Differences between Hinduism and Buddhism

[Mu_]

3 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

There is no universe or reality existing upon itself, it is dependent upon conditions. If one conditions changes, the universe or reality changes. If all conditions are gone, the universe is gone. The conditions are just the aspect of universe. 

So, in the relativity of the universe the dependent arising is absolute.

So does your Buddhist training not go into the question of what created the possibility for the arising of anything?

 

[Emanyalpsid]

14 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

 

So it seems Buddhism (or some sects) stops at a certain point of understanding and doesn't go into the Brahman understanding.

 

That is funny, I guess that a Buddhist would say that a Hinduist stops at the Brahman.

[Emanyalpsid]

1 hour ago, Mu_ said:

So does your Buddhist training not go into the question of what created the possibility for the arising of anything?

 

The inquiry goes into this and sees that the cause is dependent upon the effect.

How come you want to wake up to a truth about what you are?

Edited December 11, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[lmfao]

@Emanyalpsid Alan Watts said that in his view of the world which is "semi Hindu and semi Buddhist" he said that all the different parts of reality are expressions of one god. In whatever ways you choose to draw boundaries and distinctions in reality so as to allow the existence of objects/organisms/events, all of these things are simply god playing different roles in reality. It's like God is this actor playing different roles. 

Another level to this anology is that a a good actor gets lost in their role and forgets what their "true self" is like. In the same way, God is losing awareness of himself in playing these roles. 

[Preetom]

2 hours ago, Emanyalpsid said:

The inquiry goes into this and sees that the cause is dependent upon the effect.

How come you want to wake up to a truth about what you are?

Do you see that how you are comfortably avoiding the 'knowing' aspect over and over again?

How can you make any legitimate claim without 'knowing' it?

You might say that 'knowing' can't stand on itself without an object to know, as everything is dependent. But then again, the question arises how do you 'know' that? 

We are back again at square one.

Edited December 11, 2018 by Preetom

[Preetom]

I found a Buddha quote(hope it's his ), which I think is so critical for serious open minded inquiry, how the ruthless observation and dis-identification should go on.

''The very idea of existence implies a dwelling place, therefore its clinging. Both 'is' and 'is not' are a dualism that has no room in true mind (subtle consciousness, the mind without beginning) "
- The Buddha

It is basically the same instruction of how true neti neti(self-inquiry) should go on(which is an vedanta technique). It's just that hindus form a metaphysical absolute background called Brahman(or pure existence) for the purpose of teaching but Buddhists don't make such an assumption. Yes Brahman is an assumption, the same way 'Nirvana' is also an assumption. But they must inevitably reach to the same placeless place.

[Emanyalpsid]

1 hour ago, lmfao said:

@Emanyalpsid

2 hours ago, Mu_ said:

 

@Preetom seeing is knowing. Becoming aware is knowing. If I see that a cup breaks if I drop it, the effect of the breaking lies in me dropping it. If I didn't drop it, it wouldn't break. 

So we are not back at square one, I answered your questions. However you did not answered my question to you. You said;

In ancient times Advaita Vedanta started with an inquiry like this,

"Is there one thing, if understood properly, can explain the entirety of everything?"

My question was; is the absolute truth an answer to this question?

Are you trying to distract the attention away from this question? Are you avoiding this question?

[Preetom]

16 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

In ancient times Advaita Vedanta started with an inquiry like this,

"Is there one thing, if understood properly, can explain the entirety of everything?"

My question was; is the absolute truth an answer to this question?

Are you trying to distract the attention away from this question? Are you avoiding this question?

Sorry I may haven't understood your question before.

Yes. Enlightenment must answer this question. If Enlightenment means knowing who you are without a shadow of a doubt, then there is a finality to it. It is in one sense the end of a search.

But that doesn't mean life and growth is over. Life still goes on, on it's multifarious levels; from the level of thoughts, to the level of gross, physical world, any way you want to conceptualize. But a fundamental finality is realized as well. That's why language breaks here trying to explain post-enlightenment.

16 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

@Preetom seeing is knowing. Becoming aware is knowing. If I see that a cup breaks if I drop it, the effect of the breaking lies in me dropping it. If I didn't drop it, it wouldn't break. 

So you are basically saying that Causality is Absolute Truth?

