Buddhism Is An Education - Not A Religion

[suchandra 1]

There're quite some Buddhist scholars stating, no, Buddhism actually cannot be called a religion in that sense since there's no acceptance of God and soul within the teachings of Buddhism. In fact both, God and soul, is considered as an illusion of the material mind by present Buddhist teachers like the Dalai Lama.

When trying to register Vaishnavism as recognized religion in Austria with all the required documents for application, the cognizant government agency rejected this solicitation, stating an excuse, not enough members.

However, when going through the list of thirteen recognized religions in Austria, we find, Buddhism mentioned with all the privileges of a recogniced religion, like tax exemption, schoolbook presence, church-rate allotment, tv presence, radio presence etc etc.

 

 

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Austria

Buddhism is a legally recognized religion in Austria and it is followed by more than 10,000 Austrians. Although still small in absolute numbers (10,402 at the 2001 census), Buddhism in Austria enjoys widespread acceptance. A majority of Buddhists in the country are Austrian nationals (some of them naturalized after immigration from Asia, predominantly from the People's Republic of China and Vietnam), while a considerable number of them are foreign nationals.

As in most European countries, different branches and schools of Buddhism are represented by groups of varying sizes. Vienna not only has the largest number of foreign residents, but is also the place with the longest tradition of Buddhism in the country. Most of Austria's Buddhist temples and centres of practice can be found there; some with a specific Chinese, Vietnamese, Tibetan or Japanese appearance. The latest development has been the establishment of a “Buddhist Cemetery” around a stupa-like building for funeral ceremonies at the Vienna Central Cemetery.

Buddhism was officially recognized under Austrian law in 1983. Russia is the only other "European" country to forwardly recognize Buddhism as "native" to its own soil, giving it official status, along with Orthodox Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

 

 

Losing my religion: Austria's new religion law in light of international and European standards of religious freedom

 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3736/is_199801/ai_n8766034/pg_6?tag=untagged

 

Brigham Young University Law Review, 1998 by Miner, Chrisopher J

 

 

The benefits of being a recognized religion are significant and important. The Austrian government considers that one important part of being a recognized religion is the right to be considered nondangerous. A political leader stated that one purpose of the recognition law was to give recognized religions the ability to defend against the accusation of being a "dangerous sect," a label associated with unrecognized religions in Austria.96 Leaders of the OVP argued that this ability to defend against being labeled dangerous was a "state approved `nondangerous certification,'" in exchange for which it was only natural for the government to expect strict requirements.97

In Austria, those religions not recognized by the government are considered by Austrians to be "sects." To be a "sect" in Austria is to be seen by the Austrian public as an automatic danger and risk to society. In a recent opinion poll, ninety percent of Austrians stated that sects are inherently dangerous.98 Sects are seen as antifamily and even anti-Christian.99 The practical effect of such public opinion is that members of religious minorities ("sects") often feel discriminated against, which can bring problems ranging from simple embarrassment to difficulties finding places to meet.loa This discrimination by the public is being shaped, at least partially, by the Austrian government itself. The government has established in every "Bundesland," or state, a family counseling center that specializes in "sect problems."lol Through the centers, the government distributes a brochure listing the dangerous sects in Austria.l02 Those religions identified by the government as dangerous sects are: Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientology, Reverend Moon's Unification church, Transcendental Meditation, Yoga, Hare Krishna, Sai Baba, Universal Life, Brahma Kumaris, Fiat Lux and Sri Chinmoy.103 The last of these groups, the Sri Chinmoy, is a Hindu meditation group and is the only group, so far, that has sued the government to be removed from the brochure.104 It is not clear whether all of the religions that attain Confessional Community status will continue to be considered dangerous, but as long as these groups are singled out by the government as dangerous, the Austrian public will consider them dangerous, regardless of their official status.

In addition to being accepted by the government as "nondangerous," recognized religions enjoy additional advantages that unrecognized religions do not. This list includes tax advantages,105 protection of public freedom of religious expression,106 legal protection of its name,107 the right to receive religious instruction in public schools from members of one's own faith,108 the right to government support of a religious private school,109 free weekly television time,110 the right to have one's religion on a birth certificate,111 the right to have a military chaplain from one's own religion,112 status as a public law corporation,TM protection of church funds against "secularization" (confiscation),114 and visa and work permits for foreign missionaries or church leaders.lls One of the more controversial rights of a recognized religion is the right to garnish Austrian workers' wages for the donations or tithing that each religion deems to be part of church membership.116

[kaisersose 0]

 

There're quite some Buddhist scholars stating, no, Buddhism actually cannot be called a religion in that sense since there's no acceptance of God and soul within the teachings of Buddhism.

