Hinduphobic Bollywood

[velu]

 

first 1.5 minutes deserve blasphemy if hindus are serious abt religion 

but cool dialogues though .. 

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Vedanta has an oral tradition, that is nullified by brainwashed Western Indologists. Generations would pass on oral history (history is not Itihasa, it is a record of divinity in our tradition) and that is what is believed. Sanskrit had many works written in many scripts , but before the tradition was passed orally.

Sure. Does not change the fact that Jains wrote down their Itihasa before the Hindus did, Jains wrote down their core belief tenets before Hindus did. The oldest reliably dated historic person from India is Rishabdeva, who was a Jain tirthankar. 

2 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Even now, the Gayathri manthra is not supposed to be written, the father whispers it in his son's ear during upanayana, to honor this tradition.

Gayatri Mantra is from a chapter of Rig Veda, which was written down by 1500 years ago. Any copy of Rig Veda will have Gayatri mantra in it. 

2 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Dont learn about vedanta from western Indologists, they have a very monolithic view of the world , that we everything needs to be black/white and uniform. Vendata believed in diversity where all paths were respected (not tolerated). Jainism, Buddhism were all followed with equal respect and so did Advaita. We have Jain kings in the south who built great Shiva temples (Halebidu). So, they are not different religions, but branches of  a big tree. Advaita/Dvaita were popular and they didn't go around killing Jains/Budhhists like Abrahamic religions have crusades. Don't trumpet what you learnt in a minor degree of History from brainwashed Western non-scholars. 

Stop assuming that whatever does not align with hinduvta ideology is 'western indologists'. And for your information, show some damn respect. Western indologists is the reason we know of our own history. For 2000 years nobody knew of Ashoka because Indians don't give a crap about history, then westerners systematically reconstruct our history and now they are the bad guys because you don't like the conclusions ?!
Classic case of 'ahsan-faramosh hinduvtas'.  Idiots are too stupid to systematically develop/uncover their own history but go on a racist rant about the educated ones who do, because of a few bad apples and because they don't like the conclusions. 

 

These western 'non-scholars' have ten times the time, energy and education put into it than hinduvta idiots who cannot even align simple linguistic theories in their racist superiorist ideologies. 

 

As for Advaitas not going around killing Jains and Buddhists, i shall refer you to the SPECIFIC parts of Advaita inspired genocide committed by the Pallavas against the buddhists and jains of Dharanikota. We know this, from the Pallava's own records. 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

Buddha didn't invent a drastic view of Dharma. His teachings are influenced by upanishads and even his meditation experiences were not original ideas. He learnt it from rishis and definitely improvised. Since you guys believe white indologists, here's one for your ilk:

 

 

Jesus didn't invent a drastic religion either, his religion too is influenced by the Old Testament. 

Stop with your hindu superiorist nonsense that Jainism and Buddhism are part of Hinduism. They are not. And stop lying that it is because western indologists- your go-to racist tilt whenver you don't like conclusions about indian history or hindu religion- are behind this. They are not. Its the Jains and buddhists themselves who protested the classification of jains and buddhists as hindus. 

Stop trying to erase the religious minorities in India by tagging them as Hindus when they don't want to be tagged as hindus. 

 

[Nikhil_cric]

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

It started with Vedas, vedic practices then started the smritis, puranas, etc. The other side which also believed in other ideas, were against the jaathi system that were being followed, preached what was in the original upanishads  and practiced and improvised them. It was nothing path breaking as it is made out to be , by the white egalitarian view. There are buddhist temples where Indra, Saraswati is worshipped. Buddha himself has proclaimed himself to be an avatar of rama. So, spare your thoughts about a black and white view of abhramic religion view about other Vedanta based views. Followers of Ashoka who wanted to popularize Buddhism have gone ahread and massacred people in the name of religion. So, don't paint Buddhism as something totally different from Vedic paths. Advaitha that is followed now mostly, and Shiavism are all part of Hinduism (a modern term invented by colonialists)

This seems to stem from what most Hindus, including myself, were taught at a young age about all dharmic faiths having the same truths but it clearly is not the case. Buddhism was never considered an orthodox system in ancient India and they reject the Vedas just like the jainas ,carvakas ,ajivikas etc. So im not sure how they are vedic in that sense. Buddha never proclaimed himself to be anything. Those were likely later sayings attributed to him in Hindu texts when the religion of Buddhism was being co-opted by Hinduism and Buddha himself became a deity of sorts. But that does not mean that the message itself has vedic undertones. 

