PDA

View Full Version : On Buddha and Buddhism...



urmiladuhan
September 30th, 2013, 06:31 PM
In my humble opinion, I think Siddharta was a true seeker of knowledge for he left his palace, wife and son, at the age of 29, to find answers to the purpose of life and all the difficulties etc of life. He wandered for 7 years, living on the donations by common people of food and clothes when at the age of 36, he was satisfied with the answers he obtained via enlightenment. Thereupon, he decided to share his knowledge with other seekers and lay people, while travelling from place to place.

prashantacmet
September 30th, 2013, 07:24 PM
I think that Budhha was the most enlightened man world has ever seen........

rkumar
October 5th, 2013, 08:34 PM
I think that Budhha was the most enlightened man world has ever seen........

His quest for enlightenment was the most intense as he sacrificed everything he had. No wonder he was rewarded accordingly. " Jitna gud daalo, utna hi meetha" saying applies so well.

RK^2

singhvp
October 5th, 2013, 09:41 PM
I think that Budhha was the most enlightened man world has ever seen........

I guess he was a Jat because Jats are the most enlightened people on the planet earth.

singhvp
October 5th, 2013, 09:44 PM
I think that Budhha was the most enlightened man world has ever seen........

You can say among the contemporary philosophers he was a person with most pragmatic, progressive and scientific vision. Many of the ideals espoused by him are highly and eternally relevant in human life. The most important is his propagation of control on desires upto the optimum level.

DrRajpalSingh
October 5th, 2013, 09:59 PM
Could anyone kindly enlighten about the reasons of his orthodoxy and rigidity of his views on the participation of women in preaching Buddhism as full time preachers.

Thanks and regards

DrRajpalSingh
October 5th, 2013, 10:15 PM
I think that Budhha was the most enlightened man world has ever seen........

With due regards to his greatness otherwise perhaps his views regarding the role of women were not as progressive as they could have been because on the asking by one of his disciples about it he did not approve of them to join the Samgha as full time preachers. Was it not so ?

Thanks and regards

rekhasmriti
October 5th, 2013, 11:12 PM
Question is who had approved the equal status of women wrt men ?

As far as I know -
- They were treated as goddess , every auspicious thing start n never completes without them
- Was it some way to keep them restricted to some particular responsibility / work/job / profession etc .

I once read Chanakya's views about Women ........ he always indicated women less capable than men . Also read somewhere ( hindu mythology ) -Once a king asked how would I know that Satyug is over and Kalyug has emerged . He was told some signs one of them was " When WOMEN would start getting equal rights as of men "

rkumar
October 6th, 2013, 12:05 AM
Question is who had approved the equal status of women wrt men ?

As far as I know -
- They were treated as goddess , every auspicious thing start n never completes without them
- Was it some way to keep them restricted to some particular responsibility / work/job / profession etc .

I once read Chanakya's views about Women ........ he always indicated women less capable than men . Also read somewhere ( hindu mythology ) -Once a king asked how would I know that Satyug is over and Kalyug has emerged . He was told some signs one of them was " When WOMEN would start getting equal rights as of men "

You are right. Among all Chanakya said the worst things about women. My personal views are that man is the worst hypocrite and no wonder supreme God is always identified as a male. Buddha was a milder version of Taliban as far as his views about woman are concerned.

RK^2



RK^2

rkumar
October 6th, 2013, 12:07 AM
With due regards to his greatness otherwise perhaps his views regarding the role of women were not as progressive as they could have been because on the asking by one of his disciples about it he did not approve of them to join the Samgha as full time preachers. Was it not so ?

Thanks and regards

Do they allow Woman preachers in Hinduism? Has there been any woman Shakracharya ever or any Maharishi ?

RK^2

upendersingh
October 6th, 2013, 12:49 AM
Would some body enlighten me about the philosophy of Buddha? All I know about him is that he was a prince. He married a beautiful woman, made her mother of a kid and when he should have fulfilled the duties of a father, husband and son as well, he fled to jungle. Well, no doubt he is inspiring figure, but certainly doesn't deserve 100/100 marks. What result he got out of his penance? He also died after suffering a lot, after growing old. He is also supposed to be bigger apostle of peace than Gandhi. Peace...#$&*#...

DrRajpalSingh
October 6th, 2013, 07:00 AM
Question is who had approved the equal status of women wrt men ?

