Search for Origins of Mahayana Buddhism

tahmedji, that's quite right. That's the name we got by luck and default, since people of the indus, for whatever reasons, did not think it necessary to press a claim. :)

------------------------

Dash bhai, no, one doesn't need them. That's the whole thing of the dharma - it is about order, right process, right human ends, not really what lies behind or before human processes, order etc.

But dash bhai, that is a very very non-faith based view. To us Easterners - Indians, chinese etc - that is an obvious - almost self-evident - truth, but faith-based thinkers would (and should) reject that out of hand. They need a creator who sets the process going. Without such a creator (or such creators), they expect nothing but complete chaos (because they would not see any justification for any specific order, or any specific process).

Re: # 225 then why in Bhagwat Geeta there is mention of an all embracing power?

mahfari bhai, remember, I mentioned the Indian approach earlier: there were (and continue to be) some very basic common Indian ideas. On top of that, different teachers built different approaches.

The idea that the Ultimate Reality (or Power) is unknown and unknowable is a basic idea. The Geeta belongs to a different tradition than does the Buddha.

The Geeta does try to concern itself with that Ultimate Power or Reality, not the Buddha. The Buddha represented a long line of Indian thinkers who simply ignored that Reality or Realities. These traditions were entirely 'HUMAN.'

What may be more useful to you, the Geeta has more in common with Islam (although that commonality too would be an absurdity, all in itself), than does the Buddha.

Re: # 227 How easily you are pronouncing upon the bases of disciples of Buddha's; that he did not believe in God. where is evidence in Buddha;s teachings?

Re: # 227 Please also read interact 216

mahfari, yes, that is a basic fault of mine. I just know. And what I don't know, I humbly try to learn. Sorry about that.

Re: # 230 please elaborate these points. We all are always learning new realities evry moment.

Re: # 226

mahfari sahib:

"Re: # 225 then why in Bhagwat Geeta there is mention of an all embracing power?"

Dharma the way it is mentioned in Geeta and elsewhere is a concept. In reality it may be viewed to translate into a Customized Jacket that envelops you or you wear.

The jacket defines it concept, but is different for each wearer. Your size, color you prefer, fabric you want etc. etc. But still it is a jacket. Over a period of time, many tailors of Dharma jacket came and tried to create sizes people can fit in, much like you can buy a jacket in say Macy's.

Based on such a concept Dharma, many fundamentalist Hindus believe that even Islam fits into Hindu Dharma, as it is one of the possible customized jacket that can envelop an individual.

For obvious reason, according to their views, Islam has stricter rules, size of a customized jacket.

Dharma has very few rules / laws, unlike Islam, to define what can be called a jacket, and no pants. Conflict with these fundamentalist hindus come, when they want to reject the community oriented laws and rules in Islam.

Dharma is all about indivdual freedom and discipline (truth, soul(formless energy), death and life cycle(form and substance), karma etc.). Each of these fundamental concepts, Krishna has defined to be himself to become (except for Karma). He has used terms like - "I am truth, I am death, I am formless, I can take form etc. etc." Other than these fundamental concepts little else defines the concept of this customizable Dharma jacket.

Many humans indeed wear a real jacket and envelope themselves in a religion - a set of belief system. They cannot wear the concept. Hence you see many Hindu jackets, and many Hindu tailors.

Well, that's good. But mere bhai, infinite learning is not possible. One may imagine for instance, that if one knows X, one may not know Y. So learning and unlearning have to work together, in tandem. A lot of what we call science too works that way.

When it comes to Islam (and Muslims) and Indian thought (and Indians), there can be no learning without unlearning a great deal first.

IF that kind of stuff interests you, one day we can definitely discuss it. Thanks.
------------------

By the way, if Anil ji chooses to explain things, he is a much much better Hindu and Indian than I am. :)

oh, that should have been...
"If Anil ji chooses to explain things, you might want to listen to him, for he is a much much better Hindu and Indian than I am."

sorry.

Re: # 234 well said !

