So I have 2 questions about Buddhism/Hinduism:

So I have 2 questions about Buddhism/Hinduism:

1. Was Buddhism, despite some claims of radical changes, really nothing more than a branch of reformed Hinduism, or was it a complete departure?

2. Are Buddhism/Hinduism nothing more than pagan religions that survived to modern day. Like the ancient pagan religions, Buddhism/Hinduism both either don't bother with the idea of where the universe comes from or consider the supreme God creator irrelevant, and also both religions have various supernatural deities within our universe ("Gods" and "Goddesses")

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

...

Cf Christianity as a radical critique of Temple Judaism.

I'm a Buddhist, and I'll try to answer the questions to the best of my ability.

Buddhism had very little to do with Hinduism. It was just formed when a guy went off the grid in the woods for a while, mastered meditation, reached enlightenment, and came back to teach.

In that sense, I guess it's pagan. But it's really more of a philosophy than a religion. It has its religious aspects - but none fo them are constant between all Buddhists. The only things that are constant are our main principles and meditation.

Basically, Buddhism is about seeking Enlightenment (not necessarily reaching it).

Buddhism transcends western monotheisms.

>But here Mara the malign, the god of craving and of death, intervenes; he enters into one of the celestial beings in Brahma's retinue and from here speaks to the Buddha:

>O monk, beware of him. He is Brahma, the omniporent, the invincible, the all-seeing, the sovereign, the lord, the creator, the preserver, the father of all that has been and of all that will be. Long before you there were in the world ascetics and priests who were enemies of the elements, of nature, of the gods, of the lord of generation, of Brahma; these, at the dissolution of the body, when their vital strength was exhausted, came to abject forms of existence. And therefore I counsel you, O ascetic: beware, O worthy one! What Brahma has said to you, accept it, lest you contradict the word of Brahma. Should you, O ascetic, contradict the word of Brahma, it would be as though a man were to approach a rock and beat on it with a stick, or as though a man, O ascetic, were to fall into an infernal abyss and to seek to grasp the earth with his hands and feet: thus, O monk, would it befall you.

>And Brahma joins with Mara the malign, repeating:

>I, O worthy one, hold as eternal that which is truly eternal, as persistent, as perennial, as indissoluble, as immutable that which is truly so; and where there is no birth and decay, nor death, nor passing away and reappearance, of this I say: here truly there is no birth, nor decay and death, nor passing away and reappearance; and since there is no other, higher liberation, therefore I say: there is no other, higher liberation. Therefore, O monk, speak if you will: you will certainly not discover another, higher liberation, try as you will. If you take the earth, if you take the elements as your standpoint, then you have taken me as your standpoint, you have taken me as your basis, you must obey me, you must yield to me; if you take, O monk, nature, the gods, the lord of generation as your standpoint, then you have taken me as your stand-point, you have taken me as your basis, you must obey me, you must yield to me; if you take, O monk, Brahma as your standpoint, then you have taken me as your standpoint, you have taken me as your basis, you must obey me, you must yield to me.

>At this point the antitheses build up to a cosmic and titanic grandeur ending with the most paradoxical reversal of the point of view that is prevalent in Western religions. In fact, while the desire of surpassing the very Lord of creation, from this point of view, appears as something diabolical, the Buddha, instead, finds a diabolical plot in the exact opposite, that is in the attempt to stop him in the region of being, to make this region an insuperable limit, beyond which it is both absurd and mad to seek a higher liberation, Here it is the Malign One in person who urges the belief that the personal God, the God of being, is the supreme reality, and who threatens the Bud-dim with the damnation that is supposed already to have claimed other ascetics. And in another text his temptation consists of inducing the Buddha to confine himself to the path of good works, rites and sacrifices-to the path of theistic religions. But the Buddha discovers the plot, and speaks thus to Mara: "Well I know you, Malign One, abandon your hope: 'He knows me not'; you are Mara, the Malign. Arid this Brahma here, O Malign One, these gods of Brahma: they are all in your hand, they are all in your power. You, O Malign One, certainly think: 'He also must he in my hand, in my power!' I, however, O Malign One, am not in your hand, I am not in your power."

>There follows a symbolical test. The personal God, the Hebraic "I am that I am," the God of being, whose essence is his existence, as such, cannot not be, that is, he is bound to being, he is passive with respect to being. He has not the power to go beyond being. It is here that the test occurs. Who can "disappear'? That is, who is lord both of being and of nonbeing? Who rests neither on the one nor on the other? Brahma cannot disappear. Instead, the Buddha disappears. All the world of Brahma is amazed and recognizes "the high power, the high might of the ascetic Gotama." Limitation is removed. The dignity of the atideva, of one who goes beyond the world of existence itself, not to mention the "celestial" worlds, is demonstrated.

I don't know much about buddhism og hinduism, but i do know this: They were kings and they were from Africa. Buddha has curled hair and he is from Somalia, Hindu gods are depictions of ancient highly intelligent african men travvelling the world and conquering the worlds women.