[Muloghonto]

24 minutes ago, Nikhil_cric said:

This seems to stem from what most Hindus, including myself, were taught at a young age about all dharmic faiths having the same truths but it clearly is not the case. Buddhism was never considered an orthodox system in ancient India and they reject the Vedas just like the jainas ,carvakas ,ajivikas etc. So im not sure how they are vedic in that sense. Buddha never proclaimed himself to be anything. Those were likely later sayings attributed to him in Hindu texts when the religion of Buddhism was being co-opted by Hinduism and Buddha himself became a deity of sorts. But that does not mean that the message itself has vedic undertones. 

This is because hinduvtas like to twist the complexities of ethno-cultural identities, practices and the fact that Indic religions *ARE* more syncretic than Abrahamic faiths into trying to erase the identities of Buddhists and Jains. 

 

Buddhists and Jains were not considered 'hindus' by the ancient ones on either side of the debate- for this, ample FIRST HAND literary testimonies exist. Which hinduvtas, for utterly ignorant reasons, dismiss as 'western bias'. 

Maybe if the hinduvtas themselves BOTHERED treating history as history and form ideas of the past based on the EVIDENCES left by our civilization, they'd see how utterly silly, moronic and 'anti-past' they are, despite pretending to be 'upholders of the past'.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

This is because hinduvtas like to twist the complexities of ethno-cultural identities, practices and the fact that Indic religions *ARE* more syncretic than Abrahamic faiths into trying to erase the identities of Buddhists and Jains. 

 

Buddhists and Jains were not considered 'hindus' by the ancient ones on either side of the debate- for this, ample FIRST HAND literary testimonies exist. Which hinduvtas, for utterly ignorant reasons, dismiss as 'western bias'. 

Maybe if the hinduvtas themselves BOTHERED treating history as history and form ideas of the past based on the EVIDENCES left by our civilization, they'd see how utterly silly, moronic and 'anti-past' they are, despite pretending to be 'upholders of the past'.

 

I think this is quite a bit older than hindutva though. It would be unfair to give hindutva ideologues so much credit. This goes back to advaita Vedanta and the likes of Shankaracharya who essentially co-opted Buddhist philosophy into mainstream hindu philosophy so much so that much of what made Buddhism unique was no longer so. And what was the biggest anti-thesis to orthodox Hinduism was largely synthesise d into Hinduism. 

 

So this has always been a mainstream attempt to integrate Buddhism into Hinduism and not just hindutva s trying to do so. In fact, I'd argue that hindutva ideologues like savarkar, an atheist himself, was less concerned with the actual practice of any religion but more with territorial and cultural nationalism and shared values of dharmic faiths . The RSS if you have noticed at times even have no problems when dalits convert en masse to Buddhism and reject Hinduism since it is still an indic faith. 

 

[ravishingravi]

9 hours ago, Nikhil_cric said:

This seems to stem from what most Hindus, including myself, were taught at a young age about all dharmic faiths having the same truths but it clearly is not the case. Buddhism was never considered an orthodox system in ancient India and they reject the Vedas just like the jainas ,carvakas ,ajivikas etc. So im not sure how they are vedic in that sense. Buddha never proclaimed himself to be anything. Those were likely later sayings attributed to him in Hindu texts when the religion of Buddhism was being co-opted by Hinduism and Buddha himself became a deity of sorts. But that does not mean that the message itself has vedic undertones. 

Absolutely spot on. Except the Co-opted. Buddhism was not CO-opted by Hinduism. There was no Hinduism in ancient India just as there is no Hinduism today. The observations of the Buddha who had a more scientific temper and approach overlap with the vedas. 

[Muloghonto]

3 hours ago, Nikhil_cric said:

I think this is quite a bit older than hindutva though. It would be unfair to give hindutva ideologues so much credit. This goes back to advaita Vedanta and the likes of Shankaracharya who essentially co-opted Buddhist philosophy into mainstream hindu philosophy so much so that much of what made Buddhism unique was no longer so. And what was the biggest anti-thesis to orthodox Hinduism was largely synthesise d into Hinduism. 

 

So this has always been a mainstream attempt to integrate Buddhism into Hinduism and not just hindutva s trying to do so. In fact, I'd argue that hindutva ideologues like savarkar, an atheist himself, was less concerned with the actual practice of any religion but more with territorial and cultural nationalism and shared values of dharmic faiths . The RSS if you have noticed at times even have no problems when dalits convert en masse to Buddhism and reject Hinduism since it is still an indic faith. 

