Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In Hinduism the priestly caste are the Brahmins. Then the warrior class is the Kshatryas (after that merchants and then farmers). From them came the rulers. They found themselves ruling the place but were always subject to the Brahmins who were the priests of the gods and received merit on their behalf.
Effectively Buddhism (Buddha was a Kshatriya of the ruling class) cut out the gods and the priestly class and the Kshatriya as Buddhist monks became the ones entitled to receive merit, and the gods and the Brahmins were cut out of it as far as influence, power and authority went.
The Tripitaka has not a few disputes between Buddha and Brahmins, just as we get between Jesus and the Pharisees and teachers of the Law, reflecting how Pauline Christianity cut out the Jewish Law, teachers of the law and their authority. The Tripitaka disputes similarly show Buddha logically wiping the floor with Brahmin Hinduism and their doctrines.
I couldn't help thinking that, if the warrior caste had set out to eliminate the authority of the Brahmins and take over their authority for themselves, they could hardly have done it better if they had simply invented the Buddha and put their arguments into his mouth.
First quick online search came upwith this:
"According to Buddha, at his time the kshatriyas were above the now impure brahmanas. That is why, only a kshatriya can have the Buddha-ship. "Today the nobility has priority in the world, therefore the Bodhisattvas were born in a noble family."
Ain't that like the Pauline slagging off of the Law? 'There is none righteous, not one". And impurity made the (divine promise) of circumcision uncircumcision. In other words, the Law would not save the Jews, never mind those not subject to the Law. Paul's idea was that Righteousness came from Faith, not from observing the Law, and the Faith that was needed was faith in Jesus. Thus the old religion was replaced with the new, the old God's people were replaced with the new (Gentiles) just as the old Hindu dogma and Priestley caste was replaced by a new lot of 'priests'in Buddhism.
Interesting. I wish the bolded were true, but I am not sure Hindus know about all this , they simply go on like always. Shankara came after, after Buddha, and established the Non-dual philosophy of Advaita based on the same Vedic texts, selecting some of the 108 or more of the Upanishads. He does writes critically of the Buddhists in his writings, not for the dissolution of caste (which never quite dissolved)
but for other philosophical contradictions.
Interesting. I wish the bolded were true, but I am not sure Hindus know about all this , they simply go on like always. Shankara came after, after Buddha, and established the Non-dual philosophy of Advaita based on the same Vedic texts, selecting some of the 108 or more of the Upanishads. He does writes critically of the Buddhists in his writings, not for the dissolution of caste (which never quite dissolved)
but for other philosophical contradictions.
Hinduism was of course prevalent in India before Buddhism Ashoka had an empire that made Buddhism pretty much the state religion. Up to then the whole of SEAsia as far as Vietnam was Hindu and with Buddhism it spread from Central Asia to China and eventually Japan. Now I suppose that the simpler monastic form was the original - those are the basic teachings after all. But it all got a bit weird and magical as time went on and Nalanda was doing Mandalas and all kind of Tantric stuff. It seems by the 10th c, Hinduism was coming back in India and Buddhism was reabsorbed into Hinduism in India and looked like going Tantric in Asia were it not that the Siamese restored Theravada from Lanka and the Smaller vehicle won out in South east Asia even though the Mahayana with Chan and Zen became the norm further east and Tibet of course.
Hinduism doesn't care too much for Buddhism especially as it is a 'caste-breaking' system. Time for some Religious tourism?
"The I AM, which is my True Self, is the Power with which I am conscious of my world."
( The school of the natural order )
It sounds like the writer is talking of the mind and it's perception of the world we live in through the sense. This is hardly arguable that the 'Self' Id or individual personality is that, which is at least linked to if not situate in the brain (The 'heart' is a traditional misnomer,based on poormedical understanding).
The question is whether the mind (Self) is just in the brain, or lives on as a separate entity.
Anne tells of her experience on the other side, saying that “we are light, alive,” and that “enlightenment is what comes when there is nothing left of us but love.” Her descriptions of the afterlife, communicated to Whitley from the afterlife, are brilliantly articulate and nuanced, at once deeply familiar and uniquely her own.
Sarah Champlain Author : she now shares her personal story from skeptic to believer, along with proof that our deceased loved ones can still see, hear and communicate with us. Sandra also shares new information on the how our brains function during the grieving process and provides tools that ease pain and saves lives. It is now your time to find out who you REALLY are and discover for yourself that "We Don’t Die".
. Robert Lanza believes that life and biology are central to being, reality, and the cosmos—consciousness creates the universe rather than the other way around. While physics is considered fundamental to the study of the universe, and chemistry fundamental to the study of life, Lanza claims that scientists will need to place biology before the other sciences to produce a “theory of everything”.
It has become apparent that the Self as defined by our individual perception of reality ,does live on after our biological death , The I am which is the true self , the power by which it is conscious of itself is often described as eternal or outside of time and space , having no beginning or end , what part of this current Self which has a lifetime of memories , thoughts and belief systems does not continue after death is a good question . ....
I'm not sure whether any of that is appropriate to the Buddhism discussion, but the debate (pretty much ignored by Buddhists) is whether the Buddhist doctrinal rejection of the self, other than as individual perception (which scientific materialism as well as atheism will agree with), is correct or whether the various claims for the 'self', Id or soul as a separate entity in the bod and one that lives on after the death of the bod. is true.
The fact is, we need more than a half dozen books by believers (to give them the benefit of the doubt) in mental perceptions interpreted as real experiences. The problem being that this ancient belief and worldwide, too, has still not been validated, and we should have learned by now that the human mind and imagination is not necessarily to be trusted as a revelation of true facts.