How did we know that we do not know Y , while knowing X? Is.nt it also knowing Y along with X?

Re: # 233 when ever we want to learn and know about new things then we should think that before we did,nt knew any hting. questioning and trying to search questions and wisdom behind all happenings is the essence of learning!

Re: # 232 Dear Anil

I remember Rumi ( God Bless HIm) on this occasion . In his Masanvi He says that a king in old times brought an elephant from a far land and he tied it in a big room and then it was for people to go in the room and see the strange animal.One person went he touched his trunk and said oh it is like a python! other went he touched its ears he said Oh it is like a big big fan! third went he touched its legs and said oh it is like a big big pole! and the fourth went and he touched its abdomen area and he said oh it is like a very very big buffalo! they all came together and every one of them said that his description was the correct one and they began to grumble and fight with each other. A wise person asked them why they were fighting they told the reason, Then he said if you all had taken a lamp and seen that in the light then you would have known that the elephant is made up of all these ideas and it si different thing. then your knowledge would have been corect adn based upon truth and reality. So Rumi says taht reason ( Aqal) is that light which helps us to understand the reality. So the jacket size and tailor mood may be different but the use of reason endows us with to share and learn concepts and ideas with equal understanding and sharing... because when every person has his or her own jacket and tailor these things are perceptive , and when they move towards reasoning and thinking then they develop into concepts ... the real thinking process, the unique attribute of human beings. So from perceptions to conception is the process and journey of learning1 is not our time the real time for this journey?

The process of thinking can be studied in any modern book of biology in sections of brain and thinking along with psychology books; especially with reference to process of understanding and thinking from perceptions to conception. Perception is individual , conception is for humanity! perception is for a moment , concepts are for ever as Ghalib said hasti ky fareb mein mat aa jayu asad alim e tamam halqa -e - dam e khayal mein hei

ekalavya, if I were you I would be careful for fear getting the Dronacharya treatment from our dear interlocutor (mahfari)!

#225 what you said is also at the core of the Gita. Despite the Gita talking of the Ultimate Power, and Krishna showing the Vishnu Roopam to his Partha, it does stress on one thing and one thing only:

God is secondary - primary is your Dharma. Dharma which can be taken as the process of achieving an end. (In this case the process also defines in a sense the means as well. This is in consonance with the Bhramha Sutra, and the various other texts.

Thus is essentially different from the Prophet Based religions (I would disagree with the term Faith-based), where emphasis is put on the Prophet First and then the message. Loose faith in the prophet, the message becomes meaningless. Whereas in the Eastern Traditions, the message is more paramount when compared to the Prophet.

Indeed, this is what has happened in the Christian West (atleast in the Anglo-Saxon world), where the message of Christ has been internalised (much as the Buddhist and other Hindu traditions in India, Buddhist in China etc).

It is this dichotomy which is cause of the troubles: Prophet and Message OR Message? Which is the question?

For example: People like Tahmed32 (and there might be many like him) on Chowk suggest that that it is Message, rather than the former. Unfortunately, this might not be the situation. OTOH you have the likes of Agha Amin (in other articles) who have suggested that neither seems to be holding.

Ultimately - it is the message which is more important (at least for me) - you can call it the process if you like.

mahfari bhai, none of that is remotely true.

Questioning and searching, for instance, is ultimately a waste of time, a path to possible error, entry into grave sin, if you know that you know the truth.

------------------------

If you wish to learn anything about Indian thought, one error you must avoid at all costs is sufism and all its variants. Sufism is a great thing, and Islamically it can be shown to be wonderfully, but from the Indian point of view, it is the greatest plague of the mind. It is the AIDS of the mind.

Read Rumi as a poet, read Rumi as a philosopher, but unlesss you are a Muslim (and unless you have already dveloped a very good understanding of Islam) don't read Rumi as a religious leader/scholar.

dash, see, as unbelievers, we don't believe there is any "message" from anyone going out to anyone else, except if the 'message' is from Prophet Muhammad to people who choose to follow him.

But to be accurate, one must add that is not the believers' view.