Differences between Hinduism and Buddhism

[Mu_]

1 hour 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.

 

Yes I do get what your saying and glad you shared it, since  I was trying to expand my understanding of Buddhist thought and realization.  That said, I dont necessarily think its the ultimate or final understanding.  Hell dont even want to say that since it may be impossible to make such a claim. 

But I think what Seratoninlove is pointing to and perhaps others as well (I agree with them) is there is a recognition that is not relative, that is understood and realized (and yes within the human form), that is termed nothingness/infinity/god/nondual in Hinduism I believe and other practices which isn't clear you actually understand or have seen, perhaps since your awaking is just enough and you no longer need/want to seek more (your questions have been answered, your awake and happy, and that is fine), but none the less doesn't mean you've seen and understood everything. 

Then again you later made a comment that alluded to the nothingness that you leave unlabeled is the same as what Seratonin/others/me are talking about, and "maybe" it is, but if you don't understand or see that this nothingness/infinity/nondualness is the source and ground of it all, is in everything and is You and I and is not relative, is and always was the source, then no its not the same.  It really may not be that important honestly since the understanding doesn't create happiness and freedom necessarily, its just more knowledge and Truth.  So if your happy and understand reality to the degree your happy with and can help others, do so, just keep an open mind there is always more, and in this case, there is this piece of Truth you haven't understood, which again, doesn't mean you need/have to.

Edited December 11, 2018 by Mu_

[VioletFlame]

Most people struggle with exploring unseen/untouched sensations or empathizing and remotely experiencing moments that have not happened to them yet. Until it is actually experienced directly one will either avoid it or will not be able to grasp such a thought, concept or realization, except only contradict or try to debate it which isn't worth it and waste of time when they could be using this time to potentially experience it at any moment because it's always around us and winking at us really.

I've noticed even sometimes on the outside looking in, when someone experiences something highly significant in their life in which you'd think would flick a switch or get them to wake up...they still remain the same person, totally stagnant or ambivalent and in misery/denial.

I've come to many personal realizations in my life in which I cannot even muster or arrange into words the best possible way to describe what has blown my mind. Perhaps some things can only be understood internally as well and through personal experience. These things cannot always be defined or explained but at the same time there is such vastness of Truth and understanding to it that it is impossible to underestimate it once you do, all you feel is divine honesty and absolute truth.

But it's difficult for many people to try and imagine and experience something without encountering it visually or holding it in their hands so to speak.

[ground]

28 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

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

you're funny. But I understand that your insistance on alleged 'direct experience' is the basis of your authority. I.e. one can always claim 'direct experience' of this or that and reject 'direct experience' of this or that of an opponent.

 

28 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

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?

'Direct experience of having sex' is just a mere fabrication. Otherwise 'direct experience' would just be conceptuality. My understanding of whatever is mere conceptuality and fabrication.

 

[Forestluv]

@ground Perfectly stated for the space you are in.

Just be mindful that pontificating and giving advice to others on matters you lack experience can be counter-productive. 

 

[ground]

1 minute ago, Serotoninluv said:

@ground Perfectly stated for the space you are in. 

 

Neither I am in a space.

Nor am I outside of a space.

Nor am I both.

Nor am I neither.

But basically:

Neither do I and space exist.

Nor do I and space not exist.

Nor do I and space both.

Nor do I and space neither.

[Emanyalpsid]

1 hour ago, Mu_ said:

Yes I do get what your saying and glad you shared it, since  I was trying to expand my understanding of Buddhist thought and realization.  That said, I dont necessarily think its the ultimate or final understanding.  Hell dont even want to say that since it may be impossible to make such a claim. 

But I think what Seratoninlove is pointing to and perhaps others as well (I agree with them) is there is a recognition that is not relative, that is understood and realized (and yes within the human form), that is termed nothingness/infinity/god/nondual in Hinduism I believe and other practices which isn't clear you actually understand or have seen, perhaps since your awaking is just enough and you no longer need/want to seek more (your questions have been answered, your awake and happy, and that is fine), but none the less doesn't mean you've seen and understood everything. 

Yes this is the absolute in the relative of human form. If something is absolute, it is not non-dual as it is something opposed to nothing.