 

i think the big difference is, since Advaita there has been attempts to syncretize with Buddhism (and lesser degree, Jainism) but they were still recognized as different. While Hinduvtas are the ones who are trying to erase the identity of the Buddhists/Jains alltogether

 

[coffee_rules]

20 hours ago, Nikhil_cric said:

This seems to stem from what most Hindus, including myself, were taught at a young age about all dharmic faiths having the same truths but it clearly is not the case. Buddhism was never considered an orthodox system in ancient India and they reject the Vedas just like the jainas ,carvakas ,ajivikas etc. So im not sure how they are vedic in that sense. Buddha never proclaimed himself to be anything. Those were likely later sayings attributed to him in Hindu texts when the religion of Buddhism was being co-opted by Hinduism and Buddha himself became a deity of sorts. But that does not mean that the message itself has vedic undertones. 

Co-opting is something that westerners do, here;s an example of Isha Upanishad and Christian Yoga. 

https://ocoy.org/dharma-for-christians/upanishads-for-awakening/isha-upanishad/

 

In case of Vedanta, it was not co-opted, but different classes of thoughts that were respected and followed. Jains also have written their own Ramayana where it is Lakshmana who kills Ravana in the end. One of the evils of the vedic followers was the caste system, which was taken advantage by the British to divide the population into classes. British loved the idea of classes of humans, an 15th century European construct. 

[Muloghonto]

51 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Co-opting is something that westerners do, here;s an example of Isha Upanishad and Christian Yoga. 

https://ocoy.org/dharma-for-christians/upanishads-for-awakening/isha-upanishad/

 

In case of Vedanta, it was not co-opted, but different classes of thoughts that were respected and followed. Jains also have written their own Ramayana where it is Lakshmana who kills Ravana in the end. One of the evils of the vedic followers was the caste system, which was taken advantage by the British to divide the population into classes. British loved the idea of classes of humans, an 15th century European construct. 

dont pin the evils of caste system on the British - they were invented by Indians, put in place by Indians and the evils of caste system was in full force when the British arrived. You don't blame a third party for using the customs of the lands they conquered to keep the peace. 

And yes, Vedanta did co-opt many a thing from the Buddhists- including the 'new' Brahmin look of choti and shaved head along with simple clothing. Otherwise the customary look of the Brahmins have always been that of the rishis and munis, with crazy hair, beard and beads.

 

[Alam_dar]

On 11/3/2018 at 6:00 PM, coffee_rules said:

Since you guys believe white indologists, here's one for your ilk:

How did you come to this conclusion that we (the atheist) guys believe in white Indologist?

I don't think that I believe in any white Indologist. I believe only in the argument and evidence. 

 

On 11/3/2018 at 6:00 PM, coffee_rules said:

 

 

(1)  The speaker hinted that it has been criticized that Hindu Kings also destroyed the Buddhist temples, and in his opinion it is false and Hindus never destroyed the Buddhist temples. 
I don't know this part of history and thus could not comment upon it. 

 

(2) The speaker claimed that Buddah didn't revolt against the Hindu Religion and he kept on following the Hindu traditions. 

I don't agree. Buddha was a human being and it was perhaps not in his power to abandon all the Hindu traditions at once. 

His indeed revolted against teachings of Caste System in Hinduism, or concept of god itself.  It was indeed a revolt. You may call it a soft revolt as he didn't directly criticized the Hindu gods, but Buddha was an Agnostic/Atheist. 

 

(3) Then the speaker denied that Buddah went against the Caste System. 
As proof, he brought this argument that Buddha himself belonged to the upper caste, and he gave the name of "Arya" to his teachings. The speaker said that the meaning of Arya is not "noble" (as followers of Buddha claim), but this shows that Buddha believed in upper cast to whom he belonged. 

 

I don't agree with this Speaker on this point. No doubt that Buddha hated the caste system and believe in the equity of all humans, as it has been explicitly found in his teachings. 

 

Next proof by the Speaker was this that Buddha was tall and White coloured and thus he took proud in being Aryan. 

Again I don't agree with the speaker on his argumentation here. Buddha may be of white complexion, but still he could oppose the caste system. 

