5 ms·

from my point of view, you are correct, that they have taken the name of Buddha in order to promote their own thoughts and ideas. If it were really true that th

from my point of view, you are correct, that they have taken the name of Buddha in order to promote their own thoughts and ideas. If it were really true that they revered Buddha, then his special teaching should still be present within the material studied by e.g. Krishna devotees. I recently went to have around 10 deep conversations with such devotees and I confirmed that they know next to nothing about his real teaching. While they insist they know, they repeatedly describe the essence of his teaching as "non-violence". However this is virtually nothing to do with Buddha's special teaching, and as a matter of fact, only someone who already has the extraordinarily high level to differentiate true from false and, put it into practice by never telling any untruth, would be capable of even practicing non-violence. His teaching is far more profound and constructive than the idea of non-violence. In fact, saying his teaching merely amounted to non-violence and co-opting his name, portrait, and tacit approval of their usage of his name, calling him an incarnation of the deity of their choice, while he cannot come to correct them, is nothing other than blatant and dear violence against Gautama Buddha. This is while they insist that the words in the gita from Krisha to Arjuna that it is literally impossible to kill are remotely valid. It's merely delusion in order to further avoid the truth that Buddha left. It seems narcissistic at best and murderous at worst. Buddha called himself a self-born, not an incarnation of vishnu, and his teaching wasn't non-violence, but rather, he even stated once that he was here to destroy delusions. it would make sense that, for a person like him, with massively superior wisdom, to have come and tamed all those around him in debate on such matters, who also said that he is the only one who exists between all of heaven and earth, thus superseding the deities of the current religions, would have to be co-opted by those religions. misinforming people is the only way for religious people to maintain their position of influence over others and over their own subconscious. What saddened me even more was only the children I met in that large group of devotees were able to admit they had doubts about the Gita and were able to listen a bit. Buddha also was extremely clear in the Lotus Sutra that even "nirvana" is not his real teaching. He states repeatedly and very unmistakably that he used the concept of nirvana as a temporary resting spot for beings who would be too arrogant or too ignorant to accept the truth if he told them as he knew they wouldn't be able to understand without much more of his cultivating them. So he lets them play with the concept of nirvana, and when he sees them cultivated, he tells them that what they thought was nirvana was no true final resting spot and that real nirvana resides with omniscience. He claimed knowledge of the true nature of reality and was very clear in his explanation of the fundamental laws and theories of existence: reincarnation and the law of cause and effect. How a good or bad thing happens. How to live well or how to become worse. Lying, for example, is not good for people. He revealed the ways from the problems to the results. As you can see this is a far cry from such a thing as ordering people not to be violent and not explaining how they can actually accomplish it. suppose you were to hear that real nirvana is with omniscience... you'd probably have thrown it away too. or suppose you are a Krishna devotee who calls said deity to help or take control of your life - and Buddha comes and calls you "the blind who have eyes"... the main answer for people who remain in denial is to co-opt his name and deny that you're in denial. it rather reminds me of modern Christians believing themselves saved from sin just through faith in their own ideas without ever having met Jesus and having listened to him scold them on their wrong ideas and practices. why do we think humanity killed people like Jesus and Socrates? just because we pretend to be part of a gentle religion does not exempt us from the same tendency. Buddha in reality was very lonely when he was here in this world. as a matter of fact, modern Buddhism as well is not the real, living teaching of Buddha anymore - most people I met interested in Buddhism are also co-opting his name. He was very clear this would happen in the Lotus Sutra. that's why he intentionally withheld the true Dharma from people until right before he died. Buddha's teaching is not to kill your consciousness and to die forever (no more rebirths). Buddha is clear that he made up that he dies or that he won't be reborn and says in fact he is reborn many times. Buddha's real, living teaching goes in the opposite way of dying forever - he taught people how to save their lives and live forever. It's obvious when you really understand what he left but what he left has been changed so much to the point that even the higher level explanations have been polluted by words of ordinary people.