>But it's really more of a philosophy than a religion

Fucking hell, I hate it when both Buddhists and non-Buddhists say this crap. Let's see, every major branch of Buddhism has:

>Monks
>Monasteries
>Prayers
>Temples
>Idols
>Multiple deities, both holy and demonic
>Not one but multiple planes of heaven and hell
>A belief in the eternal soul and afterlife

But no, your just some "philosophy". Bullshit!

those are not core beliefs of buddhism. its a religion for some, and a philosophy for others. i guess it's a philosophy for me because i follow it entirely except for gods and things. i meditate, "religiously" follow the ideals, etc.

Hinduism is black culture.

Years ago I wandered down a fascinating wikihole about the connection between Stocism and Buddhism, via the "Greco-Bactrian Kingdom" and other Hellenic statelets that were set up in West Asia after the conquestions of Alexander.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism

Everything seems so neat and isolated when you read about them in books. It's amazing to consider how these two great systems of thought were constantly interacting and leaving evidence of it.

>those are not core beliefs of buddhism

Even the Sutras mention those things, and if you deny the Sutras then you deny the core beliefs and original teachings of Buddhism

>1. Was Buddhism, despite some claims of radical changes, really nothing more than a branch of reformed Hinduism, or was it a complete departure?

Complete departure. In fact, they competed for territory and during and after the reign of Ashoka, Buddhism saw its biggest and really only rise before succumbing to Hinduism which still remains the main religion of India (or Hindustan, which is one of the names for India)

>2. Are Buddhism/Hinduism nothing more than pagan religions that survived to modern day.

The word "pegan" is kind of tricky, but I guess you could think of them using that word. The word "pegan" is very Eurocentric and applies to Christians' perception of non-Abrahamic religions, but you could still use it, I guess. Hinduism is actually the oldest religion in the world. Hinduism believes in many, countless gods. Buddhism steps around the whole idea and only focuses on the individual reaching the highest level of enlightenment and detachment from the material world - a state called "Nirvana".

Hope that helps.

they are the leaders of it as a religion, not a philosophy

I come from a zen buddhist family.

Zen buddhism is about forfeiting the ego, because the ego is a lie. But it is so because the ego is the main illusion asians traditionally suffered from. Ultimately, zen buddhism is about searching for the red pill, because all suffering comes from illusions and lies. If you rid yourself of all your illusions, you will never suffer again. Think about how much suffering truth has avoided in your life.

Why are you asking that here?

Because we do not have a /rel/ board yet?

"philosophy" does not deal with afterlife or salvation, while Buddhism deals almost exclusively with those

I read that philosopher Pyrrho was influenced by Buddhism when he travelled east with Alexander the Great.

The Persian influence on Vajrayana Buddhism would be a noticeable difference from say Advaita philosophy. Early Tantra texts show a blurring of ideas between Buddhist, Jain, Vaishnava, Saivite et al.

>So I have 2 questions about Buddhism/Hinduism:
>1. Was Buddhism, despite some claims of radical changes, really nothing more than a branch of reformed Hinduism, or was it a complete departure?
Departure.

Siddhartha described such beliefs as intrinsically false or at least relatively vain.

>2. Are Buddhism/Hinduism nothing more than pagan religions that survived to modern day. Like the ancient pagan religions, Buddhism/Hinduism both either don't bother with the idea of where the universe comes from or consider the supreme God creator irrelevant, and also both religions have various supernatural deities within our universe ("Gods" and "Goddesses")
Perhaps Hinduism, but definitely not Buddhism.

That being said, there's much that polytheism affords its believers which is absent from monotheism, such as the mask thing which was denounced as demon possession in the early Christian churches. For instance, monotheists are more concerned with an easier to prove God and are more likely to take an absolute approach to faith. Whereas, if I may (without offending anyone) polytheism can be seen as more playful, less strict and perhaps even as a fashion statement.

For instance, if in the distant future Hellenic mythology picks up again (I'm very hesitant to talk about Hinduism), it may be seen as fashionable to keep Artemis or Aphrodite idols, but nerdy to keep a Hermes idol and even pretentious for an Apollo idol. *some Hindus likely have the same opinion about their pantheon with some gods implying different things about its adherents and it's not unheard of for Hindus to prefer one or two gods.

Now reading through the thread.

There are both religious and philosophical elements to Buddhism. Are you traditionally Buddhist? Do you eat beef? I've actually met Buddhists who pray to Buddha and I've read books that state many traditional Buddhists won't meditate due to believing it's the monopoly of holy men, ascetic and pretentious white people.

Interesting, but even Hinduism has implications of monotheism. Comes from the name, Brahmin people worship exclusively Brahma who has omnigod characteristics.

There is literally no other place on the internet that's both inviting to theists without atheists shitting up the place and isn't an insufferable wind tunnel.

Unnecessary. Religious and theology threads are so rare and innocuous it would be dishonest to expect its own board.

>Buddhism/Hinduism both either don't bother with the idea of where the universe comes from

it does. except instead of ending at judgement, cycle of creation and destruction keep repeating itself.

Why not both?