Quote

Then again you later made a comment that alluded to the nothingness that you leave unlabeled is the same as what Seratonin/others/me are talking about, and "maybe" it is, but if you don't understand or see that this nothingness/infinity/nondualness is the source and ground of it all, is in everything and is You and I and is not relative, is and always was the source, then no its not the same.  It really may not be that important honestly since the understanding doesn't create happiness and freedom necessarily, its just more knowledge and Truth.  So if your happy and understand reality to the degree your happy with and can help others, do so, just keep an open mind there is always more, and in this case, there is this piece of Truth you haven't understood, which again, doesn't mean you need/have to.

If I referred to nothingness, I meant no-thingness. Which is literally no-thing, but also not nothing. It is relative and therefore unlabeable as it is no-thing.

If truth arises, no truth or belief arises. Truth is only truth opposed to no truth or belief. As knowledge is only knowledge opposed to no knowledge. It is just a creation of the self trying to label something, by labeling it. The self is very stubborn and tries to hold onto things by trying to label something to identify to. To have a sense of grip, an illusion to be in control of your consciousness as being something out there as a source. You can identify with a so-called truth or knowledge. This truth or knowledge only exist in the mind.

This mind is open for everything.  I can put any truth in it, but it will only be my truth. I can put any knowledge in it, but it would only be my knowledge. Absolute in the relativity of my mind. The truth is in my mind and the belief is outside my mind. The knowledge is in my mind and no knowledge is outside my mind. My mind can verify things, therefore claim a truth, outside my mind there is no verification, therefore no truth or belief.

Edited December 11, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[Forestluv]

35 minutes ago, VioletFlame said:

Most people struggle with exploring unseen/untouched sensations or empathizing and remotely experiencing moments that have not happened to them yet. Until it is actually experienced directly one will either avoid it or will not be able to grasp such a thought, concept or realization, except only contradict or try to debate it which isn't worth it and waste of time when they could be using this time to potentially experience it at any moment because it's always around us and winking at us really.

I've noticed even sometimes on the outside looking in, when someone experiences something highly significant in their life in which you'd think would flick a switch or get them to wake up...they still remain the same person, totally stagnant or ambivalent and in misery/denial.

I've come to many personal realizations in my life in which I cannot even muster or arrange into words the best possible way to describe what has blown my mind. Perhaps some things can only be understood internally as well and through personal experience. These things cannot always be defined or explained but at the same time there is such vastness of Truth and understanding to it that it is impossible to underestimate it once you do, all you feel is divine honesty and absolute truth.

But it's difficult for many people to try and imagine and experience something without encountering it visually or holding it in their hands so to speak.

This got me thinking of different modes of learning and understanding. We are most familiar with the traditional mode of learning by reading information, thinking, analyzing, discussing thoughts, thinking some more, figuring it out, building concepts etc. 

Yet, there are other modes of learning and understanding. Other modes that take in information, yet not through words and thinking. This mode utilizes intuition, empathy and emotion.  These modes are inexplicable in words because they are nonverbal modes.

When the intellect mode and intuition/empathy/emotion mode are misaligned, internal conflict and tension may arise.

[ground]

A recommendation:

If you're interested in the ultimate (??) difference between hinduism and buddhism in terms of conceptual teachings then investigate into the difference between advaita (hinduism) and advaya (buddhism).

If you're interested in the ultimate difference between hinduism and buddhism in terms of the fruits of the paths then investigate into the difference between nonconceptual fruit of hindu path and nonconceptual fruit of buddhist path. Good luck!

 

Edited December 11, 2018 by ground

[Emanyalpsid]

52 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

This got me thinking of different modes of learning and understanding. We are most familiar with the traditional mode of learning by reading information, thinking, analyzing, discussing thoughts, thinking some more, figuring it out, building concepts etc. 

Yet, there are other modes of learning and understanding. Other modes that take in information, yet not through words and thinking. This mode utilizes intuition, empathy and emotion.  These modes are inexplicable in words because they are nonverbal modes.

When the intellect mode and intuition/empathy/emotion mode are misaligned, internal conflict and tension may arise.

I agree, if you focus too much on the verbal information, you tend to neglect or overlook the non-verbal information. This shifts our 'perception' towards the intellect.