As far as I know -
- They were treated as goddess , every auspicious thing start n never completes without them
- Was it some way to keep them restricted to some particular responsibility / work/job / profession etc .

I once read Chanakya's views about Women ........ he always indicated women less capable than men . Also read somewhere ( hindu mythology ) -Once a king asked how would I know that Satyug is over and Kalyug has emerged . He was told some signs one of them was " When WOMEN would start getting equal rights as of men "

Since Buddhism rose as a revolt against the prevalence of some of wrong practices, traditions and conventions of the then Hinduism, the question is to ponder over why Buddha did not provide equal opportunity to Women in his Samgha.

DrRajpalSingh
October 6th, 2013, 07:07 AM
Do they allow Woman preachers in Hinduism? Has there been any woman Shakracharya ever or any Maharishi ?

RK^2

So it may be presumed that this new Reformation Movement too did fail to provide equal opportunities for women.

But the question arises, WHY Buddha did so ?

Thanks and regards

rkumar
October 6th, 2013, 08:47 AM
So it may be presumed that this new Reformation Movement too did fail to provide equal opportunities for women.

But the question arises, WHY Buddha did so ?

Thanks and regards

My intelligent guess would be to read his childhood. His mother died when he was very young. He was looked after by his mausi. I have the feeling that he had a traumatic childhood. Early in childhood he found almost everything and anything painful. His mission was to find out the cause of pain and then the nirvana. Almost all human relations were sourse of pain to him. This is why he left home, his wife and child. he saw his mausi also through the same lens. Since first woman asking to become nun was his Mausi, he must have got mixed up. I can't think any other reason.

RK^2

urmiladuhan
October 6th, 2013, 08:48 AM
Amarpali, a woman courtsan, was inducted as nun by Buddha himself.


Could anyone kindly enlighten about the reasons of his orthodoxy and rigidity of his views on the participation of women in preaching Buddhism as full time preachers.

Thanks and regards

rkumar
October 6th, 2013, 08:49 AM
Amarpali, a woman courtsan, was inducted as nun by Buddha himself.

Nuns were introduced but many restrictions were imposed upon them. Bodh Bhiksus always had the final say over the nuns.

RK^2

urmiladuhan
October 6th, 2013, 08:53 AM
Siddharta left his palace in search for truth of life, and not to revolt against any religion or their practices.



Since Buddhism rose as a revolt against the prevalence of some of wrong practices, traditions and conventions of the then Hinduism, the question is to ponder over why Buddha did not provide equal opportunity to Women in his Samgha.

urmiladuhan
October 6th, 2013, 09:05 AM
When Buddha was born, his father invited a well known sage of that time of the name Asita, to foretell the newborns future. Asita told the king that either the child will become a very powerful king or else a very influential sage. Siddhartas father did not want his child's future to turn into that of an ascetic. So he made sure Siddharta was given all the luxuries available and he was not touched by the pains of life in any way. He was not allowed to walk out of the palace lest he should see any sufferings. But as fate destined it, Siddharta saw from his palace, people taking an old mans body for cremation, old age etc and that made him question life and suffering. He wanted to know how to end suffering. When he was 29, he decided to give up palace life to find answers via personal search.




My intelligent guess would be to read his childhood. His mother dies when he was very young. He was looked after by his mausi. I have the feeling that he had a traumatic childhood. Early in childhood he found almost everything and anything painful. His mission was to find out the cause of pain and then the nirvana. Almost all human relations were surse of pain to him. This is why he left home, his wife and child. he saw his mausi also through the same lens. Since first woman asking to become nun was his Mausi, he must have got mixed up. I can't think any other reason.

RK^2

DrRajpalSingh
October 6th, 2013, 09:09 AM
Siddharta left his palace in search for truth of life, and not to revolt against any religion or their practices.

Was it true or not that after becoming Buddha, Siddhartha preached against brahmanical orthodoxy and challenged their supremacy in social hierarchy but the enlightened one was against the entry of women as full time workers in the Buddhist Samghas.

The question remains unanswered : Why did he do so, if you have come across some literature on this aspect kindly share it please.

Thanks and regards

urmiladuhan
October 6th, 2013, 09:40 AM
An interesting incident in Buddhas life has been captured in sculpture form (2 nd B.C.E, I believe) where Buddha meets his son and wife after his enlightenment. Buddha's wife nudges Rahula (her son) to ask his father for his inheritance from him. When Rahula approaches Buddha for his inheritance, Buddha gently advances his begging bowl towards his son, meaning that is what Buddha has to offer to his son. In true sense, Buddha was giving his son what all he possessed.