 

(4) Then the speaker claims that Buddha's only teachings were about the spiritual meditation. Thus it was impossible for Buddah to begin with any social movement which would have made the society to stand against him. Thus it is wrong to claim that Buddah started any social movement against the Hindu religion or the Hindu traditions. 

 

Again I don't agree with this argumentation of the speaker. Buddah indeed criticized and differed from the Hindu practices and thus he had very few followers in the beginning. It is only gradually that more and more people joined him. 

 

(5) His next argument is this that Buddah took some part of his teachings from the Hindu Texts. 
Again there is no Problem in it. Hindu Texts are not ALL 100% evil. There are always good things and bad things in the religions. No problem if good things are taken. But Buddah certainly didn't take the evil side like Caste System and never preached in favour of it. 

 

(6) His next argument is this that some Buddhists in Japan worship Rama or Sarswati. 
Again no problem in it if any sect of the Buddhism later accepted the stories of Ramain and Sarswati. 
But the Buddhists in India themselves disassociated with the Hindu Stories and Hindu gods as Buddah himself didn't believe in the divine gods. 

 

(7) The speaker claimed that Buddah himself said the he is the incarnation of RAMA. 

This claim has only been made by few Hindu Scholars (based upon their conjecture regarding tales), while in none of the Buddhist literature such thing is to be seen. 

https://www.quora.com/Did-Buddha-himself-say-any-where-that-he-was-the-incarnation-of-Ram

 

All the teachings of Buddah tells us that  Buddha never claimed any divinity for Him or for his Dhamma. He never claimed infallibility for his message. The only claim he made was that his message was the only true way to Nibbana as he understood it. It was based on universal human experience of life in the world. He said that it was open to anyone to question it, test it and find truth it contained.

[coffee_rules]

Koneraad Elst is a Ph.D on religious studies, has written books on Hinduism, Buddhism  and Islam as well. I am pretty sure his views are from years of reasearch. I'd take that over Google. Buddhist thoughts are based on early Upanishads which are part of Vedas. Buddha didn't keep a record of what he preached. The Buddhist texts are  from his followers centuries later, so his silence on Vedas is interpreted as rejection by commie Indologists. 

 

Buddha couldn't complete the hardship of Hindu penance mandated by Rishi Munis of his time, gave up and started  preaching against a divine force or shoonyata. Later sects of Buddhism have adopted  Upanishads  and believed in Hindu gods. in Japan and Sri Lanka for eg, they have rituals like Hindus and pray to similar gods, profess eating meat and have fought violent wars. Modern version of Buddhism is basically a reinterpretation from the twentieth century from scholars who were fed up of wars and were peaceniks and atheists. Atheists are the last ones I believe in their interpretation of religion and faith. 

[Alam_dar]

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

Koneraad Elst is a Ph.D on religious studies, has written books on Hinduism, Buddhism  and Islam as well. I am pretty sure his views are from years of reasearch. I'd take that over Google.

As compared to this person, we have perhaps millions of Buddhist Religious High Authorities, who studied Buddhism whole of their life, and all of them refuting ALL the claims made by this modern scholar. Even there are dozens (if not hundreds) of other modern Scholars of Biddhism with Doctor Titles, and they also oppose this person. He himself mentioned about these scholars in his video. 

 

These are only the few Hindu Scholars and the one like above, who try to label Buddah as follower of Hinduism. While the 100% Buddhist world, since centuries disassociate itself from Hinduism. 

It is irrelevant as I mentioned above. If there are good things, then just take it. And there are bad things, then just reject them. 

On the practical grounds, none of the Buddhists are giving any importance to any Vedas or and Hindu Sacred Book since the time of Buddha. 

Quote

Buddha didn't keep a record of what he preached. The Buddhist texts are  from his followers centuries later, so his silence on Vedas is interpreted as rejection by commie Indologists. 

Off course his silence should be interpreted as rejection, while Buddha presented the "alternative" teachings which brought new rules of morality and traditions, which made Buddhism totally different religion than Hinduism. And this is what his 100% followers followed in the later centuries. 

Your claim of Buddah being devoted Hindu could never be true, otherwise majority of the followers of Buddah would have followed the Hindu religion in full. It is impossible that 100% of Buddahs followers became misguided, and 100% of Buddah's teachings became corrupted. 

Quote

Buddha couldn't complete the hardship of Hindu penance mandated by Rishi Munis of his time, gave up and started  preaching against a divine force or shoonyata.

It was good so. No one needs to undergo the unnatural hardships for nothing. 
If that Rishi or that divine force Shoonyata were unable to see the evils of caste system and plight of Hindu women without equal rights, then humanity doesn't need any such Rishi and divine force and their teachings. But the Humanity needed the teachings which were brought by Buddah after leaving the Rishi, and when started using human intelligence and rationale. These were the teachings which made humanity free of the caste system and the slavery and gave women the equal rights. 

Quote

Later sects of Buddhism have adopted  Upanishads  and believed in Hindu gods.

Already answered it if some sects of Buddhism became corrupted and to some extent they adopted the Hindu stories, this means nothing while all the Buddhists in India themselves opposed the religion of Hinduism along all of these stories of gods and divine forces and their caste based systems etc. 

Quote

Modern version of Buddhism is basically a reinterpretation from the twentieth century from scholars who were fed up of wars and were peaceniks and atheists. Atheists are the last ones I believe in their interpretation of religion and faith. 

I don't agree that this is any "modern" version of Buddhism from the Atheists in the 20th century. No, but this is the mainstream Buddhism for the last thousands of years, where they totally disassociated themselves from the Hinduism. 

 

And even if these are the atheists of 20th century who came up with these teachings, then still I believe in them. I refuse to believe in that Buddah who believed in those divine forces and their caste systems with all the sufferings which humans faced in name of  low caste in Hindu India. 

 

This is atheism. We are not a cult worshippers. Buddah means nothing to us if he went against humanity and morals. We respect Buddah only while his teachings have truth in them and humanity in us automatically guides towards this truth. 

Edited November 5, 2018 by Alam_dar

[coffee_rules]

@Alam_dar I never claimed Buddha was a devout Hindu, the point is he showed a different path that is respected. He didn't plan on creating a drastic path-breaking religion that modern interpretations are turning him out to be. He preached against rituals, priests and non-existence of atman. Then they shouldn't believe in Karma or Re-incarnation as well.  Atheists are the last one who should comment in matters of religion and faith, just because there are elements that question divinity, it appeals to them. What is Atheists stand on consciousness? There is no scientific proof of that as well, just interpretations of religious texts. 

[Alam_dar]

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

@Alam_dar I never claimed Buddha was a devout Hindu, the point is he showed a different path that is respected. He didn't plan on creating a drastic path-breaking religion that modern interpretations are turning him out to be. He preached against rituals, priests and non-existence of atman.

Buddha is respected while he felt the Humanity, and preached those things which were in accordance with humanity.
Human rationale is enough to see and feel the truth in his teachings. 

It may be that he started this deviated path from Hinduism a little, and later Buddhist themselves found the new path from there. It makes no difference. For us Buddah is not important, but the ultimate teachings of Buddhism are important. 
 

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

Then they shouldn't believe in Karma or Re-incarnation as well. 

Yes, it seems true. If Buddhists don't believe in any deity, why then to believe in incarnation? 

That is why modern atheists don't believe in this incarnation or Karma thing. 

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

Atheists are the last one who should comment in matters of religion and faith, just because there are elements that question divinity, it appeals to them.

I don't think so. Every human has the right to fully question and comment and criticize upon all the claims that have been made by any religion or ideology. 

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

What is Atheists stand on consciousness? There is no scientific proof of that as well, just interpretations of religious texts. 

We don't need any interpretations of any religious texts to know about love and consciousness or hate or anger. We all ourselves able to feel all these feelings. 

And science is trying to answer it in terms of hormonal activity when one feels love or anger or hate. 

The love and attachment hormone is known as Oxytocin.

 Oxytocin is the neurotransmitter involved in mammalian bonding, and it's responsible for the warm, pleasurable feeling of love.

 

Human mind is a complex thing. Science knows very little about it up till now. But with time surely more and more things are coming to the light. These are the presence of these hormones which differentiate us with other animals and non living things. 

[dial_100]

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

How did you come to this conclusion that we (the atheist) guys believe in white Indologist?

I don't think that I believe in any white Indologist. I believe only in the argument and evidence. 

 

(1)  The speaker hinted that it has been criticized that Hindu Kings also destroyed the Buddhist temples, and in his opinion it is false and Hindus never destroyed the Buddhist temples. 
I don't know this part of history and thus could not comment upon it. 

 

(2) The speaker claimed that Buddah didn't revolt against the Hindu Religion and he kept on following the Hindu traditions. 

I don't agree. Buddha was a human being and it was perhaps not in his power to abandon all the Hindu traditions at once. 

His indeed revolted against teachings of Caste System in Hinduism, or concept of god itself.  It was indeed a revolt. You may call it a soft revolt as he didn't directly criticized the Hindu gods, but Buddha was an Agnostic/Atheist. 

 

(3) Then the speaker denied that Buddah went against the Caste System. 
As proof, he brought this argument that Buddha himself belonged to the upper caste, and he gave the name of "Arya" to his teachings. The speaker said that the meaning of Arya is not "noble" (as followers of Buddha claim), but this shows that Buddha believed in upper cast to whom he belonged. 

 

I don't agree with this Speaker on this point. No doubt that Buddha hated the caste system and believe in the equity of all humans, as it has been explicitly found in his teachings. 

 

Next proof by the Speaker was this that Buddha was tall and White coloured and thus he took proud in being Aryan. 

Again I don't agree with the speaker on his argumentation here. Buddha may be of white complexion, but still he could oppose the caste system. 

 

(4) Then the speaker claims that Buddha's only teachings were about the spiritual meditation. Thus it was impossible for Buddah to begin with any social movement which would have made the society to stand against him. Thus it is wrong to claim that Buddah started any social movement against the Hindu religion or the Hindu traditions. 

 

Again I don't agree with this argumentation of the speaker. Buddah indeed criticized and differed from the Hindu practices and thus he had very few followers in the beginning. It is only gradually that more and more people joined him. 

 

(5) His next argument is this that Buddah took some part of his teachings from the Hindu Texts. 
Again there is no Problem in it. Hindu Texts are not ALL 100% evil. There are always good things and bad things in the religions. No problem if good things are taken. But Buddah certainly didn't take the evil side like Caste System and never preached in favour of it. 

 

(6) His next argument is this that some Buddhists in Japan worship Rama or Sarswati. 
Again no problem in it if any sect of the Buddhism later accepted the stories of Ramain and Sarswati. 
But the Buddhists in India themselves disassociated with the Hindu Stories and Hindu gods as Buddah himself didn't believe in the divine gods. 

 

(7) The speaker claimed that Buddah himself said the he is the incarnation of RAMA. 

This claim has only been made by few Hindu Scholars (based upon their conjecture regarding tales), while in none of the Buddhist literature such thing is to be seen. 

https://www.quora.com/Did-Buddha-himself-say-any-where-that-he-was-the-incarnation-of-Ram

 

All the teachings of Buddah tells us that  Buddha never claimed any divinity for Him or for his Dhamma. He never claimed infallibility for his message. The only claim he made was that his message was the only true way to Nibbana as he understood it. It was based on universal human experience of life in the world. He said that it was open to anyone to question it, test it and find truth it contained.

Hindus were too obsessed with idol worshiping. Just to guide them Budha said that meditate on Nirakaar. But that is also not easy. Human mind creates lot of illusions and lot of trouble in achieving meditative state. Budha was special but general budhist have no clue about meditation either. 

Bhakti marg what most of the hindus follow, they find it easier than what others preached. There is never a fight between religion, the human interventions what causes most of the disputes. Or else there is perfect harmony in the teachings of all religions.

[coffee_rules]

2 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Buddha is respected while he felt the Humanity, and preached those things which were in accordance with humanity.
Human rationale is enough to see and feel the truth in his teachings. 

It may be that he started this deviated path from Hinduism a little, and later Buddhist themselves found the new path from there. It makes no difference. For us Buddah is not important, but the ultimate teachings of Buddhism are important. 
 

It is Buddha and Ramayana (not Buddah or Ramain!). We respect him as a deity for his ideas. WHat is the BFD about the high way you guys take? 

2 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Yes, it seems true. If Buddhists don't believe in any deity, why then to believe in incarnation? 

That is why modern atheists don't believe in this incarnation or Karma thing. 

I don't think so. Every human has the right to fully question and comment and criticize upon all the claims that have been made by any religion or ideology. 

If you can't understand Faith, don't get to interpret what good faith v/s bad faith. Your interpretations will be based on your biases. Like Commie Indologist don't get to commentate on the use of Sanskrit.

2 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

We don't need any interpretations of any religious texts to know about love and consciousness or hate or anger. We all ourselves able to feel all these feelings. 

And science is trying to answer it in terms of hormonal activity when one feels love or anger or hate. 

The love and attachment hormone is known as Oxytocin.

 Oxytocin is the neurotransmitter involved in mammalian bonding, and it's responsible for the warm, pleasurable feeling of love.

 

Human mind is a complex thing. Science knows very little about it up till now. But with time surely more and more things are coming to the light. These are the presence of these hormones which differentiate us with other animals and non living things. 

You went tanget here. Consciousness is the spirit of life, not feelings. What gives life to cell and what goes away when the cells die? Not all can be explaied by one broad term as Harmones. They are just reaction to feelings that is detected. 

[Alam_dar]

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

If you can't understand Faith, don't get to interpret what good faith v/s bad faith. Your interpretations will be based on your biases. Like Commie Indologist don't get to commentate on the use of Sanskrit.

I respectfully disagree. 

I don't think you are a judge to give decision either I could understand a faith/religion or not. 

And you could also not be a judge for me if I am biased or not. 

Perhaps the religious people are themselves the most biased people and they are thus not able to see the open evils of their religions. You have the same opinion about the Muslims but not for your own religion, while followers of both religion claim their religion to be 100% perfect and free of any evils. 

 

For me, it is enough to be Truthful with myself and then judge. Humanity within me will never misguide me. I could easily feel and differentiate between what is right and what is wrong. And yes, I am a Commie. 

 

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

You went tanget here. Consciousness is the spirit of life, not feelings. What gives life to cell and what goes away when the cells die? Not all can be explaied by one broad term as Harmones. They are just reaction to feelings that is detected. 

Consciousness is nothing separate, but all these things like love, hate, thinking, feeling for others, anger, feeling good, feeling bad is linked with each other. 

 

When I see some one is being cold blooded killed or even when others get simple injection, then I feel a cold wave in my body. I don't know exactly, but I believe these are the hormones which caused this cold wave while I feel the pain of others. 

 

Science is still not advanced enough to give answer to all the questions of the nature. But at this stage we don't even need science to explain all the things, while we are already "feeling" all this personally and we are already 100% sure there exist love and hate and consciousness in us. 

 

Due to this personal experience, we human beings were able to make the modern world, which is based 100% on non-religious Secular System. And we have already seen that this non religious system is delivering the best results as compared to any religious system of last 10 thousands of years. 

 

Look at the atheist country like Scandinavian countries and Iceland. They are full of morals and humanity and least crimes are there and people try to help the fellow humans. 

 

Look at the atheist Japan or even atheist China for the morality in their societies for the last several thousands of years. We don't need religion for morality, but humanity is enough to guide us to make morals for us. 

[Muloghonto]

13 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

@Alam_dar I never claimed Buddha was a devout Hindu, the point is he showed a different path that is respected. He didn't plan on creating a drastic path-breaking religion that modern interpretations are turning him out to be. He preached against rituals, priests and non-existence of atman. Then they shouldn't believe in Karma or Re-incarnation as well.  Atheists are the last one who should comment in matters of religion and faith, just because there are elements that question divinity, it appeals to them. What is Atheists stand on consciousness? There is no scientific proof of that as well, just interpretations of religious texts. 

1. conciousness is simply an electro-chemical reaction/system created by the neurons in the brain. Thats it. Its a self-learning software.

 

2. it is no less drastic than jesus and christianity is to Judaism or Mohammed and Islam are to Christianity. 

Infact, you can say that Buddha's path was more drastic, as he decisively rejected the vedic path, unlike in the case of Jesus or Mohammed, offering 'update/anti-virus restoration to the corrupted files'.

 

3.  You don't get to deciede whats drastic or not. buddhists consider themselves a different faith than hinduism. Rest of the world considers themselves different from HInduism as well. Historically the nastik and anastik camps were decisively different from each other in recognition as such. 

Hinduvta trying to deny identity to the Buddhists and Jains and seeing them as 'one big family' is only going to work if they can admit that they are similar as abrahamic religions are to each other- related but different.

Otherwise, its just hinduvta identity-erasure. 

Edited November 6, 2018 by Muloghonto

[cricketrulez]

On 10/27/2018 at 10:07 AM, Muloghonto said:

Again, does not change the fact that Dalits undergo horrible discrimnation from the upper castes, its wrong and should be pointed out.

 

you make it sound like brahmins led this effort? Given brahmins are ~3-10% of the population and of tne physically the weakest among the groupings, what has stopped the groups from running the brahmins over.

 

Since you sound like an expert on castes, why don't you name the various castes that you know of and how they came about.