How do you 'know' that Consciousness cannot stand on it's own ground? You can't refer to a thought or scripture. It's only Consciousness that knows. Thoughts and scriptures cannot know. They are known.

Edited December 11, 2018 by Preetom

[Emanyalpsid]

5 minutes ago, Preetom said:

Sorry I may haven't understood your question before.

Yes. Enlightenment must answer this question. If Enlightenment means knowing who you are without a shadow of a doubt, then there is a finality to it. It is in one sense the end of a search.

Indeed, the answer is dependent upon the question. If you look for a truth, you must find a truth.

5 minutes ago, Preetom said:

But that doesn't mean life and growth is over. Life still goes on, on it's multifarious levels; from the level of thoughts, to the level of gross, physical world, any way you want to conceptualize. But a fundamental finality is realized as well. That's why language breaks here trying to explain post-enlightenment.

So you are basically saying that Causality is Absolute Truth?

No, they are of dependent arising. If a cause exists an effect exists. But this causality only exists in the mind. It is just the ever changing flow of reality. Only if we make a distinction, meaning define something, there is dependent arising.

5 minutes ago, Preetom said:

How do you 'know' that Consciousness cannot stand on it's own ground? You can't refer to a thought or scripture. It's only Consciousness that knows. Thoughts and scriptures cannot know. They are known.

1 hour ago, lmfao said:

@Emanyalpsid

2 hours ago, Mu_ said:

 

@Preetomwell I am only aware of a consciousness in this body. My consciousness changes with changes I make to the body. If I sleep good, eat well, exercise, etc. My consciousness changes. I am not aware of a consciousness outside of this body.

[Preetom]

25 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

@Preetomwell I am only aware of a consciousness in this body. My consciousness changes with changes I make to the body. If I sleep good, eat well, exercise, etc. My consciousness changes. I am not aware of a consciousness outside of this body.

exactly!

When Hindus talk about Brahmanic Consciousness, they don't refer to this human consciousness that fluctuates day to day. So clearly, let's not talk about something we have no experience of.

25 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

No, they are of dependent arising. If a cause exists an effect exists. But this causality only exists in the mind. It is just the ever changing flow of reality. Only if we make a distinction, meaning define something, there is dependent arising.

So this 'mind' is the unchanging ground for this absolute relativity? If that is the case, then I'm pretty sure hindus call this 'mind'/'reality' as Brahman. Ta da!

1) Now if you say that this 'mind' itself is subject to dependent arising or causality, then your argument becomes incoherent. How can you distinguish a 'mind' in which causality is happening, when that 'mind' itself is subject to dependent arising? Then there cannot be a 'mind' as opposed to dependent arising; only dependent arising rests on it's own ground.

2) Or you might claim that dependent arising is only mentioned because we are trying to think and conceptualize stuff here. Well, hindus say the same thing! Without referring to a thought or concept, there is no universe/space/time/causality. But there is 'something' that must alone exist. That 'something' is Brahman/Buddha mind/Absolute.

It all comes back to the soup. There was always only the Soup from the get go~

Edited December 11, 2018 by Preetom

[Forestluv]

8 minutes ago, Preetom said:

It all comes back to the soup. There was always only the Soup from the get go~

Back to the Soup again!! ? ?

[Preetom]

Just now, Serotoninluv said:

Back to the Soup again!! ? ?

Let's call it vegetable curry and start the fight all over again! 

[Forestluv]

3 minutes ago, Preetom said:

Let's call it vegetable curry and start the fight all over again! 

Veggie curry? C’mon. Chicken Masala is the absolute best, even in a relative cuisine construct. ? 

[Emanyalpsid]

9 minutes ago, Preetom said:

So this 'mind' is the unchanging ground for this absolute relativity? If that is the case, then I'm pretty sure hindus call this 'mind'/'reality' as Brahman. Ta da!

It is not unchanging as everything is conditioned as I explained earlier.

9 minutes ago, Preetom said:

1) Now if you say that this 'mind' itself is subject to dependent arising or causality, then your argument becomes incoherent. How can you distinguish a 'mind' in which causality is happening, when that 'mind' itself is subject to dependent arising? Then there cannot be a 'mind' as opposed to dependent arising; only dependent arising rests on it's own ground.

Dependent arising can exist besides eachother. Senses-body, cause-effect, matter-gravity, space-time, life-sourrounding, consciousness-reality, etc. Mind is just part of the senses, thus arises with body. If you make a distinction there is dependent arising.