[Mu_]

1 hour ago, Emanyalpsid said:

Yes this is the absolute in the relative of human form. If something is absolute, it is not non-dual as it is something opposed to nothing.

If I referred to nothingness, I meant no-thingness. Which is literally no-thing, but also not nothing. It is relative and therefore unlabeable as it is no-thing.

If truth arises, no truth or belief arises. Truth is only truth opposed to no truth or belief. As knowledge is only knowledge opposed to no knowledge. It is just a creation of the self trying to label something, by labeling it. The self is very stubborn and tries to hold onto things by trying to label something to identify to. To have a sense of grip, an illusion to be in control of your consciousness as being something out there as a source. You can identify with a so-called truth or knowledge. This truth or knowledge only exist in the mind.

This mind is open for everything.  I can put any truth in it, but it will only be my truth. I can put any knowledge in it, but it would only be my knowledge. Absolute in the relativity of my mind. The truth is in my mind and the belief is outside my mind. The knowledge is in my mind and no knowledge is outside my mind. My mind can verify things, therefore claim a truth, outside my mind there is no verification, therefore no truth or belief.

Ok, thanks for the responses so far, but still and I find this interesting of conversation in general, its so hard to nail down what someone is pointing sometimes.

Can you describe more by what you mean as no-thing. 

Is this a state/experience that is within your every experience.

Is it wisdom gained through what you;ve pointed to in Buddhist understanding as everything being relative in relation to something else, conscious/reality, flower/soil/sun/earth, feelings/body/mind.  This wisdom is a no-thing?

Or is this no-thing an actual understanding of it/oneself/the universe and It being the source of all?

 

See from where I stand, there is never not god/infinity/oneness/nonduality.  I see what you've been describing within this bubble since nothing is not that.  

Absolute is a interesting term I was reflecting on my bike-ride to work after I used the term.  It can have isolating/hierarchical interpretations.  When understood of what I'm talking about, Absolute is not on this scale, nothing is not Absolute, so all is thus absolute.  A baby craving food, is Absolute in that form, having Absolute experience.   You or I awakening to this understanding again is Absolute in action as such and this experience is no higher or lower then the babies, its all Absolute/God/Inifinty.  

Waking up to this understanding as a human is a metaphorical pointing to a actual truth that is not merely just a belief a person/body/mind is having, its pointing like Buddhist believe the sun to rise in the east and set in the west, to a actual occurrence that humans fit within wether we are here or not.   This isn't some ignorance arising in the clean eye of no-thingness or a illusion held onto a self for security, which I sometimes get the sense is where your coming from.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

Edited December 11, 2018 by Mu_

[ground]

15 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

Ok, thanks for the responses so far, but still and I find this interesting of conversation in general, its so hard to nail down what someone is pointing sometimes.

Can you describe more by what you mean as no-thing. 

Is this a state/experience that is within your every experience.

Is it wisdom gained through what you;ve pointed to in Buddhist understanding as everything being relative in relation to something else, conscious/reality, flower/soil/sun/earth, feelings/body/mind.  This wisdom is a no-thing?

Or is this no-thing an actual understanding of it/oneself/the universe and It being the source of all?

 

See from where I stand, there is never not god/infinity/oneness/nonduality.  I see what you've been describing within this bubble since nothing is not that.  

Absolute is a interesting term I was reflecting on my bike-ride to work after I used the term.  It can have isolating/hierarchical interpretations.  When understood of what I'm talking about, Absolute is not on this scale, nothing is not Absolute, so all is thus absolute.  A baby craving food, is Absolute in that form, having Absolute experience.   You or I awakening to this understanding again is Absolute in action as such and this experience is no higher or lower then the babies, its all Absolute/God/Inifinty.  

Waking up to this understanding as a human is a metaphorical pointing to a actual truth that is not merely just a belief a person/body/mind is having, its pointing like Buddhist believe the sun to rise in the east and set in the west, to a actual occurrence that humans fit within wether we are here or not.   This isn't some ignorance arising in the clean eye of no-thingness or a illusion held onto a self for security, which I sometimes get the sense is where your coming from.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

Wow. i guess you, Mu_  and Emanyalpsid are totally on a wrong path. Why can't you let go?

