Differences between Hinduism and Buddhism

[Preetom]

3 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

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

The 'place' which you aren't willing to name, hindus named it as Brahman. That's it.

[Forestluv]

7 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

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.

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

Mu hasn’t revealed itself to you. You’ve got a lot of priors to go. . . 

[Leo Gura]

The Absolute in none other than all arising contingent phenomena.

The Absolute is all that exists. If you can see it, it is the Absolute. Your toilet is the Absolute.

If look at your toilet real closely, for a long time, you will realize it is God.

That's nonduality. Nothing is hidden or separate.

[Anirban657]

Both religions lead to the realisation of the Absolute. 

Edited December 11, 2018 by Anirban657

[Mu_]

7 hours ago, Emanyalpsid said:

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

 

7 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?

I'll have to keep looking into the different views of Buddhism schools, but the one your sharing and the one I read about (yogacara) seem to stop at the notion that enlightenment is waking up to the realization that there is just ones human consciousness/congition, and nothing independent of that one can realize or see outside of that, along with the world exists outside of this and is not dependent on human mind/consciousness to be there.  One could say they've mastered the path of understanding cognition, maybe?  Correct me if I"m wrong at any point.

Buddhism stops at a place of nothinness that is termed, non-questioning/grasping and from here its understood that when a question is asked (such as what created all this or created the possibility for all this), it is seen as arising within human consciousness and as you say inherently dependent on the natural nothingness that it arose from. 

This then leads to, the idea or experience of knowing a Brahnma type realization is said to be a silly idea since it would be a arising question that is answered within this space of nothingness and would thus be boiled down to Buddhist enlightened mind as a idea of something that arose and not the actual recognition of Absolute, but a interpretation of a question and an experience that manifested from it?

[Emanyalpsid]

9 hours ago, Mu_ said:

 

I'll have to keep looking into the different views of Buddhism schools, but the one your sharing and the one I read about (yogacara) seem to stop at the notion that enlightenment is waking up to the realization that there is just ones human consciousness/congition, and nothing independent of that one can realize or see outside of that, along with the world exists outside of this and is not dependent on human mind/consciousness to be there.  One could say they've mastered the path of understanding cognition, maybe?  Correct me if I"m wrong at any point.

You are totally correct. In other words; from the human consciousness they see that everything is of dependent arising, including consciousness. If there is no perceived reality, there is no consciousness, and the other way around. However, there seems to be a reality (the universe) outside of consciousness as the sun sets in the west when we go to sleep and rises in the east when we wake up. But when we look closely at this reality, we see that a flower is dependent upon everything that surrounds the flower, so anything is relative and dependent upon everything that constitutes it and surrounds it. Just as a toilet is dependent upon matter, gravity, space and time.

Quote

Buddhism stops at a place of nothinness that is termed, non-questioning/grasping and from here its understood that when a question is asked (such as what created all this or created the possibility for all this), it is seen as arising within human consciousness and as you say inherently dependent on the natural nothingness that it arose from. 

Exactly, the nothingness is non-grasping beause it is relative, there is no essence, so also the human consciousness is relative and the question. Your interpretation is spot on.

Quote

This then leads to, the idea or experience of knowing a Brahnma type realization is said to be a silly idea since it would be a arising question that is answered within this space of nothingness and would thus be boiled down to Buddhist enlightened mind as a idea of something that arose and not the actual recognition of Absolute, but a interpretation of a question and an experience that manifested from it?

Yes! Not the actual recognition of the absolute in the relative. But don't say silly, this could make them seem dumb. Buddhists prefer the term ignorant.

Addendum: one of the deeper causes of this experience they have, could be, that they are too heavily focused on dissolving the self, instead of looking what is around the self. But this is just a guess..

Edited December 11, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[p1xelmonk]

19 hours ago, Emanyalpsid said:

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

I will bow as this is your land.

lol claims to have attained literal nirvana while posting such snide, ego-fueled remarks on internet forums. actualized.org/forum is such a goldmine. go spend your time and energy doing something actually impactful is that's where you're at.

[Emanyalpsid]

57 minutes ago, p1xelmonk said:

lol claims to have attained literal nirvana while posting such snide, ego-fueled remarks on internet forums. actualized.org/forum is such a goldmine. go spend your time and energy doing something actually impactful is that's where you're at.

 And how should one behave after attaining Nirvana, according to you hmm? Look I have compassion for the guy, just as I have compassion for a murderer, this however does not mean I should tolerate all their behaviour. This was just me saying; Leo stfu if your only trying to defend your truth, without giving any further explanation than saying everything is absolute and do drugs to see it, and leave no room for the possibility your truth might be up for debate, without me actually saying this. Cause if I would say this directly to him, I would get banned. He does not want to hear he might be wrong as he is right. Its his forum, so I should conform to his rules. Therefore, I stopped into the direction he did not want me to go.

This thread is discussing the known differences between Hinduism and Buddhism, which there are, elsethey would not be different. So to claim they are not, without knowing what buddhism is really about, meaning what nirvana constitutes in a buddhist context, is just being close-minded or one-eyed.

However, we are al in this together and I celebrate Leo for a lot of interesting videos he made and starting up this website, he is really doing the work. In every good marriage there are tougher periods, but we are going somewhere here. Ill post a nice tune to lighten up the mood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI1Xe1sAPgY

Edited December 11, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[Forestluv]

It’s fine to discuss and debate differences between Hinduism and Buddhist, yet let’s be civil and refrain from personal finger-pointing and speculating about the intentions of others.