9 minutes ago, Preetom said:

2) Or you might claim that dependent arising is only mentioned because we are trying to think and conceptualize stuff here. Well, hindus say the same thing! Without referring to a thought or concept, there is no universe/space/time/causality. But there is 'something' that must alone exist. That 'something' is Brahman/Buddha mind/Absolute.

Indeed, they are just concepts, all words and thoughts are concepts. You think that something alone must exist because that is the question you ask yourself, like we established. The answer is dependent upon the question. If you look for a truth, you must find a truth.

Again, everytime we make a distinction there is dependent arising. So, if you look for something to exist alone, you are looking for something opposed to nothing. However, you can only define something with the help of nothing. Without nothing there would be no something and without something there would be no nothing. If nothing is included into something, this something does not exist alone as it includes nothing. So with something arises nothing.

9 minutes ago, Preetom said:

It all comes back to the soup. There was always only the Soup from the get go~

 

[Preetom]

3 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

It is not unchanging as everything is conditioned as I explained earlier.

Then dependent arising itself becomes it's own ground

4 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

Dependent arising can exist besides eachother. Senses-body, cause-effect, matter-gravity, space-time, life-sourrounding, consciousness-reality, etc. Mind is just part of the senses, thus arises with body. If you make a distinction there is dependent arising.

What is there prior to making a distinction and thus having dependent arising? If there is 'nothing' prior to distinctions, then what are you making distinctions of?

6 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

The answer is dependent upon the question. If you look for a truth, you must find a truth.

But the truth doesn't show up as it was conceived beforehand, aye? 

7 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

Again, everytime we make a distinction there is dependent arising. So, if you look for something to exist alone, you are looking for something opposed to nothing. However, you can only define something with the help of nothing. Without nothing there would be no something and without something there would be no nothing. If nothing is included into something, this something does not exist alone as it includes nothing. So with something arises nothing.

Again you are conflating theoretical background developed for teaching purposes and how the methodologies actually work.

You don't search for 'something' and reach to Truth. Like I said, enlightenment itself is realized as non-existent and that is Enlightenment(paradoxical).

Not 'something', not 'nothing'. What remains?

[Forestluv]

12 minutes ago, Preetom said:

Not 'something', not 'nothing'. What remains?

Soup? ? 

[Preetom]

Just now, Serotoninluv said:

Soup? ? 

Some people may have allergic reaction to that word *coughs* 

[Hellspeed]

Genuine Hinduism initiation is superior to Buddhism. 

Awakening is something is seen on the fisionomy. More awakened, more natural, more fit, more proportionate. Awakening is a matter of recovering the superior fisionomy of childhood, compared to west uptight zombies. 

[Emanyalpsid]

11 minutes ago, Preetom said:

Then dependent arising itself becomes it's own ground

No, as I explained earlier the universe is dependent upon conditions. So in a relative universe dependent arising is absolute. Without a universe no dependent arising.

11 minutes ago, Preetom said:

What is there prior to making a distinction and thus having dependent arising? If there is 'nothing' prior to distinctions, then what are you making distinctions of?

It is not a question of prior, there is distinction and no-distinction as dependent arising.

11 minutes ago, Preetom said:

But the truth doesn't show up as it was conceived beforehand, aye? 

Well the answer to the absolute truth lied in your question.

11 minutes ago, Preetom said:

Again you are conflating theoretical background developed for teaching purposes and how the methodologies actually work.

You don't search for 'something' and reach to Truth. Like I said, enlightenment itself is realized as non-existent and that is Enlightenment(paradoxical).

Not 'something', not 'nothing'. What remains?

You could also read it like; If you say that something exists alone, you are saying that something is opposed to nothing.

If you look for the truth you must find the truth.

 

But we are repeating ourselves, you don't understand me as you hold that something (Brahman, absolute) exist. I am trying to explain to you why this isn't so, however, because you hold on to this absolute, you do not understand me.

So let's leave it at this. It is the difference between Buddhism and Hinduism.

[Preetom]

1 minute ago, Emanyalpsid said:

So let's leave it at this. It is the difference between Buddhism and Hinduism.

More like difference between Emanyalpsid and Preetom 

Hasn't this been the case down the ages?