rhuru 3y ago
> If it were really true that they revered Buddha, then his special teaching should still be present within the material studied by e.g. Krishna devotees This is not true about Hinduism. It isn't one of those "take all or none" philosophies you can pick your parts without ever reading about many other parts which you still hold in high regard due to tradition. Hindus do not hold Islam and Christianity in the same reverence simply because both ideologies are outside the umbrella of Hinduism. Now, if the claim is that someone have used Buddha's name to promote their own ideas then reverse would be true, you will find Buddha everywhere including in Gita as someone who is subservient to their favourite God. There would be fake quotes about Buddha praising Krishna and so on. > most people I met interested in Buddhism are also co-opting his name This is true for nearly all religions and especially for philosophies. The difference between philosophy and science is that, to understand someone else's philosophy you need to possess similar intellect. Where as average student of science can study and understad ideas of genius like Einstein.
- blueprint 3y ago
  > The difference between philosophy and science is that, to understand someone else's philosophy you need to possess similar intellect. Where as average student of science can study and understad ideas of genius like Einstein. where on earth or from who did you learn this abject nonsense? Based on what you said, whatever you learned is not actually philosophy. Philosophy is not someone's thoughts or ideas. Reducing it to that makes it equivalent to some random person's random ravings and trivializes the word. The reason why you can't understand all of philosophy is because you have learned from someone who didnt really know. Philosophy is easily defined when you actually know. Or perhaps you think you are expert enough of all philosophy to be able to state so boldly that all of them require some level of intellect. I hate to break it to you, but that is an immensely arrogant thing to say, aside from being obviously self-contradictory and produced by someone who speaks of his thoughts rather than what is known. meanwhile you're attempting to rob humanity of real philosophy, which is not at all apart from science. Philosophy and science are both part of the same object - two sides of one coin. Philosophy is the study of what is in the truth. We call truth that way because it's fixed and can be confirmed through literally anything. But whatever you learned is actually a tool to deceive people who don't know any better. There is a phrase: "buddha's teaching is so simple that can be learned by a three year old boy, but it cannot be practiced by an 80 year old man." > This is true for nearly all religions and especially for philosophies. Remove the word philosophy and I'll agree with you. > This is not true about Hinduism. It isn't one of those "take all or none" philosophies you can pick your parts without ever reading about many other parts which you still hold in high regard due to tradition. I'm wondering if you decided to completely ignore everything I previously wrote or if you've got something controlling you to be unable to correctly understand what you read of what I wrote. Chances are you are another person who does not actually want to know the truth. The best way to remain in ignorance is to falsely convince yourself that you actually do want to know. There is blatant evidence that Buddha's teaching is thrown away. He himself says the Lotus Sutra is the one sutra that is rejected by the majority of people, even while he's alive. Maybe if you had a basic amount of regard for him and even perhaps yourself then you wouldn't so obviously deny how deeply in denial you are. I will explain something for you. Buddhism is not under the umbrella of Santanadharma, however much you try to neuter Buddha's real teaching so as to stay so comfortable in your own ideas. Buddha admitted the existence of Gods because they are equivalent to aspects of nature or because they don't really exist or are metaphors and he uses them entirely as such. The mere fact that you are possessed by a god justifies Buddha's using the term - because you are a servant of a dead God , it was accurate to call you one. But Buddha was clear that there are no beings. If you knew even a little of his real teaching then you would notice how silly you sound claiming that what you know even approaches his level. Buddha used words like bodhisattva or deva even though he is later clear about the true nature of those terms. You're the one who missed the point. Buddha basically intentionally trolled you. Besides, if you really knew the nature of a real Krishna, you would see that the truth of those concepts do not originate in "Hinduism", whatever that is. Are you aware of the fact buddha said, "in all of heaven and earth, only I exist"? Stop changing his words if you want to convince the future humanity you actually respect him. The fact is, for now, you are lying to people. The Gita makes repeated claims about Buddha that he either directly contradicted or which he never made. That's a sin. The mere fact that you place his painting in the Gita and tell innocent people that you know he's an incarnation means you lied about him. QED.

