Buddhism - Declined or Brutalized in the land of its birth?

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

LOL....... why would the british spend time and resource in destroying ancient ruins when they can benefit from it ?

They certainly did nothing to protect these ruins.

White even viewed slavery as something that is inherently good and worthwhile ....... till they no longer needed it and it was easier to abolish it. They continue to see discrimination as something inherently good and worthwhile and that is why India is not allowed to have nuclear weapons. It continues to be the white mans burden.

For us, Yoga is not a method to acquire knowledge. Knowledge is acquired as a means to acquire Power. Its goals are narrow and exploitative if need be.

Yoga is a method to help us become one with the Universe. Not gain knowledge, but recognize that knowledge as we know it is just "Maya", an illusion.


What was scientific about Buddha ?

Did he follow the scientific principle of testing a hypothesis, and repeat-ability of his hypothesis ?

He was the only Buddha in his sangha, no one else was able to replicate his experiment. So how is it scientific ?

He was empiricist..But didnot understand you need repeatable, independent results for Buddhism to be considered science..He thought first person experience was proof enough..Same can be said of even Yogis..they never understood the Scientific Method..The only ones in India that came close are the Charvakas, especially the guy below

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayarāśi_Bhaṭṭa


Jai Charvaka, the saviour of the Indic Race

 

[Vishwabalas]

He was empiricist..But didnot understand you need repeatable, independent results for Buddhism to be considered science..He thought first person experience was proof enough..Same can be said of even Yogis..they never understood the Scientific Method..The only ones in India that came close are the Charvakas, especially the guy below

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayarāśi_Bhaṭṭa


Jai Charvaka, the saviour of the Indic Race

How is it "empirical" when it has never been proven by his own sangha ?

It does not matter if Buddha though he was scientific, what matters is for you to claim Buddha is scientific, it needs to adhere to scientific principles as defined in the today's age.

Since you admit that he was not able to replicate his experiment, your own logic admits that he was NOT scientific.

Buddha was a Yogi, I fail to see how you can claim a yogi is any different from what buddha practiced and preached.

Charvaka's did not bother to prove anything, they just negated everything and lived in the moment. That is not very scientific either.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

How is it "empirical" when it has never been proven by his own sangha ?

It does not matter if Buddha though he was scientific, what matters is for you to claim Buddha is scientific, it needs to adhere to scientific principles as defined in the today's age.

Since you admit that he was not able to replicate his experiment, your own logic admits that he was NOT scientific.

Buddha was a Yogi, I fail to see how you can claim a yogi is any different from what buddha practiced and preached.

Charvaka's did not bother to prove anything, they just negated everything and lived in the moment. That is not very scientific either.

Buddha IS NOT SCIENTIFIC ..He was Empirical..Proper Science needs Rationalism Married with Empiricism...Buddha thought he was exepriencing certain things in meditation consitently, and that was enough to make it the Truth..He never had the brain to control his experiences from various variables....He never had the wisdom to attribute his experiences to mundane causes...He never had the wisdom ask himself whether he was hallucinating and whether the reality he was experiencing could be independently verified by others..So he was NOT a scientist...but he was a proto-empiricist though...an improvement and a small step in Human race's quest for greatness

How is it "empirical" when it has never been proven by his own sangha ?

It does not matter if Buddha though he was scientific, what matters is for you to claim Buddha is scientific, it needs to adhere to scientific principles as defined in the today's age.

Since you admit that he was not able to replicate his experiment, your own logic admits that he was NOT scientific.

Buddha was a Yogi, I fail to see how you can claim a yogi is any different from what buddha practiced and preached.

Charvaka's did not bother to prove anything, they just negated everything and lived in the moment. That is not very scientific either.

Yup but they were improvement on what came before..India achieved full form regarding Knowledge creation after contact with Western Enlightenment..before that Indian Knowledge creation was a sporadic project...a 1000 year Gap between the Knowledge achieved during Guptas and the Knowledge achieved by Keralan Brahmins under Vijaynagara..with almost nothing of significance happening in between..Islam is not enough of a cuase as Islam came after 1001 AD, and Keralan Brahins could innovate even when Vijaynagara was alternatively taking and giving beatings to the Deccan Sultanates

 

[Vishwabalas]

Buddha IS NOT SCIENTIFIC ..He was Empirical..Proper Science needs Rationalism Married with Empiricism...Buddha thought he was exepriencing certain things in meditation consitently, and that was enough to make it the Truth..He never had the brain to control his experiences from various variables....He never had the wisdom to attribute his experiences to mundane causes...He never had the wisdom ask himself whether he was hallucinating and whether the reality he was experiencing could be independently verified by others..So he was NOT a scientist...but he was a proto-empiricist though...an improvement and a small step in Human race's quest for greatness

Now you have back tracked and are saying the Buddha was not scientific.

If only being Empirical is the requirement, then pretty much every Hindu saint has the same Empirical evidence based on his own experience. From Veda Vyasa to Valmiki to Viswamitra.