Edited December 11, 2018 by ground

[ground]

On 10.12.2018 at 0:52 PM, Emanyalpsid said:

You probably dont know where I am coming from but I attained Nirvana,

That is certainly not the case. your posts have shown that you are still attached to conceptuality.

Edited December 11, 2018 by ground

[Emanyalpsid]

Is it wisdom gained through what you;ve pointed to in Buddhist understanding as everything being relative in relation to something else, conscious/reality, flower/soil/sun/earth, feelings/body/mind.  This wisdom is a no-thing?

Exactly, this wisdom is a no-thing, it is not something but also not nothing. The thing with no-thing is that you can not conceptually grasp it, as there is no-thing to grasp. If you conceptualize it, you make a distinction, which turns no-thing into something. This wisdom is not gained by understanding, but by becoming aware in reality. Meaning, you have to look at a flower and not think about the flower.

To relate this to the absolute where you are coming from; In your mind the absolute is there, being the absolute truth/ consciousness/ infinity/ god/ Brahman, however, it only is there in your mind as a direct experience. In your mind you can verify it. Like serotoninluv said;

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

Outside the mind there is no verification, so the absolute does not exist outside the mind and can therefore not be explained. Now if we look at the mind, is the mind absolute? Is there nothing outside your mind? Of course you only directly experience your mind, but does this mean there are no other minds? If you talk with other people, you realize that there are other minds. So the mind is not absolute.

If you realize that your mind is not absolute, it is dependent upon something. This something seems to be your body as different minds are in different bodies. This causes the body-mind distinction to dissolve. Now there is no my mind anymore and therefore no distinction between my mind and reality.

This opens up the possibility to look at the flower without interference from the mind. This makes you able to see the flower as it is. You experience no-thing and see reality for what it is.

 

Edited December 11, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[Forestluv]

7 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

Outside the mind there is no verification, so the absolute does not exist outside the mind and can therefore not be explained. 

I think it would be closer to the Truth to say the mind exists within the Absolute, rather than the absolute exists within the mind. 

This is often a point of confusion with the term "consciousness" and "Consciousness". Relative consciousness is within the mind. The mind is within Absolute Consciousness.

[Mu_]

35 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

Is it wisdom gained through what you;ve pointed to in Buddhist understanding as everything being relative in relation to something else, conscious/reality, flower/soil/sun/earth, feelings/body/mind.  This wisdom is a no-thing?

Exactly, this wisdom is a no-thing, it is not something but also not nothing. The thing with no-thing is that you can not conceptually grasp it, as there is no-thing to grasp. If you conceptualize it, you make a distinction, which turns no-thing into something. This wisdom is not gained by understanding, but by becoming aware in reality. Meaning, you have to look at a flower and not think about the flower.

To relate this to the absolute where you are coming from; In your mind the absolute is there, being the absolute truth/ consciousness/ infinity/ god/ Brahman, however, it only is there in your mind as a direct experience. In your mind you can verify it. Like serotoninluv said;

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

Outside the mind there is no verification, so the absolute does not exist outside the mind and can therefore not be explained. Now if we look at the mind, is the mind absolute? Is there nothing outside your mind? Of course you only directly experience your mind, but does this mean there are no other minds? If you talk with other people, you realize that there are other minds. So the mind is not absolute.

If you realize that your mind is not absolute, it is dependent upon something. This something seems to be your body as different minds are in different bodies. This causes the body-mind distinction to dissolve. Now there is no my mind anymore and therefore no distinction between my mind and reality.

This opens up the possibility to look at the flower as it is, without interference from the mind. This makes you able to see the flower as it is.

 

You definatley have awoken to some profound things and perhaps more than I, not sure anyone can say, however I think we, Hinduism and others will have to disagree that what your sharing is the WHOLE shibang.

It seems, you/Buddhism seem to limit Absolute to be dependent on a mind and said humans independent verification of it which is not verifiable outside the mind, thus its not absolute (reminds me of the classic materialist debate).  Where as I and many others have seen and understood the Truth of whats behind/in/as/that which makes mind possible/this conversation possible/body possible, IS Source/God/Ininfinity, which is never not the case, is You and I and will always be and never not was.  And like your nicely put explanation that the body-mind distinction dissolves, such occurrences can and do happen in waking up to what I and others are talking about when Absolute is understood.  Honestly I don't think it makes That much of a difference, but was fun discussing.  Perhaps I and we better understand why perhaps there has been this Hinduism/Buddhist debate, maybe its hinging on this distinction (I honestly don't know enough about the history of the debate to comment).

