as Hinduism exists in India for 5000 years and is the world's oldest religion. When Buddhism was founded by Shakyamuni Buddha about 2500 years ago, some of the teachings were similar, but not quite, like Nirvana, rebirth and karma, but buddhism rejects the concept of soul and a creator.
Originally posted by Rooney9:as Hinduism exists in India for 5000 years and is the world's oldest religion. When Buddhism was founded by Shakyamuni Buddha about 2500 years ago, some of the teachings were similar, but not quite, like Nirvana, rebirth and karma, but buddhism rejects the concept of soul and a creator.
As you said, Buddhism rejects (and is the only religion that rejects) a soul and a creator, that is why we are different and not an off-shoot of whatever religions.
Originally posted by Rooney9:as Hinduism exists in India for 5000 years and is the world's oldest religion. When Buddhism was founded by Shakyamuni Buddha about 2500 years ago, some of the teachings were similar, but not quite, like Nirvana, rebirth and karma, but buddhism rejects the concept of soul and a creator.
Hinduism’s ‘general entities’ envisage fixed entities behind phenomena. As for Buddhism, one of the differentiating catalysts is a discussion that refutes the existence of any permanent entity whatsoever. The Hindu theory that Buddhism contests most strongly is that of an all-powerful Creator, like the Hindu Ishvara. Debates on this subject actually took place with the holders of the main Hindu philosophies, of which there were many, several centuries before and after Christ. The debates centered, in general terms, on the Hindu premise (and relatively common religious postulation) of a permanent Creator entity, all-powerful and sufficient in itself, without any cause preceding it, creating as a voluntary act. Point-by-point, Buddhist dialects refuted (and continue to contest) this ideology by utilizing a tradition of dianoetic reasoning, which would resemble the following approach to your original statement:
A Creator, as prescribed, would have to be all-powerful. As such, either the Creator doesn’t ‘decide’ to create, in which case all-powerfulness is lost, for creation happens outside his will; or it creates voluntarily, in which case he cannot be all-powerful, either, as he’s creating under the influence of a desire to create. Can a Creator be a permanent entity? No, because after creating he is different from how he was before he created. He has become ‘he who created’. Furthermore if he creates the whole universe that necessarily implies that all the causes of the universe must be present within him. Now, one of the principles of the law of cause and effect, or karma, is that an event cannot take place as long as all the causes and conditions for its arising are not assembled, and that it cannot not take place once they are. This, in turn, means that a Creator either could never create or would have to be constantly creating.
The relative aspects of phenomena (or in other words, the world of appearances) in Buddhism are distinguished from the ultimate nature of everything. From an absolute point of view, again differing from that of Hinduism, Buddhism holds that an entity that truly existed could neither arise in the first place nor ever disappear. Being cannot be born from nothingness, because even an infinitude of causes would not be able to make something that didn’t exist come into existence; nor can it be born from what already exists, as in that case there would be no need for it to be born…
This sort of reasoning, and many others like it, can be applied to Hinduism and all traditions that envisage a Creator who is eternal, all-powerful, who exists intrinsically, and so on.
I stands to correct you.
Hinduism does not exist in the time of the Buddha, Brahmaism did. Therefore Buddhism is not a branch-off of Hindui
Originally posted by AtlasWept:Hinduism’s ‘general entities’ envisage fixed entities behind phenomena. As for Buddhism, one of the differentiating catalysts is a discussion that refutes the existence of any permanent entity whatsoever. The Hindu theory that Buddhism contests most strongly is that of an all-powerful Creator, like the Hindu Ishvara. Debates on this subject actually took place with the holders of the main Hindu philosophies, of which there were many, several centuries before and after Christ. The debates centered, in general terms, on the Hindu premise (and relatively common religious postulation) of a permanent Creator entity, all-powerful and sufficient in itself, without any cause preceding it, creating as a voluntary act. Point-by-point, Buddhist dialects refuted (and continue to contest) this ideology by utilizing a tradition of dianoetic reasoning, which would resemble the following approach to your original statement:
A Creator, as prescribed, would have to be all-powerful. As such, either the Creator doesn’t ‘decide’ to create, in which case all-powerfulness is lost, for creation happens outside his will; or it creates voluntarily, in which case he cannot be all-powerful, either, as he’s creating under the influence of a desire to create. Can a Creator be a permanent entity? No, because after creating he is different from how he was before he created. He has become ‘he who created’. Furthermore if he creates the whole universe that necessarily implies that all the causes of the universe must be present within him. Now, one of the principles of the law of cause and effect, or karma, is that an event cannot take place as long as all the causes and conditions for its arising are not assembled, and that it cannot not take place once they are. This, in turn, means that a Creator either could never create or would have to be constantly creating.