Your amateurish attempt at psycho analysis Buddha is pointless and quite foolish in my opinion.

Every Yogi in India and almost all Hindu religious leader (not the new age "baba") has preached and advocated the same principles and have continued to step in the same direction , which you now call "human race quest for greatness".

Yup but they were improvement on what came before..India achieved full form regarding Knowledge creation after contact with Western Enlightenment..before that Indian Knowledge creation was a sporadic project...a 1000 year Gap between the Knowledge achieved during Guptas and the Knowledge achieved by Keralan Brahmins under Vijaynagara..with almost nothing of significance happening in between..Islam is not enough of a cuase as Islam came after 1001 AD, and Keralan Brahins could innovate even when Vijaynagara was alternatively taking and giving beatings to the Deccan Sultanates

Nope historical evidence show that he was Not an improvement on what came before since the islamic invasion was able to WIPE out Buddhist when did not mange to wipe out Hindus.

India had a near continuous history of enlightened men and gurus and that has never stopped. Just because you are unaware of the great gurus in India post buddha or before buddha, your ignorance does not define reality.

Pick a year and I will show you a enlighten guru of that age.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Buddha attributed much less to super-natural agents....High IQ people both in the West and East are attracted to Buddhist meditation...In developed countries Yoga is seen more as stretching, while Buddhism is seen more as meditation....Granted its a totally false view, but the supply of dim witted Yogis in Hinduism for the last few hundred years has cemented this view

Nagarjuna was way more awsome than Shankaracharya

 

[Vishwabalas]

Buddha attributed much less to super-natural agents....High IQ people both in the West and East are attracted to Buddhist meditation...In developed countries Yoga is seen more as stretching, while Buddhism is seen more as meditation....Granted its a totally false view, but the supply of dim witted Yogis in Hinduism for the last few hundred years has cemented this view

Buddha's preaching is full of Brahma Sanathkumar and meeting with the 33 gods of Hinduism.

About memories of past lives, about rebirths, about teleportation, about gandhrvas and other non human entities which pretty much defines Super Natural agents.

White man attempting to imitate Buddha is no marker for greatness. The same white man imitated the arabs and dealt in slavery. Sold opium to china.

How the white man caricatures Yoga or Hinduism is irreverent. Maybe not to you, since you seem to be enamored by them.

Its not the Yogi's who were dim witted, it was those who went to them who were dim witted since they Yogis did not match up to their pre conceived notions of what is the "right yogi".

A master is only as good as a student.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

ok

 

[padamchen]

@Juggernaut_is_here

The essays are awaited.

Will they be coming?

You are trying to debate a non Hindu faith with a butthurt Hindu.

A red hot skewer through your nut sack would be more fulfilling.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

@Juggernaut_is_here

The essays are awaited.

Will they be coming?

You are trying to debate a non Hindu faith with a butthurt Hindu.

A red hot skewer through your nut sack would be more fulfilling.

Cheers, Doc

Yes before this weekend ends, comprehensive essays will be online..I collected some old Buddhist Journals from the 90s.......Anyways both Buddhism and Hinduism failed to arrive at the Scientific Method..me as a Secular Buddhist won't apologize for that..even if Buddhist university in India was razed by the Turks, Buddhist monasteries in Japan,Tibet,China,Sri Lanka failed to arrive at the Scientific Method...the first believing Buddhist who started looking the world in a Scientific Manner was the former monk King Ram Mongkut of Thailand...He convinced Buddhist scholars that the world is not disc shaped with centre at Mt Meru/The Pamirs....and he successfully managed to not get his country colonized...He is my prototype of an ideal Buddhist...He was immortalized in the film The King and /Anna and the King

 

[padamchen]

Yes before this weekend ends, comprehensive essays will be online..I collected some old Buddhist Journals from the 90s.......Anyways both Buddhism and Hinduism failed to arrive at the Scientific Method..me as a Secular Buddhist won't apologize for that..even if Buddhist university in India was razed by the Turks, Buddhist monasteries in Japan,Tibet,China,Sri Lanka failed to arrive at the Scientific Method...the first believing Buddhist who started looking the world in a Scientific Manner was the former monk King Ram Mongkut of Thailand...He convinced Buddhist scholars that the world is not disc shaped with centre at Mt Meru/The Pamirs....and he successfully managed to not get his country colonized...He is my prototype of an ideal Buddhist...He was immortalized in the film The King and /Anna and the King

Don't understand the big deal about science in faith bro.

Start writing history. Not really interested in new age "Scientology" psychobabble or comparative theology to be honest.

It's not really the topic of discussion here anyways.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Don't understand the big deal about science in faith bro.

Start writing history. Not really interested in new age "Scientology" psychobabble or comparative theology to be honest.

It's not really the topic of discussion here anyways.