If you believe the bunny hop cosmology, every piece of matter or energy will eventually become confined to a single point (again) and thus we would all become one in a every sense allowing for judgement... Until it's all destroyed, forgiven and recreated. Unfortunately it seems more likely that the universe will infinitely expand.

If I may, were you in the last Hindu thread I posted in? I'm still very eager to have a conversation about Hinduism.

>If you believe the bunny hop cosmology, every piece of matter or energy will eventually become confined to a single point (again) and thus we would all become one in a every sense allowing for judgement... Until it's all destroyed, forgiven and recreated. Unfortunately it seems more likely that the universe will infinitely expand.

As per the mythos ,at the end of Kaliyuga everything becomes degenerate to the point where it needs to be reset. If you want, you can take it as the final judgement after which universe begins anew.


>If I may, were you in the last Hindu thread I posted in? I'm still very eager to have a conversation about Hinduism.

No. I don't visit Sup Forums regularly.

Actually I'd rather leave the question to science, with the debate about the theological implications to my descendents and my lesser followers, as in the descendants of 4channers who take the posts of a deranged Aussie shitposter a little too seriously.

Occasionally I can convince Hindus to post here without fear of "poo in loo" being spammed at them.

I'm mostly interested in the mechanisms of worship, how you worship, which gods (all, some or just one) you worship and if these gods impart any tangible benefit to you.

Boy you are wrong. Buddha was born in nepal.

How is hinduism black culture you retard. Hinduism is Indian culture.

Babby's first day on Sup Forums?

>the mechanisms of worship,
> how you worship,
The most-mainstream , the one done by every strata of society follows
Mechanism follow as dictated by the priest, who said to have follow rules under Vedic Rituals an Shlok or Bidhi-Bidhan in Shastra.

There are lots of obscure rituals which not many are aware of , which depends on sects or place or tribe you belong to.

>which gods (all, some or just one) you worship and if these gods impart any tangible benefit to you.

Just like which OS you ar eusing, it can be anything. There is no centralized authority like Abrahamic religions calim to have (although by nature it's quit monothestic, as one origin story I heard had 3 major gods (brahma , vishnu mahesh ) are part of a single higher "Bramh" who by their nature (creation, function , destruction ) govern the universe . Rest of the million gods are actually denizens of the most ideal and virtuas era of mankind - Satyug, and it is belived all these gods reside in Cow's body.

I hope you know about the 3 kinds of worshiper as told in Gita (one who seek God and tries to attains nirvana and escape the cycle of birth and death , one who worships for material gain and one who seeks help in time of calamity ) .

Of course, as one who in entagled in this mortal relam of temporary , all worship for material gain , although one's goal should be to unite soul with the one who is called "Vidhata " , as only in Human birth , all your karma counts.
Which brings us to the silver linning of Kalyug - all you need to do is to remember the almighty by the repeating his name sincerly to attain that goal , as in previous yug , whorshiping god was quite diffcult with all rules and regulations.
Of course, there will be no virtus left as Kalyug progress , but one can save their soul easily than ever.

>1. Was Buddhism, despite some claims of radical changes, really nothing more than a branch of reformed Hinduism, or was it a complete departure?

Buddhism is just hinduism minus the rituals. Like the new testament from the old testament.

>2. Are Buddhism/Hinduism nothing more than pagan religions that survived to modern day. Like the ancient pagan religions, Buddhism/Hinduism both either don't bother with the idea of where the universe comes from or consider the supreme God creator irrelevant, and also both religions have various supernatural deities within our universe ("Gods" and "Goddesses")

Where did you get the idea that hindus dont bother with the idea of the creation of the universe. Brahma created the universe. He is introduced time to our universe.

Just as some sects of Christianity practice idol worship, some people go that way with Buddhism too. A lot of Christians get it wrong when they think their dead relatives turn into angels and watch over them from heaven while their dickhead boss and coworkers burn in the pits of hell. No one is in either place right now, according to Christian scripture.

In both cases the people who go with idol worship are completely missing the point, and I personally chalk it up to the majority of the population simply being too IQ deficient to fully grasp it. Idol worship, and prayer, and houses of worship, multiple deities, belief in a divine punishment/reward system, this is all an appeal to the lowest common denominator, it's meant to keep the masses in check since most people are simply incapable of, or reluctant to look inward and judge themselves the same way they judge others. A person cannot truly grow and learn to grasp higher ideals if they cannot turn that eye inward.

>Buddhism is just hinduism minus the rituals. Like the new testament from the old testament.

and unlike jews buddha is considered 9th incarnation of lord vishnu by hindus

>Not getting the joke?
Don't you have some loos to avoid?

I've read Aurelius' Meditations, and I kept marveling at how similar it seemed to the Buddhism I had read about in the book, What The Buddha Taught.

It's neat seeing others coming to the same conclusion, although I haven't done much digging into the physical relationship between the two. Physical meaning people from each school of thought interacting with one another.

>Buddha was born in nepal.
Wrong. It was Prince Siddharth who was born in Nepal.
He became Buddha in India