The relative aspects of phenomena (or in other words, the world of appearances) in Buddhism are distinguished from the ultimate nature of everything. From an absolute point of view, again differing from that of Hinduism, Buddhism holds that an entity that truly existed could neither arise in the first place nor ever disappear. Being cannot be born from nothingness, because even an infinitude of causes would not be able to make something that didn’t exist come into existence; nor can it be born from what already exists, as in that case there would be no need for it to be born…
This sort of reasoning, and many others like it, can be applied to Hinduism and all traditions that envisage a Creator who is eternal, all-powerful, who exists intrinsically, and so on.
Many people argue against the existence of Creator because many tend to think of Earth as the most important planet in the Universe and humans as the all-supreme species of beings, and don't fully understand the real purpose of Earth's existence.
Anyway, for folks wanting to know more, just know that while Earth was created by Creator, humans were not created by Him, but by very highly evolved beings. For folks who don't believe this, just treat what I said as a story. :)
Rainbow Jigsaw of Life
Einstein said everything is relative and is similar to what the Buddha has taught, dependent origination. Buddha has specifically refuted on the concept of a creator ie the brahma during his time.
Originally posted by Rooney9:Einstein said everything is relative and is similar to what the Buddha has taught, dependent origination. Buddha has specifically refuted on the concept of a creator ie the brahma during his time.
Just for curious people out there: you may like to find out more about why it was recorded by man that Buddha said that at that time. Same thing I would say to more curious Christians: they may like to find out more about why it was recorded by man that Jesus' last words were that God abandoned him at the cross. :)
Rainbow Jigsaw of Life
The Buddha was enlightened and awakened. He has understood and realised the emptiness of phenonmenon and wasnt created by brahma or any god. he wasnt speaking of any theory when he taught dependent origination. fast forward 2500 years later, dependent origination has stood the test of time when explaining phenomenon. you can also realised this if you are enlightened and awakened.
Paticca means because of, or dependent upon: Samuppada "arising or origination." Paticca Samuppada, therefore, literally means -- "Dependent Arising" or "Dependent Origination."
Buddhism is not easy to understand, even for buddhists.
Originally posted by Rooney9:The Buddha was enlightened and awakened. He has understood and realised the emptiness of phenonmenon and wasnt created by brahma or any god. he wasnt speaking of any theory when he taught dependent origination. fast forward 2500 years later, dependent origination has stood the test of time when explaining phenomenon. you can also realised this if you are enlightened and awakened.
By sometime next year, there'll be 1 extremely significant world-changing event which will answer many people's doubts about our world. Patience, people, patience. :)
Rainbow Jigsaw of Life
If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why does he order such misfortune
And not create concord?
If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why prevail deceit, lies and ignorance
And he such inequity and injustice create?
If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Then an evil master is he, (O Aritta)
Knowing what's right did let wrong prevail!
dependant origination could not withstand independent origination.
Existence of creator is purely anecdotal.
Hi, what do you mean by independent origination, can you give an example?
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:dependant origination could not withstand independent origination.
Should be the other way around, independent origination could not withstand dependent origination. Phenomena can be deduced through dependent origination, while independent origination requires blind faith; or creative intelligence.
Originally posted by Weychin:Should be the other way around, independent origination could not withstand dependent origination. Phenomena can be deduced through dependent origination, while independent origination requires blind faith; or creative intelligence.
Deduced or soothsaying?
Originally posted by wl_t:Hi, what do you mean by independent origination, can you give an example?
u can ask Herzog_Zwei what is independent origination, since he is teaching and preaching on independent origination. ask him to give you illustrations.
Originally posted by Rainbow Jigsaw:
By sometime next year, there'll be 1 extremely significant world-changing event which will answer many people's doubts about our world. Patience, people, patience. :)Rainbow Jigsaw of Life
Next year, even if an alien comes and proclaims that he is an emissary of , or itself is the creator. However, that would not solve my seemingly endless suffering. Please do notify me when the 1 extremely significant world changing events comes!
Originally posted by Rooney9:u can ask Herzog_Zwei what is independent origination, since he is teaching and preaching on independent origination. ask him to give you illustrations.
i.e. karma does not exist.
There is no cause and effect.
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
i.e. karma does not exist.There is no cause and effect.
so whats the name of this preaching?
Originally posted by Rooney9:
so whats the name of this preaching?
independent origination.
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
Deduced or soothsaying?
Soothsaying is for anybody who just wants to buy to insurance, to stay on the "right" side!
Afraid you can't do that if you wish to understand or practise Buddhism!
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
independent origination.
Probably something irrelevant that it does'nt warrant description.
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
independent origination.
so pls explain what independent origination is. 2 word liner isnt helpful in clarifying.
Originally posted by Weychin:Probably something irrelevant that it does'nt warrant description.
independent origination means exists on its own. how can a thing or object exists on its own? even einstein said everything is relative.