 

Who says God & soul are necessary for religion? Probably some narrow visioned people who to a religion which has God & soul as its central theme and cannot see beyond these strictures.

 

The definition of religion per standard dictionaries is wide enough to cover Buddhism. So if someone disagrees they have to first change the english language.

 

Cheers

[bhaktajan 0]

Who says God & soul are necessary for religion?

 

This is the most unusual statement I have ever read on Audarya!

[suchandra 1]

 

Who says God & soul are necessary for religion? Probably some narrow visioned people who to a religion which has God & soul as its central theme and cannot see beyond these strictures.

 

The definition of religion per standard dictionaries is wide enough to cover Buddhism. So if someone disagrees they have to first change the english language.

 

Cheers

Since we live in a world of diversity we usually don't say things like a lotusflower is also an apple tree and believe in God is also to not believe in God.

The present understanding of all Buddhist leaders is that the worship of Lord Buddha leads at one point to the realization that Lord Buddha is zero (Nirvana). Buddhism rejects the concepts of God and Soul but according linguists the term 'religion' is derived from the Latin religio, meaning 'to bind together.' It is what binds together in relationship with God.

Since the final goal of Buddhism is to realize that there is nothing, zero, there cannot be any aim for "binding together in relationship".

One might argue that metaphysical aspects of Buddhism is what makes it a religion. However, what are these metaphysical aspects, ultimately they're also zero, nothing - nothing for binding it together, to make the grade of the term religion. So one doesn't need to change the english language but should learn to use the words properly. Plums are not strawberries and apples are not cherries. So it's that simple, the term religion, from the Latin re-ligio or re-connecting cannot be applied for something that aims to dissolve into nothing, to become zero. Even when you have many zero like 00000000, how these zeros can be binded together to get a religion, it remains zero.

At least according to Webster's definition, Buddhism is not a religion. It states that religion is the "belief in or worship of God or gods" (Webster's New World Dictionary pg.505).

Well yes, when arguments to back up a point are shaky or fulminate one might use the phrase, "some narrow visioned people", to lead the readers up the garden path or to pull the wool over people's eyes, I understand that.

But why not find another labeling for what Budhism is, not a religion but a philosophy. Why philosophy is so bad, why they also want to be called a religion?

[srikanthdk71 0]

 

Who says God & soul are necessary for religion? Probably some narrow visioned people who to a religion which has God & soul as its central theme and cannot see beyond these strictures.

 

The definition of religion per standard dictionaries is wide enough to cover Buddhism. So if someone disagrees they have to first change the english language.

 

Cheers

 

Dear Kaisersose, for any religion God and Soul are essential entities. But not for Spirituality which is beyond religion. Being religious and being sprititual are two different parameters. The first is bound by belief, subscription and the later is finding truth in your own way. Spirituality covers all forms of religion and beliefs where any religion wouldnt see beyond its boundries and still would vouch that it is the best.

[Bishadi 0]

"Buddhism Is An Education - Not A Religion"

 

 

is a brilliant statement.

 

like many branches grown of Vedic literature, this one finds the self realization quite important. Each must self examine what is true.

 

nothingness allows one to realize how little they know, and in a sense, to sit and not impose an atrocity; karma is maintained at its simplest form.

 

in the sect that has 'chosen' a llama, find the philosophy as;

 

if mankind learns and records, then as each generation is born to observe that material and be aware of continually learning for the cause of the evolution to knowledge, then to find a pure mind to teach as much knowledge in each period, then the evolution continues until eventually the final or 'absolute truth' exists.

 

The Dali is simply the 'chosen' life of that sect.

 

But if you look into the literature with clear eyes, the one 'chosen' is not the last avatar but the one who 'chose to' is supposed to be that guy. (note the ideals of Godhead)

 

but like each sect, there is ooosually an underlining good or purpose to the objective; it seems to pursue 'absolute truth' is not so bad.....

 

 

"Buddhism Is An Education - Not A Religion"

 

 

makes sense?

