rebirth and past lives are the best-laid trap, to which Buddhism must constantly be on guard not to fully submit, lest it become ‘just another Hindu sect.’ 

    And so it is with you. Self is not a binary choice, all or none, duality or non-duality. You can be a personality with a happy and fruitful time in this life and this world without ever being left with the dubious choice of a cosmic eternal all-important soul or a subject-less object-less witness to actions that you have no right to. Our sentences have subjects and objects, whether English, Spanish, or Hindi, and so do you, if you want them. You are only an unwilling participant, simple mindless witness, if you so choose. You can be as active as you want, and you can tell Robert Adams that I said so. 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 11:45 am on August 21, 2022 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Hinduism, , , , , ,   

    Modern Buddhism: Past Lives or Present Moment? You Decide… 

    I accept all forms of Buddhism, as long as they have no quarrel with Science. But, that’s easier said than done, given the spat over rebirth, as to exactly what it means and how it applies. The main conundrum, of course, is that Buddha cut his teeth on his anatta no-self doctrine, and so, if Buddhism accepts rebirth, then what exactly is it that gets reborn? Good question. And many are the answers, ranging from karma to consciousness, anything but the body itself in reincarnation, complete with a permanent self or soul intact.

    Because, that’s the Hindu Vedic Brahmanistic principle that the Buddha was in fierce competition with, and this was the most prominent point of departure between them, so a definite no-no. So, the Buddhists tend to explain the controversy away, while at the same time talking about past and future lives like so many trips to the grocery store. And many Buddhists will explain that not only is this not unscientific, but science is gradually coming around to a similar view. I’ve got a better idea: drop the whole idea, since it’s not really necessary, anyway, so why raise a ruckus over something this has no proven relevance to this life in this world, which is all that we really know?

    The irony is that many of these ‘re-birthers’ are Present Moment Buddhists, also, the same Buddhists who most loudly promote the relatively new idea that this so-called ‘present moment’ is not only all that we can know, but it’s all that there is. But this idea is not only in direct contradiction with Rebirth and Past Lives, but it’s also in contradiction with itself, simply because it defies common sense, in that what we see in life is not a still photo, but a movie, by analogy. Okay, but a movie is a succession of twenty-four frames per second, still the present moment people seem to be insistent upon THIS present moment, and no other.

    This may be only a problem of syntax and semantics though, since Eckhart Tolle has no real problem with his concept of the NOW, which, like particles or waves, may presumably be envisioned as either individual moments or a stream in flow. And, like rebirth, maybe it’s just best not to think about it too much. After all, Eckhart Tolle is not a Buddhist, anyway, and neither is much of what he says, but much also is, and the concept of NOW has much currency in the modern New Age movement. Bottom line: neither can be proven by Science, Past Lives or Present Moments. Still, I’d gladly take NOW, with all its conceptual flaws, if that could put the final nail in the coffin of rebirth. It’s time. We can deal with NOW in the next millennium, if that’s how long it takes…

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 9:33 am on September 6, 2021 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , Hinduism, , , Snaskrit   

    Buddhism: Self, Consciousness, DNA and Thought… 

    I am not the same person as yesterday, and I will be a different person tomorrow. I am not DNA code. I am skandhas, anatta, anicca. For those of you unfamiliar with Buddhist terminology in Sanskrit or Pali, then anicca is impermanence, anatta is non-self, and skandhas are the ‘heaps’ of conditions that comprise us. If this all sounds a bit like the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, then please see my previous blog. So, in essence, we are phenomena, undefined and of an uncertain nature. Even the best scientists have not yet figured it all out, and that won’t change the Buddhist perspective, anyway, because it would likely only be later disproven.

    Because the Buddhist perspective is to deny any special preeminent position to the self or the soul, or any other permanent fixed immortal and eternal personality, which is the specialty of some religions, notably Christianity, and in a different way, Hinduism. Thus, this is an ontological position, in the hierarchy of Being and beings, but it also serves to deflate the over-puffed egos of Alpha males and others with more stuffing than substance to their personalities. All that is vanity, hubris, and a threat to the natural order, the human race, and psychological health, which the Buddha intuited long ago, without the benefit of science.

    The fact that Buddhism traditionally reserves a place for a poorly defined ‘rebirth’ seems to show that it is still conflicted with its role in the larger Indian tradition, since it’s difficult to say exactly what it is that gets reborn. The fact that it is unconcerned with that inconsistency would seem to indicate that it’s playing the long game and is willing to let that issue work itself out eventually. The Buddha himself said something similar to that effect, that it’s better to live as if rebirth were a proven fact, even though that proof is not yet there. I’m okay with that. Thus, it also indicates that Buddhism is something of an open doctrine. I’m okay with that, too. Sounds like the Middle Path to me.

    Now I love DNA, but that’s not the subject here. The subject here is me—or the lack thereof. DNA can tell the provenance and much of the story that its humble sponsor—me—and my forebears have taken over the last umpteen millennia—and counting, but it still can’t say much about me. And that thread of DNA winds back into time immemorial, not always recombining, and so may be almost eternal, and thus immortal, but that’s not me. What is ‘me’ is a jumble of memories and perceptions, sensations and reflections, that all often go under the general term ‘thought.’ But consciousness and thought are not synonymous. Thought depends on language. Consciousness does not. That is the difference, and in many ways it is superior. Cogito ergo no sum. Scio ergo sum.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 10:57 am on August 1, 2021 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , Dhammapada, Hinduism, , , ,   

    Present Moment vs Past Lives, Buddhism vs Christianity… 

    “Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present moment.” – Fake Buddha Quotes

    “Do not dwell on the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present moment,” is a saying that is often attributed to the Buddha, but in fact is not, and even qualifies as a ‘Fake Buddha Quote,’ though it is not so far off the mark, really. As explained in that FBQ website, the quote itself comes from a 1934 Japanese Buddhist booklet, but ultimately seems to derive from the Dhammapada verse 348 which literally says something like (depending on the translation from Pali):

    Let go of the past, let go of the future.
    Let go of the present. Having gone beyond becoming,
    with mind completely freed,
    you will never again come to birth and aging.

    So that’s ‘Same same but different,’ as we say in Thai pidgin English. The FBQ website’s articulation is well worth reading, but my main take on it is that the present is also rejected, which best makes the point of the Buddhist foundation in renunciation, not ‘present moment,’ which is probably best described as Eckhart Tolle’s philosophy, possibly via that same Japanese thread. Which is all fine and good, as far as it goes. The problem is that it doesn’t really go very far. And neither does the Buddhist renunciation principle, which is very Jain-like in essence.

    (More …)
     

← Older posts

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel