Dear all
Since there is loads of topics and debates about Hinduism in this section of the hub, it may be a good Idea talk about Buddisim here.
Please contribute your comments to share your knowledge...
Printable View
Dear all
Since there is loads of topics and debates about Hinduism in this section of the hub, it may be a good Idea talk about Buddisim here.
Please contribute your comments to share your knowledge...
1)Buddhism is a spiritual tradition that focuses on personal spiritual development and the attainment of a deep insight into the true nature of life.
2)Buddhism teaches that all life is interconnected, so compassion is natural and important.
3)Buddhism is 2,500 years old
4)There are currently 376 million followers worldwide
5)Buddhism arose as a result of Siddhartha Gautama's quest for Enlightenment in around the 6th Century BCE
6)There is no belief in a personal God. It is not centred on the relationship between humanity and God
7)Buddhists believe that nothing is fixed or permanent - change is always possible
8)The two main Buddhist sects are Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism, but there are many more
9)The path to Enlightenment is through the practice and development of morality, meditation and wisdom.
Points 1, 7 & 9 are also applicable to hinduism, though buddisim originated from hinduism
hi,
I did start a thread way back to facilitate discussions on buddhism . This religion sure draws me . I aint contributing much and none others have the time to contribute.
I am very eager to read and learn all wht is written and discussed here.
thankyou.
Hmm. I shall post what ever I can here, in the meantime.. it would be great if the likes of sudhama sir, pradeep, rohit (is he still hubbing ) contribut as wellQuote:
Originally Posted by Shakthiprabha
I rarely see rohit :( (next to nil infact ) I supp he used to talk a lot on concepts of buddhism
How can a system that denies the existence of the soul claim itself to be a spiritual tradition ?Quote:
Originally Posted by PARAMASHIVAN
How can one even attempt to speak about that which cannot be spoken about? The ideas pertaining to any particular religious tradition can be looked at as symbols for the transcendent, but they are more or less truer than the others only relatively, not absolutely.Quote:
Originally Posted by harishkumar09
If a tradition delivers or attempts to deliver chitta-shuddhi by any means, rituals, or mental practice, I think of it as a spiritual tradition. If instead it mires and confuses the mind, it is not. The subject who is involved in the practice also matters.
Love and Light.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anbu_kathir
Why not ? What makes you think the soul cannot be spoken about ? I am a soul typing this and I am conscious of it. Even though I do not know everything about myself(my soul), I know enough parts of it. I know the soul is self-conscious, can think, can get my body to perform actions..etc ... etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by anbu_kathir
No. It is not symbolism. As per Buddism , the soul does not exist at all. The soul or we do not experience nirvana. What we experience in nirvana is merely the extinguishing of the illusion that a soul was present. The soul was never present !
But this presupposes the existence of the soul ! If the soul itself does not exist , what are you cleaning (shuddhi) ?Quote:
Originally Posted by anbu_kathir
Yes. Thats what Buddhism does. It confuses. And the subject does not exist as per Buddhism.Quote:
Originally Posted by anbu_kathir
Love and Light.
What I meant is as in this link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neti_neti .Quote:
Originally Posted by harishkumar09
If the soul is the I-sense, then it definitely disappears when one is in deep sleep, and moreover it has a different world experience in dreams. So is the soul not a constant? What and how does it experience? What can be said of the soul are statements which remain meaningless with respect to the world of opposites, which is exactly the one we live in.
AFAIK, chitta-shuddi is only a clean mind (the soul is infact considered to be absolutely and non-dually pure, atleast in Advaita), and is always achieved by the individual (i.e the one whose I-sense has not yet gone beyond individual body-minds). It need not actually presuppose anything about the soul or the transcendent state - any such concept about oneself is infact to be left behind for chitta-shuddhi.Quote:
But this presupposes the existence of the soul ! If the soul itself does not exist , what are you cleaning (shuddhi) ?Quote:
Originally Posted by anbu_kathir
I think its more like the subject does not have an 'independent existence in itself', or that with the rise of the 'subject-thought', the 'object-thought' also has to have come.Quote:
And the subject does not exist as per Buddhism.
In any case, I truly believe that practice in a particular path is necessary before one can recommend or condemn it .. even so, it need (or need not) work only for oneself, others might have a different experience.Quote:
Yes. Thats what Buddhism does. It confuses.
Love and Light.