[bhaktajan 0]

I agree Buddhism is an education --in Karma-yoga & a also Jnana-yoga-- an education in 'what is karma & what is knowledge'

 

Just as "Karma-yoga" equates to 'do good acts & do not do bad acts' [this may include ritualistic rites ie: karma-kanda rites]-- so all religious dogmas boil-down to observance of rites and acts.

 

Ones dedication is reinforced by the knowledge (Jnana) that is studied and then affirmed in daily life --and thus, one becomes fixed in determination.

 

Here are some notes related to Conduct ala Yoga:

 

"Yoga" —hence Religion, hence the eight fold path, daily sadhana & occupational dharmas —all amount to proper Conduct (acana of mind, body & actions):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brahma-Samhita Verse 59

 

 

pramäëais tat-sad-äcärais

tad-abhyäsair nirantaram

bodhayan ätmanätmänaà

bhaktim apy uttamäà labhet

TRANSLATION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The highest devotion is attained by slow degrees by the method of constant endeavor for self-realization with the help of scriptural evidence, theistic conduct and perseverance in practice.

 

 

 

PURPORT

 

 

Evidence—the devotional scriptures, e.g., Çrémad-Bhägavatam, the Vedas, the Puräëas, the Gétä, etc. Theistic conduct—the conduct of pious persons (sädhus) who are pure devotees and the conduct of those pious persons who practice devotion to Godhead actuated by spontaneous love.

Practice—to learn about the ten basic principles (daça-müla) from the çästras and on receiving the name of Hari as laid down in the same, embodying the name, form, quality and activity of the Divinity. to practice the chanting of the name by serving Him night and day.

By this are meant study of the çästras and association with the sädhus.

The tenfold offense to holy name ceases by serving the name of Hari and simultaneously practicing pious conduct.

“Practice” is no other than following the mode of service of the name practiced by the sädhus without offense. By perseverance in such practice and devotion characterized by love which is the fruit of spiritual endeavor makes her appearance in the pure essence of the soul.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

You have to follow the authority in all circumstances:

Puñöa Kåñëa: Would you like to hear another question, Çréla Prabhupäda?

Çréla Prabhupäda: Yes.

Puñöa Kåñëa: "It is said that whereas the çrutis [the four original Vedas, the upaniñads, and the Vedänta-sütra] embody eternal truths, the småtis [the Puräëas, the Mahäbhärata, the Rämäyaëa, and corollary Vedic literature] embody the rules of conduct and thus need to be revised according to the dictates of the changing times.

Will such a view be acceptable to all sections of society, and if so, how can the new småtis come into being, and who will give them sanction and sanctity?"

Çréla Prabhupäda: The småtis are given by the Lord and His representatives. They come from spiritual authorities such as Lord Caitanya Mahäprabhu. The çästra, or scripture, also gives this authority.

For instance, for this age, Kali-yuga, the Lord has prescribed a special means of God-realization—the chanting of His holy name. Småtis such as the Båhan-näradéya Puräëa say the same thing—that in this age of Kali-yuga, the only possible means of God-realization is chanting the Lord's name.

In the Bhägavata Puräëa [12.3.51] also, Çukadeva Gosvämé directs,

 

 

 

kaler doña-nidhe räjann

 

 

 

 

asti hy eko mahän guëaù

 

kértanäd eva kåñëasya

 

mukta-saìgaù paraà vrajet

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Although in this age there are so many faults—it is truly an ocean of faults—still, there is one very great advantage: simply by chanting the Hare Kåñëa mantra, one becomes fully purified and is liberated from all material miseries."

So this småti injunction we should take up, and actually we see all over the world how it is purifying all sections of people. Take to this chanting of Hare Kåñëa; then çruti, småti, everything will be fulfilled. This is the easiest method. Kértanäd eva kåñëasya mukta-saìgaù paraà vrajet: chant the Lord's holy name and you'll be liberated.

Puñöa Kåñëa: So the çrutis are eternally relevant and constant?

Çréla Prabhupäda: Yes, everything is based on the çrutis. as the Vedänta-sütra says, anävåttiù çabdät: simply by chanting the Lord's names and instructions—His sound vibration—one becomes spiritually realized. Çabda brahman means "spiritual sound vibration," and as the Vedänta-sütra instructs us, by chanting this spiritual sound vibration—the instructions and holy name of the Lord—one can become liberated.

Puñöa Kåñëa: Also, the småtis are directly based on the original çrutis?

Çréla Prabhupäda: Yes, for instance, Bhagavad-gétä is considered småti. And Bhagavad-gétä also says, satatäà kértayanto mäà yatantaç ca dåòha-vratäù: [bg. 9.14] "Fully endeavoring with determination, the great souls are always chanting My glories." And as the Bhakti-rasämåta-sindhu, which is also considered småti, explains: çruti-småti-puräëädi [bRS 1.2.101]—the great devotees heed both the çrutis and the småtis.

Another småti, Båhan-näradéya Puräëa, enjoins, harer näma harer näma harer nämaiva kevalam: "In this age of quarrel, the only way to realize the Lord is to chant His holy name, chant His holy name, chant His holy name."

So because He was in the role of a great devotee, Lord Caitanya followed these injunctions of çruti and småti. Kåñëa-varëaà tviñäkåñëaà säìgopäìgästra-pärñadam [sB 11.5.32]. Kåñëam varëayati: Lord Caitanya was always chanting Hare Kåñëa. These examples are evidence that the småtis are directly based on the çrutis. So introduce this Hare Kåñëa mahä-mantra. Everyone will be purified.

Puñöa Kåñëa: Is småti more than just rules of conduct?

Çréla Prabhupäda: Yes. Here is what småti means:

The four original Vedas are considered çruti. But simply by hearing them, one cannot understand fully. Therefore, the småtis have explained further. Purayati iti puräëa: by hearing the Puräëas and other småtis, one makes his understanding complete.

The Vedic mantras are not always understood. For instance, the Vedänta, which is çruti, begins with the mantra janmädy asya yataù: [sB 1.1.1] "The Supreme is that being from whom everything has emanated." This is very abbreviated.

But the Çrémad-Bhägavatam, which is småti, explains, janmädy asya yato 'nvayäd itarataç cärtheñv abhijïäù sva-rät: [sB 1.1.1] "The Supreme Being, from whom everything has emanated, is directly and indirectly cognizant of everything and is fully independent."

In this way the småti explains the çruti. So whether you take çruti or småti, the subject matter is the same. Both çruti and småti are spiritual evidence. We cannot do without either of them. As Çréla Rüpa Gosvämé says in the Bhakti-rasämåta-sindhu [1.2.101],

 

 

 

çruti-småti-puräëädi-

 

 

 

 

païcarätra-vidhià vinä

 

aikäntiki harer bhaktir

 

utpätäyaiva kalpate

[bRS 1.2.101]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You cannot become purified or actually God conscious without reference to both çruti and småti. So as we push on this Kåñëa consciousness movement, it is not whimsical. It is based on

çruti, småti, and païcarätriki-vidhi, the principles of çruti, småti, and the Närada-païcarätra. Therefore, it is becoming effective

Puñöa Kåñëa: Nevertheless, Çréla Prabhupäda, the question asks, "Do the småtis need to be revised according to the changing times?"

Çréla Prabhupäda: They cannot be changed.

Puñöa Kåñëa: The småtis cannot be changed?

Çréla Prabhupäda: Nothing can be changed. But according to the time, you have to apply the principles properly. For instance, in Kali-yuga the småti order is kértanäd eva kåñëasya mukta-saìgaù paraà vrajet: to obtain spiritual liberation, one must chant the holy name of the Lord, Hare Kåñëa. So you have to do this.

For instance, a doctor may order, "In the morning, take this medicine; in the evening, take that medicine." It is not a change of the doctor's orders. It is simply that according to the time, the doctor's orders call for a particular medicine.

But the particular medicine is recommended by the doctor, not by your whims. Çruti and småti cannot be changed, but they may recommend a particular process at a particular time. So there must be adherence to both çruti and småti—to scriptural authority. You cannot modify.

Puñöa Kåñëa: There is no question, then, of—as the magazine puts it—"new småti."

Çréla Prabhupäda: No. New småti? they may take it as "new småti," but småti is småti—it is not new. In any spiritual statement, you have to give references to çruti and småti. Otherwise, it is not valid. There must be veda-pramäëa, çabda-pramäëa: evidence from the Vedas and from the explanatory Vedic literature. Otherwise, there is no evidence.

You cannot change the original çruti-småti. But you have to take their particular recommendation for the particular time, just as Kåñëa Caitanya Mahäprabhu did when He urged His followers to heed the injunction of Båhan-näradéya Puräëa [3.8.126]:

 

 

 

harer näma harer näma

 

 

 

 

harer nämaiva kevalam

 

kalau nästy eva nästy eva

 

nästy eva gatir anyathä

[Adi 17.21]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Chant the holy name, chant the holy name, chant the holy name of Kåñëa. In the present age of quarrel and anxiety, there is no other way to attain God realization, no other way, no other way." So çruti-småti-pramäëa—citing evidence from the Vedas and the corollary literature—is the only method for making a spiritual statement. You have to take it.

Puñöa Kåñëa: Can anyone change …

Çréla Prabhupäda: No!

Puñöa Kåñëa: … the rules of conduct as described in the småtis?

Çréla Prabhupäda: Nobody can change them. But these particular rules and regulations in çruti-småti are for particular times, particular circumstances. So we have to take these rules and regulations. You cannot change them.

Puñöa Kåñëa: And who will sanction a particular application for a particular time and place?

Çréla Prabhupäda: Yes. This was done by Lord Çré Kåñëa Caitanya. When he appeared five hundred years ago, he sanctioned the application of çruti-småti because He's a genuine authority. He's a genuine äcärya. And we are following in the footsteps of Caitanya Mahäprabhu. It is not whimsical. You have to follow the authority in all circumstances.

[Bart Happel 0]

 

Who says God & soul are necessary for religion?

 

This is the most unusual statement I have ever read on Audarya!

 

It's extreme monism.

 

Kind regards, Bart

[kaisersose 0]

 

Who says God & soul are necessary for religion?

 

This is the most unusual statement I have ever read on Audarya!

 

In case you are curious, the Dictionary does not place such a requirement (God & soul) on religion. Here is one specific set of possible meanings of the word from Dictionary_com

 

===========

 

re·li·gion Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

 

=======

 

There you go!

 

Cheers

[Justin 0]

 

It's extreme monism.

 

Kind regards, Bart

Didn't mean to follow you, but couldn't resist

It is nihilism. Buddhism does not recognize the self.

[kaisersose 0]

 

It's extreme monism.

 

Kind regards, Bart

 

No Bart, nothing to do with Monism.

 

Perhaps there is some confusion about Monism and Dualism here. Monism and Dualism do not equate to Advaita and Dvaita respectively.

 

Monism holds that there one ultimate reality. Dualism holds that there are two ultimate realities - most commonly the good and evil. Only a religion that s to the concept of Satan or its equivalent can be categorized under Dualism. Else, it is most likely Monist.

 

Again, I am not making stuff up...these are public dictionary definitions.

 

Cheers

[Bart Happel 0]

 

No Bart, nothing to do with Monism.

 

Perhaps there is some confusion about Monism and Dualism here. Monism and Dualism do not equate to Advaita and Dvaita respectively.

 

Monism holds that there one ultimate reality. Dualism holds that there are two ultimate realities - most commonly the good and evil. Only a religion that s to the concept of Satan or its equivalent can be categorized under Dualism. Else, it is most likely Monist.

 

Again, I am not making stuff up...these are public dictionary definitions.

 

Cheers

 

Then what do 'Advaita' and 'Dvaita' mean?

 

Kind regards, Bart

[kaisersose 0]

 

Then what do 'Advaita' and 'Dvaita' mean?

Kind regards, Bart

 

Liberation is where the difference comes in.

 

Advaita says on liberation of the soul, there is no more duality. The one consciosuness/Brahman/Super soul is all that exists.

 

Dvaita - or more accurately Tattavada - opposes this position and states on liberation, the soul continues to be an individual entity different from the Supersoul.

 

But like I said earlier, the english word Dualism was not coined with the concept of Dvaita in mind. It was/is for a whole other context.

 

Cheers

[Bart Happel 0]

 

Liberation is where the difference comes in.

 

Advaita says on liberation of the soul, there is no more duality. The one consciosuness/Brahman/Super soul is all that exists.

 

Dvaita - or more accurately Tattavada - opposes this position and states on liberation, the soul continues to be an individual entity different from the Supersoul.

 

But like I said earlier, the english word Dualism was not coined with the concept of Dvaita in mind. It was/is for a whole other context.

 

Cheers

 

Dear Kaisersose,

 

Then why are God & soul not (necessarily) necessary for religion?

 

Kind regards, Bart

[kaisersose 0]

 

Dear Kaisersose,

 

Then why are God & soul not (necessarily) necessary for religion?

 

Kind regards, Bart

 

I am saying - or rather - the dictionary says that God & soul are not necessary elements of religion which is why Buddhism is also classified as a religion (which was the original topic of this thread).

 

Cheers

[Bart Happel 0]

 

I am saying - or rather - the dictionary says that God & soul are not necessary elements of religion which is why Buddhism is also classified as a religion (which was the original topic of this thread).

 

Cheers

 

But you also said: "Who says God & soul are necessary for religion? Probably some narrow visioned people who to a religion which has God & soul as its central theme and cannot see beyond these strictures."

 

Kind regards, Bart

[kaisersose 0]

 

But you also said: "Who says God & soul are necessary for religion? Probably some narrow visioned people who to a religion which has God & soul as its central theme and cannot see beyond these strictures."

 

Kind regards, Bart

 

Yes, they are incapable of seeing Buddhism - which is not God-centric - as a religion. I am saying they are incorrect as it is possible to have religions which do not have Gods, as the dictionary clearly states.

 

I am not saying religion should not have God; I am saying there can be religions which do not have God, like Buddhism.

 

Hope that clarifies.

 

Cheers

[ARJ 0]

 

Since the final goal of Buddhism is to realize that there is nothing, zero, there cannot be any aim for "binding together in relationship".

 

From ZERO to number ONE hero

 

Shankara rocks :P

 

[Bart Happel 0]

Interesting.. In another thread, I discussed a possible theoretical model of quantum reality, in which the entire universe is ‘described’ by a single oscillating point in absolute space. At any moment in time, only this point may exist. So, in the limit, everything that exists approaches zero.

 

Kind regards, Bart

[Vigraha 0]

Isn't Buddhism the philosophy of athiesm because they teach the ultimate realization is to merge into a 'Void Nirvana' and cease their existence?

 

Isn't Buddhism an impersonalist belief and the path of spiritual suicide because of te desire to end their individuality and become one with the 'universal energy'?

 

Isn't Buddhism an out dated teachings meant for a past time and place and not relevent know that Lord Caitanya has come 500 years ago?

[suchandra 1]

 

Isn't Buddhism an out dated teachings meant for a past time and place and not relevent know that Lord Caitanya has come 500 years ago?

Thing is that Buddhism is preaching far better than anybody else. Prabhupada once said if Lord Caitanya wouldnt have defeated the Buddhists in India we would have in India the same like in China, Japan, Malasia etc - Buddhist supremacy, since Hindus are the worst preachers.

 

How many followers of Buddhism are there?

 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_followers_of_Buddhism_are_there

In: Buddhism

their are over 300 million followers of buddhism world wide.

[Bishadi 0]

 

Thing is that Buddhism is preaching far better than anybody else. Prabhupada once said if Lord Caitanya wouldnt have defeated the Buddhists in India we would have in India the same like in China, Japan, Malasia etc - Buddhist supremacy, since Hindus are the worst preachers.

 

the beginning 'preachers' of these 2 sects lived almost 2000 years apart but both had much of the same line of sight.

 

Siddharta Gautama is the name to Buddhism as Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is to the Krishna form of Hinduism.

 

Both share responsibility to observing knowledge and what we experience as life.

 

The idea of Dukkha, Samudaya, Nirodha and Magga as shared in the older works are to self reflect and then how to incorporate the mind to understand. or simplified in

 

know sufferings, abandon origins, attain cessations and practice the path;

 

Each of these are of the humble realization of unknowing; a kind of humility to the wait but to identify the devotion to the 'good' of doing. Whether of mind, thought and action; similar to the idea of Bhakti.

 

to be devoted to the good in all action

 

 

then see the idea that Jesus came to defeat Moses or that Christianity over takes Judaism is about as parallel to this form as can be found in comparing or identifying the 2 camps of their respective religions.

 

but they still brothers of the lineage within the evolution of the knowledge

 

so the education of either path has merit within each of compassion

 

maybe differences of faith but little difference of the devotional intent

 

perhaps the isolations can be ascertained to a schism of sorts

 

perhaps of leadership

 

but One within our history, as then One to which we can reason within the mind of Good

 

in all paths, the key to understanding is with devotion to the total

[ARJ 0]

 

Thing is that Buddhism is preaching far better than anybody else. Prabhupada once said if Lord Caitanya wouldnt have defeated the Buddhists in India we would have in India the same like in China, Japan, Malasia etc - Buddhist supremacy, since Hindus are the worst preachers.