Cheers, Doc

Yup it will be coming up...well I feel that Indians (both Buddhists and Hindus) failed to develop Rationalism , is a telling indictment of the Indian psyche...There were many Indians who understood the need of rationalism in society like B.Premanand and DD Kosambi, but they are labelled Marxists for all their trouble

"The Disappearance of Buddhism and the survival of Jainism in India: a study in Contrast" , 1980 edition of "Studies in the history of Buddhism" (ed A.K. Narain, New Delhi)

@padamchen


I uploaded the article on Scribd and will summarize its points below

 

[padamchen]

Yup it will be coming up...well I feel that Indians (both Buddhists and Hindus) failed to develop Rationalism , is a telling indictment of the Indian psyche...There were many Indians who understood the need of rationalism in society like B.Premanand and DD Kosambi, but they are labelled Marxists for all their trouble

"The Disappearance of Buddhism and the survival of Jainism in India: a study in Contrast" , 1980 edition of "Studies in the history of Buddhism" (ed A.K. Narain, New Delhi)


I uploaded the article on Scribd and will summarize its points below

Does Buddhism believe there is a God?

What do you call him?

Is Buddha then like a prophet/reformist/messenger?

Cheers, Doc

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Does Buddhism believe there is a God?

What do you call him?

Is Buddha then like a prophet/reformist/messenger?

Cheers, Doc

Let me give you an example...you wake up every morning and you go to bed in the night right?You have been doing this for years, even decades...but do your remember the first time you woke up in the morning and went to bed in the night? No,right? You had to have your parents tell you when was the first time you started this routine.....seen each day as a rebirth...Buddha could recall as many rebirths as possible but could not recount the first birth, and there was no Cosmic Daddy or Mummy to tell him his first birth............so that's what hé said, he tried to look as far as back possible but the beginning could not be seen, ergo the Creator too could not be seen...that's why he cut out the need for a Creator..Buddhist Brahmas and Indras appear after the Universe is already there..they are as powerful compared to human beings as humans are compared to ants, but none of them are the Creator


Buddha was an independent stream of thought with some influences from Brahmanistic meditation...that's it..those influences were Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta

 

[Vishwabalas]

Yes before this weekend ends, comprehensive essays will be online..I collected some old Buddhist Journals from the 90s.......Anyways both Buddhism and Hinduism failed to arrive at the Scientific Method..me as a Secular Buddhist won't apologize for that..even if Buddhist university in India was razed by the Turks, Buddhist monasteries in Japan,Tibet,China,Sri Lanka failed to arrive at the Scientific Method...the first believing Buddhist who started looking the world in a Scientific Manner was the former monk King Ram Mongkut of Thailand...He convinced Buddhist scholars that the world is not disc shaped with centre at Mt Meru/The Pamirs....and he successfully managed to not get his country colonized...He is my prototype of an ideal Buddhist...He was immortalized in the film The King and /Anna and the King

The world was always considered a sphere since the hindu word for earth was Bhugola i.e. Bhu-gola, Spherical earth.

What scientific methods did Hinduism fail to arrive at ? The inventors of mathematics and astronomy did not know science ?

Surya siddhanta gave accurate methods to calculate the solar and lunar eclips and predicted the orbital motion of Mercury, venus, mars, moon, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and distance between the earth and the sun.

What lack of scientific temperament are you talking about ?

BTW did you know most of their kings of Thailand were called "Rama" and their capital was called Ayodhya. ?

@Juggernaut_is_here

The essays are awaited.

Will they be coming?

You are trying to debate a non Hindu faith with a butthurt Hindu.

A red hot skewer through your nut sack would be more fulfilling.

Cheers, Doc

LOL... maybe for you since you are more b@lls than brains. Then again, even those b@lls are not big enough to take me on

Let me give you an example...you wake up every morning and you go to bed in the night right?You have been doing this for years, even decades...but do your remember the first time you woke up in the morning and went to bed in the night? No,right? You had to have your parents tell you when was the first time you started this routine.....seen each day as a rebirth...Buddha could recall as many rebirths as possible but could not recount the first birth, and there was no Cosmic Daddy or Mummy to tell him his first birth............so that's what hé said, he tried to look as far as back possible but the beginning could not be seen, ergo the Creator too could not be seen...that's why he cut out the need for a Creator..Buddhist Brahmas and Indras appear after the Universe is already there..they are as powerful compared to human beings as humans are compared to ants, but none of them are the Creator


Buddha was an independent stream of thought with some influences from Brahmanistic meditation...that's it..those influences were Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta

If buddha was an independent stream of thought why was Brahma there at the point of creation ?

BTW what is "brahmanistic meditation", This is the first time I am hearing about it

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

$?# !!§%& !!!!!!! do I have to repeat myself? Mathematics is not considered science as it doesnot take into consideration observations of the phenomenological world..this is the reason a balanced chemical equation is not considered legitimate, if the reaction doesnot happen in the way it has been balanced


and Science in India was sporadic ....doing sporadic Science is different than inventing the Scientific Method which opens the floodgates of inventions..there is quantitative and qualitative difference there

@Vishwabalas if you are gonna bring up Surya Siddhanta, straight up quote and provide a reliable,academic reference...else please stop replying to me...I have lived enough of my life to suffer the same repetitive pseudo-scientific claims of Hindu nationalists