@Emanyalpsid Several users have tried to communicate to you that there is something that has not yet been revealed to you yet. You just don’t have the direct experience and won’t see it until you do. Some users may express this to you with a personal undertone, yet I assure you, what is being pointed to is trans-personal. It’s not about the personalities of you, me, Leo or other users. Misinterpreting it as personal is a distraction from what is being pointed to.

[Emanyalpsid]

Sadly, the several users dont understand what I am saying. Only Mu_ seems to understand my messages. The dependent origin goes beyond the absolute, meaning you let the absolute go. The absolute is something opposed to nothing, so you are still something (!). In Nirvana, in the buddhist context, there is complete emptiness, which is not something, it is no-thing, but this is not nothing. Everything becomes relative, meaning non-existence. This is not no existence. It is a place between existence and no existence, in the relative space in between. This no-thing is between something and nothing. There is non-perception, which resides between perception and no perception.

This something and nothing are explained by dependent arising, like distinction and no-distinction, etc. 

So, I understand and know what you are pointing to, but I am trying to explain how a buddhist sees this. However, none of you seem to be listening or are open to hear what I say, besides Mu_. You are pointing to this absolute, and I am saying; I see this absolute but look at this.

I don't make it personal, I am just a human being, so a lot of behaviour I can tolerate and some I can not. We are social creatures, thats why we are here.

 

Edited December 11, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[Forestluv]

@Emanyalpsid We are all working through various delusions, including myself. Sometimes it’s not always graceful. Yet through it all, we learn and grow. Yet, sometimes the growth looks different for different people.

[purerogue]

9 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

Sadly, the several users dont understand what I am saying. Only Mu_ seems to understand my messages. The dependent origin goes beyond the absolute, meaning you let the absolute go. The absolute is something opposed to nothing, so you are still something (!). In Nirvana, in the buddhist context, there is complete emptiness, which is not something, it is no-thing, but this is not nothing. Everything becomes relative, meaning non-existence. This is not no existence. It is a place between existence and no existence, in the relative space in between. This no-thing is between something and nothing. There is non-perception, which resides between perception and no perception.

This something and nothing are explained by dependent arising, like distinction and no-distinction, etc. 

So, I understand and know what you are pointing to, but I am trying to explain how a buddhist sees this. However, none of you seem to be listening or are open to hear what I say, besides Mu_. You are pointing to this absolute, and I am saying; I see this absolute but look at this.

I don't make it personal, I am just a human being, so a lot of behaviour I can tolerate and some I can not. We are social creatures, thats why we are here.

 

Interesting, but how can you be sure that it is still not the soup, well , if you get there come back to tell us!  

[Emanyalpsid]

I worked my way through some, but I was fortunate to not be deluded by different non-duality interpretations and by some half-ass advice from people who are somewhere on the path, but dont know which path and dont know where they are. That would only have confused me and I would most likely had not attained Nirvana by now.

If you stick to a paved path you have a good chance to reach the top. If you are trying to make the path for yourself, you end up somewhere, but this most likely will not be the top. Then you are trying to become buddha by yourself.  But everybody should do what they please. 

 

Edited December 11, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[purerogue]

1 minute ago, Emanyalpsid said:

I worked my way through some, but I was fortunate to not be deluded by different non-duality interpretations and by some half-ass advice from people who are somewhere on the path, but dont know which path and dont know where they are. That would only have confused me and I would most likely had not attained Nirvana by now.

If you stick to a path you have a good chance to reach the top. If you are trying to make the path for yourself, you end up somewhere, but this most likely is not the top. Then you are trying to become buddha by yourself.  But everybody should do what they please. 

 

I feel you , I was thinking about this today too , about how allot of people talk so much nonsense without having actual experience and how allot of information is just  beliefs, I can only stick to what I know is working and take only what is actual, it is not bad to have some debates, but there are so much misinformation by people who throw teaching without having grasped them them self, I do it myself, have to be careful not to get trapped in my own delusion.

[Emanyalpsid]

The irony on this forum is that a lot of people are pointing to the absolute and say you have to experience it to know it, without having any explanation to what it is.

Which makes it almost the same as a religion like Christianity. Besides this, these people on this forum, who point to this absolute, behave and react as if they hold the absolute truth, however they cant explain it.

I can explain everything, however, I do not claim to any truth.

[purerogue]

4 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

The irony on this forum is that a lot of people are pointing to the absolute and say you have to experience it to know it, without having any explanation to what it is.

Which makes it almost the same as a religion like Christianity. Besides this, these people on this forum, who point to this absolute, behave and react as if they hold the absolute truth, however they cant explain it.

I can explain everything, however, I do not claim to any truth.

Yes , being humble and understanding that you do not know much and it might be another delusion  is good way to go at it, does not mean that you should not give advice if you have some experience with problems people are facing.

Explaining is not the hard part, people will not understand it anyway, as you can look at one thing in million different ways. 

Edited December 11, 2018 by purerogue

[ground]

Both, buddhism and hinduism are empty of truth. Mere fabrications.

[Forestluv]

7 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

The irony on this forum is that a lot of people are pointing to the absolute and say you have to experience it to know it, without having any explanation to what it is.

Because it is inexplicable. That’s the point. One needs direct experience to realize.

[ground]

1 minute ago, Serotoninluv said:

Because it is inexplicable. That’s the point. One needs direct experience to realize.

Such alleged 'direct experience' is mere fabrication.

[Forestluv]

5 minutes ago, ground said:

Such alleged 'direct experience' is mere fabrication.

Of course. Without the direct experience, it will appear as fabrication. That is a big hurdle of resistance to get over.

Would you say your direct experience of actually having sex deepened your understanding of sex beyond what your mind imagined what sex would be like? Or was the direct experience of having sex just a mere fabrication?