 

"Wisdom lies in never forgetting the Self, the Supreme Absolute as the ever present source of both the experiencer and the experiences" this is what kicked Buddha out, but yes Hindus are worst preachers.

[realist 0]

 

Isn't Buddhism the philosophy of athiesm because they teach the ultimate realization is to merge into a 'Void Nirvana' and cease their existence?

 

Isn't Buddhism an impersonalist belief and the path of spiritual suicide because of te desire to end their individuality and become one with the 'universal energy'?

 

Isn't Buddhism an out dated teachings meant for a past time and place and not relevent know that Lord Caitanya has come 500 years ago?

 

<CENTER>

The Authorised understanding of Lord Buddha

 

Lord Buddha As mentioned in the Srimad Bhagavatam

 

 

</CENTER>

 

tataù kalau sampravåtte

sammohäya sura-dviñäm

buddho nämnäïjana-sutaù

kékaöeñu bhaviñyati

 

 

 

 

SYNONYMS

 

 

tataù—thereafter; kalau—the age of Kali; sampravåtte—having ensued; sammohäya—for the purpose of deluding; sura—the theists; dviñäm—those who are envious; buddhaù—Lord Buddha; nämnä—of the name; aïjana-sutaù—whose mother was Aïjanä; kékaöeñu—in the province of Gayä (Bihar); bhaviñyati—will take place.

 

 

 

TRANSLATION

 

 

Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Aïjanä, in the province of Gayä, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist.

 

PURPORT by HDG Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada -

 

 

 

Lord Buddha, a powerful incarnation of the Personality of Godhead, appeared in the province of Gayä (Bihar) as the son of Aïjanä, and he preached his own conception of nonviolence and deprecated even the animal sacrifices sanctioned in the Vedas.

 

 

 

 

At the time when Lord Buddha appeared, the people in general were atheistic and preferred animal flesh to anything else. On the plea of Vedic sacrifice, every place was practically turned into a slaughterhouse, and animal-killing was indulged in unrestrictedly.

 

 

 

 

Lord Buddha preached nonviolence, taking pity on the poor animals. He preached that he did not believe in the tenets of the Vedas and stressed the adverse psychological effects incurred by animal-killing.

 

 

 

 

Less intelligent men of the age of Kali, who had no faith in God, followed his principle, and for the time being they were trained in moral discipline and nonviolence, the preliminary steps for proceeding further on the path of God realization.

 

 

 

 

He deluded the atheists because such atheists who followed his principles did not believe in God, but they kept their absolute faith in Lord Buddha, who himself was the incarnation of God.

 

 

 

 

Thus the faithless people were made to believe in God in the form of Lord Buddha. That was the mercy of Lord Buddha: he made the faithless faithful to him.

 

 

 

 

Killing of animals before the advent of Lord Buddha was the most prominent feature of the society. People claimed that these were Vedic sacrifices.

 

 

 

 

When the Vedas are not accepted through the authoritative disciplic succession, the casual readers of the Vedas are misled by the flowery language of that system of knowledge.

 

 

 

 

In the Bhagavad-Gita a comment has been made on such foolish scholars (avipaçcitaù). The foolish scholars of Vedic literature who do not care to receive the transcendental message through the transcendental realized sources of disciplic succession are sure to be bewildered.

 

 

 

 

 

To them, the ritualistic ceremonies are considered to be all in all. They have no depth of knowledge. According to the Bhagavad-Gita (15.15), vedaiç ca sarvair aham eva vedyaù: the whole system of the Vedas is to lead one gradually to the path of the Supreme Lord.

 

 

 

The whole theme of Vedic literature is to know the Supreme Lord, the individual soul, the cosmic situation and the relation between all these items. When the relation is known, the relative function begins, and as a result of such a function the ultimate goal of life or going back to Godhead takes place in the easiest manner.

 

 

Unfortunately, unauthorized scholars of the Vedas become captivated by the purificatory ceremonies only, and natural progress is thereby checked.

 

 

 

 

To such bewildered persons of atheistic propensity, Lord Buddha is the emblem of theism.