As the Theistical science -skeptics have said ever since i logged on: "Limited human perceptions are fallible" which they use to try to debunk science. But they seem to credit whatever pops into the human mind as a revelation of the truth, if of course it fits what they want to believe.
P.s. I don't want to be overly dismissive of hypotheses,or even claims, but we are familiar with the red flags of fraud. The wagging about of 'scientist' status even by people who dismiss science as the closed minded opinions of materialists, and the "Behe syndrome" a faddist with science credentials who, rather than publishing science papers to prove a case, put their beliefs into books to sell to a public willing to gobble up "Proof" of the stuff they want to believe.
P.p. s The other red flag is tossing links at us rather than make a case. The Unwritten Rule is, make the case on the forum, not send us off to watch videos or buy books to persuade us.
Suggested - you pick out what you think is the best evidence or argument for the existence of a separate "Self" existing after death, and then there will be a case to discuss.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-26-2023 at 05:40 AM..
the Buddha’s insight is that this ‘persisting’ mental self emerges only when we are thinking — it is a verb, not a noun. Just as dancing doesn’t exist when one isn’t dancing, so the self only exists when one is thinking or feeling.
Whitely is a friend whom is very sincere , before Ann died she and Whitley agreed on a way to communicate after she left the physical plane. Maybe Ann only exists when he thinks of her , I don't know with 100 % certainty because I am not him.
Humans have the ability to think of themself or observe themself , Self-awareness isn't the pinnacle of consciousness - it could be just an accidental byproduct of evolution, and a figment of our minds and the way we our brain works .
I have no best evidence for the existence of any form of the self after death , will let you know after I Die
the Buddha’s insight is that this ‘persisting’ mental self emerges only when we are thinking — it is a verb, not a noun. Just as dancing doesn’t exist when one isn’t dancing, so the self only exists when one is thinking or feeling.
Whitely is a friend whom is very sincere , before Ann died she and Whitley agreed on a way to communicate after she left the physical plane. Maybe Ann only exists when he thinks of her , I don't know with 100 % certainty because I am not him.
Humans have the ability to think of themself or observe themself , Self-awareness isn't the pinnacle of consciousness - it could be just an accidental byproduct of evolution, and a figment of our minds and the way we our brain works .
I have no best evidence for the existence of any form of the self after death, will let you know after I Die
We are still waiting for confirmation that would result in research papers. So far all we get is claims, anecdotes and books sold purporting to be evidence. We long since let our breath out.
In my teens, i read a book of claimed dream memories of reincarnation. There was quite a spate of them at that time. I had my doubts when one was a rather foolish tale of a temple priestess in ancient Egypt swaying about and singing 'Deema Simba' etc. Red flag. It did not look or sound like Old Egyptian to me. But 'Simba' (Swahili for Lion as i recall) sounded like what an uniformed ********* might make up, trying to fake old Egyptian.
Some critic (the author reports) pointed out this sounded like an African dialect. "Even in ancient times, Egypt was in Africa" quipped the author. He probably thought that was clever, but it was a red Flag as he should know that even now, let alone in ancient times, Egypt was not like the tribes that might have used Sub - saharan dialects (1).
Sorry about that, but the point is - fakers write Books. The deluded make claims. The Faithful post anecdotes. None of it is really solid evidence.
{1}Nota bene folks; even in ancient times, Nubia and Egypt were different nations and peoples.
We are still waiting for confirmation that would result in research papers. So far all we get is claims, anecdotes and books sold purporting to be evidence. We long since let our breath out.
In my teens, i read a book of claimed dream memories of reincarnation. There was quite a spate of them at that time. I had my doubts when one was a rather foolish tale of a temple priestess in ancient Egypt swaying about and singing 'Deema Simba' etc. Red flag. It did not look or sound like Old Egyptian to me. But 'Simba' (Swahili for Lion as i recall) sounded like what an uniformed ********* might make up, trying to fake old Egyptian.
Some critic (the author reports) pointed out this sounded like an African dialect. "Even in ancient times, Egypt was in Africa" quipped the author. He probably thought that was clever, but it was a red Flag as he should know that even now, let alone in ancient times, Egypt was not like the tribes that might have used Sub - saharan dialects (1).
Sorry about that, but the point is - fakers write Books. The deluded make claims. The Faithful post anecdotes. None of it is really solid evidence.
{1}Nota bene folks; even in ancient times, Nubia and Egypt were different nations and peoples.
I have what I would describe as a weak belief -- or should we say 'leaning toward' belief on reincarnation/rebirth. But I have seen nothing that is convincing. More, like my own situation, anecdotal and because it's taught.
I have what I would describe as a weak belief -- or should we say 'leaning toward' belief on reincarnation/rebirth. But I have seen nothing that is convincing. More, like my own situation, anecdotal and because it's taught.
I am open to evidence. And science, on the cutting edge of the physical and metaphysical is always, as they say, changing its' mind. But the materialist/skeptical position is not only more in line with logic and evidence, but is a more logically and mentally stable position as one does not go to pieces when it decides something in the text books needs to be rethought, whether it is a cosmic mind, revelationary experience or reincarnation/rebirth but also we do not get hostile and aggrieved if evidence and reason should cut across previous beliefs.
I still have a liking for Buddhism. That I doubt its' teachings and even the widely accepted and not often questioned acceptance of a historical Buddha makes no difference to that. I can also like Hinduism too, without being asked to take it seriously.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, they simply go on like always. Shankara came after, after Buddha, and established the Non-dual philosophy of Advaita based on the same Vedic texts, selecting some of the 108 or more of the Upanishads. He does writes critically of the Buddhists in his writings, not for the dissolution of caste (which never quite dissolved) 