 

Also one last thing we can debate over which I use to take as truth, but question is, you said "This opens up the possibility to look at the flower without interference from the mind. This makes you able to see the flower as it is. You experience no-thing and see reality for what it is."

Isn't the idea that what ever you call yourself, is seeing said flower as it really is, unclouded from the mind, just an idea?  I mean doesn't Buddhism basically say there is no objective reality out there to be seen?  Theres just one's seeing?  Can one ever really say they see "clearly"?  Isn't This  a distinction that assumes that nothing is going on behind the process of seeing that would interfere in the seeing of said object clearly.  Can one know what they don't know/are aware of, is going on behind the process of seeing?  Even if one could, isn't the seeing clearly just one interpretative lens such as human seeing, and not all versions of seeing/feeling/sensing that are possible within this infinite possible universe?

Edited December 11, 2018 by Mu_

[Emanyalpsid]

9 hours ago, Mu_ said:

You definatley have awoken to some profound things and perhaps more than I, not sure anyone can say, however I think we, Hinduism and others will have to disagree that what your sharing is the WHOLE shibang.

Of course, that why they differ and that's why we are talking about it.  

Quote

It seems, you/Buddhism seem to limit Absolute to be dependent on a mind and said humans independent verification of it which is not verifiable outside the mind, thus its not absolute (reminds me of the classic materialist debate).  Where as I and many others have seen and understood the Truth of whats behind/in/as/that which makes mind possible/this conversation possible/body possible, IS Source/God/Ininfinity, which is never not the case, is You and I and will always be and never not was.  And like your nicely put explanation that the body-mind distinction dissolves, such occurrences can and do happen in waking up to what I and others are talking about when Absolute is understood.  Honestly I don't think it makes That much of a difference, but was fun discussing.  Perhaps I and we better understand why perhaps there has been this Hinduism/Buddhist debate, maybe its hinging on this distinction (I honestly don't know enough about the history of the debate to comment).

 

Also one last thing we can debate over which I use to take as truth, but question is, you said "This opens up the possibility to look at the flower without interference from the mind. This makes you able to see the flower as it is. You experience no-thing and see reality for what it is."

Isn't the idea that what ever you call yourself, is seeing said flower as it really is, unclouded from the mind, just an idea?

Can't conceptualize no-thing.

Quote

  I mean doesn't Buddhism basically say there is no objective reality out there to be seen? 

Different eyes see different things.

Quote

Theres just one's seeing?  Can one ever really say they see "clearly"?  Isn't This  a distinction that assumes that nothing is going on behind the process of seeing that would interfere in the seeing of said object clearly.  Can one know what they don't know/are aware of, is going on behind the process of seeing?  Even if one could, isn't the seeing clearly just one interpretative lens such as human seeing, and not all versions of seeing/feeling/sensing that are possible within this infinite possible universe?

I see no-thing, you may see something. Neither is wrong or right. There is mind and no-mind. The important question is; where is suffering?

Thanks for the connect and sharing btw! Through this discussion my understanding of Hinduism is also deepend, and the way I can explain Buddhism also.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[purerogue]

K , I think I got where he is going to with all of this , no -thing is still soup, that is just change in delusion , I actually though that it is some place in between Everything and Nothing, but it is only skewed understanding of what Everything is. 

[Emanyalpsid]

10 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

I think it would be closer to the Truth to say the mind exists within the Absolute, rather than the absolute exists within the mind. 

This is often a point of confusion with the term "consciousness" and "Consciousness". Relative consciousness is within the mind. The mind is within Absolute Consciousness.

...truth... 

The mind exists within the absolute and the absolute exist within the mind.

If you can not look passed the mind, you will not see it.

You are a former scientist if I remember correctly? Then you probably have a strong and resilient mind.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[BlackVoid]

Forget religions, they all contain dogma. Walk your own path. Follow whoever calls you, etc.
Religion can be an option, but it is not the best. 

[Leo Gura]

This issue has been clearly answered.