 

 

 

 

He therefore first of all wanted to check the habit of animal-killing. The animal-killers are dangerous elements on the path going back to Godhead. There are two types of animal-killers. The soul is also sometimes called the “animal” or the living being.

 

 

 

 

Therefore, both the slaughterer of animals and those who have lost their identity of soul are animal-killers.

 

 

 

 

Maharaja Parikshit said that only the animal-killer cannot relish the transcendental message of the Supreme Lord.

 

 

 

 

Therefore if people are to be educated to the path of Godhead, they must be taught first and foremost to stop the process of animal-killing as above mentioned.

 

 

 

 

It is nonsensical to say that animal-killing has nothing to do with spiritual realization. By this dangerous theory many so-called sannyasis have sprung up by the grace of Kali-yuga who preach animal-killing under the garb of the Vedas.

 

 

 

 

The subject matter has already been discussed in the conversation between Lord Caitanya and Maulana Chand Kazi Shaheb.

 

 

 

 

The animal sacrifice as stated in the Vedas is different from the unrestricted animal-killing in the slaughterhouse.

 

 

 

 

Because the asuras or the so-called scholars of Vedic literatures put forward the evidence of animal-killing in the Vedas, Lord Buddha superficially denied the authority of the Vedas.

 

 

 

 

This rejection of the Vedas by Lord Buddha was adopted in order to save people from the vice of animal-killing as well as to save the poor animals from the slaughtering process of their big brothers who clamor for universal brotherhood, peace, justice and equity.

 

 

 

 

There is no justice when there is animal-killing. Lord Buddha wanted to stop it completely, and therefore his cult of ahiàsä was propagated not only in India but also outside the country.

 

 

 

 

Technically Lord Buddha’s philosophy is called atheistic because there is no acceptance of the Supreme Lord and because that system of philosophy denied the authority of the Vedas. But that is an act of camouflage by the Lord.

 

 

 

 

Lord Buddha is the incarnation of Godhead. As such, he is the original propounder of Vedic knowledge. He therefore cannot reject Vedic philosophy.

 

 

 

 

But he rejected it outwardly because the sura-dviña, or the demons who are always envious of the devotees of Godhead, try to support cow-killing or animal-killing from the pages of the Vedas, and this is now being done by the modernized sannyäsés.

 

 

 

 

Lord Buddha had to reject the authority of the Vedas altogether. This is simply technical, and had it not been so he would not have been so accepted as the incarnation of Godhead.

Nor would he have been worshiped in the transcendental songs of the poet Jayadeva, who is a Vaishnava acarya.

 

 

 

 

Lord Buddha preached the preliminary principles of the Vedas in a manner suitable for the time being (and so also did Çaìkaräcärya) to establish the authority of the Vedas.

 

 

 

 

Therefore both Lord Buddha and Acarya Çaìkara paved the path of theism, and Vaishnava Acaryas, specifically Lord Sri Caitanya Mahäprabhu, led the people on the path towards a realization of going back to Godhead.

 

 

 

 

We are glad that people are taking interest in the nonviolent movement of Lord Buddha. But will they take the matter very seriously and close the animal slaughterhouses altogether?

 

 

 

 

If not, there is no meaning to the ahiàsä cult.

Çrémad-Bhägavatam was composed just prior to the beginning of the age of Kali (about five thousand years ago), and Lord Buddha appeared about twenty-six hundred years ago.

 

 

 

 

Therefore in the Srimad-Bhagavatam Lord Buddha is foretold. Such is the authority of this clear scripture. There are many such prophecies, and they are being fulfilled one after another.

 

 

 

 

They will indicate the positive standing of Srimad-Bhagavatam, which is without trace of mistake, illusion, cheating and imperfection, which are the four flaws of all conditioned souls.

 

 

 

 

The liberated souls are above these flaws; therefore they can see and foretell things which are to take place on distant future dates. (Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Srimad Bhagavatam 1:3:24. text and purport.)

http://www.vedabase.com/

 

 

 

[IamNotHeeHee 0]

 

"Wisdom lies in never forgetting the Self, the Supreme Absolute as the ever present source of both the experiencer and the experiences" this is what kicked Buddha out, but yes Hindus are worst preachers.

Buddhism ceased to exist in some places mostly because of Kumaarila Bhatta of the mimaansaka school.

 

HeeHee