rhuru 3y ago

> If it were really true that they revered Buddha, then his special teaching should still be present within the material studied by e.g. Krishna devotees This is not true about Hinduism. It isn't one of those "take all or none" philosophies you can pick your parts without ever reading about many other parts which you still hold in high regard due to tradition. Hindus do not hold Islam and Christianity in the same reverence simply because both ideologies are outside the umbrella of Hinduism. Now, if the claim is that someone have used Buddha's name to promote their own ideas then reverse would be true, you will find Buddha everywhere including in Gita as someone who is subservient to their favourite God. There would be fake quotes about Buddha praising Krishna and so on. > most people I met interested in Buddhism are also co-opting his name This is true for nearly all religions and especially for philosophies. The difference between philosophy and science is that, to understand someone else's philosophy you need to possess similar intellect. Where as average student of science can study and understad ideas of genius like Einstein.

blueprint 3y ago
> The difference between philosophy and science is that, to understand someone else's philosophy you need to possess similar intellect. Where as average student of science can study and understad ideas of genius like Einstein. where on earth or from who did you learn this abject nonsense? Based on what you said, whatever you learned is not actually philosophy. Philosophy is not someone's thoughts or ideas. Reducing it to that makes it equivalent to some random person's random ravings and trivializes the word. The reason why you can't understand all of philosophy is because you have learned from someone who didnt really know. Philosophy is easily defined when you actually know. Or perhaps you think you are expert enough of all philosophy to be able to state so boldly that all of them require some level of intellect. I hate to break it to you, but that is an immensely arrogant thing to say, aside from being obviously self-contradictory and produced by someone who speaks of his thoughts rather than what is known. meanwhile you're attempting to rob humanity of real philosophy, which is not at all apart from science. Philosophy and science are both part of the same object - two sides of one coin. Philosophy is the study of what is in the truth. We call truth that way because it's fixed and can be confirmed through literally anything. But whatever you learned is actually a tool to deceive people who don't know any better. There is a phrase: "buddha's teaching is so simple that can be learned by a three year old boy, but it cannot be practiced by an 80 year old man." > This is true for nearly all religions and especially for philosophies. Remove the word philosophy and I'll agree with you. > This is not true about Hinduism. It isn't one of those "take all or none" philosophies you can pick your parts without ever reading about many other parts which you still hold in high regard due to tradition. I'm wondering if you decided to completely ignore everything I previously wrote or if you've got something controlling you to be unable to correctly understand what you read of what I wrote. Chances are you are another person who does not actually want to know the truth. The best way to remain in ignorance is to falsely convince yourself that you actually do want to know. There is blatant evidence that Buddha's teaching is thrown away. He himself says the Lotus Sutra is the one sutra that is rejected by the majority of people, even while he's alive. Maybe if you had a basic amount of regard for him and even perhaps yourself then you wouldn't so obviously deny how deeply in denial you are. I will explain something for you. Buddhism is not under the umbrella of Santanadharma, however much you try to neuter Buddha's real teaching so as to stay so comfortable in your own ideas. Buddha admitted the existence of Gods because they are equivalent to aspects of nature or because they don't really exist or are metaphors and he uses them entirely as such. The mere fact that you are possessed by a god justifies Buddha's using the term - because you are a servant of a dead God , it was accurate to call you one. But Buddha was clear that there are no beings. If you knew even a little of his real teaching then you would notice how silly you sound claiming that what you know even approaches his level. Buddha used words like bodhisattva or deva even though he is later clear about the true nature of those terms. You're the one who missed the point. Buddha basically intentionally trolled you. Besides, if you really knew the nature of a real Krishna, you would see that the truth of those concepts do not originate in "Hinduism", whatever that is. Are you aware of the fact buddha said, "in all of heaven and earth, only I exist"? Stop changing his words if you want to convince the future humanity you actually respect him. The fact is, for now, you are lying to people. The Gita makes repeated claims about Buddha that he either directly contradicted or which he never made. That's a sin. The mere fact that you place his painting in the Gita and tell innocent people that you know he's an incarnation means you lied about him. QED.