QUOTE=upendersingh;349259]Would some body enlighten me about the philosophy of Buddha? All I know about him is that he was a prince. He married a beautiful woman, made her mother of a kid and when he should have fulfilled the duties of a father, husband and son as well, he fled to jungle. Well, no doubt he is inspiring figure, but certainly doesn't deserve 100/100 marks. What result he got out of his penance? He also died after suffering a lot, after growing old. He is also supposed to be bigger apostle of peace than Gandhi. Peace...#$&*#...[/QUOTE]

urmiladuhan
October 6th, 2013, 09:42 AM
I am not aware of the notions you have expressed.


Was it true or not that after becoming Buddha, Siddhartha preached against brahmanical orthodoxy and challenged their supremacy in social hierarchy but the enlightened one was against the entry of women as full time workers in the Buddhist Samghas.

The question remains unanswered : Why did he do so, if you have come across some literature on this aspect kindly share it please.

Thanks and regards

urmiladuhan
October 6th, 2013, 09:56 AM
I suppose one needs to make a distinction between the freedom for spiritual practice, meditation, knowledge etc and the power structure in a communal set up. Sangha was a communal set up and therefore some power struggles, discrimination etc may have cried up even during Buddhas time, depending on the qualities of the individuals in the Sangha. As far as my knowledge goes, women were not debarred from gaining enlightenment.




Nuns were introduced but many restrictions were imposed upon them. Bodh Bhiksus always had the final say over the nuns.

RK^2

DrRajpalSingh
October 6th, 2013, 10:03 AM
I am not aware of the notions you have expressed.

Then, let me provide some links for the use of the readers.

For an interesting study on the aspect link :

http://buddhism.about.com/od/buddhisthistory/a/buddhistwomen.htm

Thanks and regards

DrRajpalSingh
October 6th, 2013, 10:16 AM
I suppose one needs to make a distinction between the freedom for spiritual practice, meditation, knowledge etc and the power structure in a communal set up. Sangha was a communal set up and therefore some power struggles, discrimination etc may have cried up even during Buddhas time, depending on the qualities of the individuals in the Sangha. As far as my knowledge goes, women were not debarred from gaining enlightenment.

In the land of the birth of Buddhism, were the Women denied Nirvana !

Kindly read below given extract on the issue:

Can Women Enter Nirvana?Buddhist doctrines on the enlightenment of women are contradictory. There is no one institutional authority that speaks for all Buddhism. The myriad schools and sects do not follow the same scriptures; texts that are central to some schools are not recognized as authentic by others. And the scriptures disagree.
For example, the Larger Sukhavati-vyuha Sutra, also called the Aparimitayur Sutra, is one of three sutras that provide the doctrinal basis of the Pure Land (http://buddhism.about.com/od/purelandbuddhism/a/pureland.htm)school. This sutra contains a passage usually interpreted to mean that women must be reborn as men before they can enter Nirvana.
On the other hand, the Vimilakirti Sutra teaches that maleness and femaleness, like other phenomenal distinctions, are essentially unreal. "With this in mind, the Buddha said, ’In all things, there is neither male nor female.’" The Vimilakirti is an essential text in several Mahayana schools, including Tibetan and Zen Buddhism.

For details link http://buddhism.about.com/od/becomingabuddhist/a/sexism.htm:

DrRajpalSingh
October 6th, 2013, 10:36 AM
Nuns were introduced but many restrictions were imposed upon them. Bodh Bhiksus always had the final say over the nuns.

RK^2

Yes, even after reluctant permission of Buddha to the entry of women in the Samgha, there remained widely practised discrimination against nuns as the following extract brings forth:

Unequal Rules
Further, according to the canonical texts, before the Buddha allowed Pajapati into the Sangha, she had to agree to eight Garudhammas (http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/pajapati.htm), or grave rules, not required of men. These are:


A Bhikkuni (nun) even if she was in the Order for 100 years must respect a Bhikkhu (monk) even of a day's standing.
A Bhikkuni must reside within 6 hours of traveling distance from the monastery where Bhikkhus reside for advice.
On Observance days a Bhikkhuni should consult the Bhikkhus.
A Bhikkhuni must spend rainy season retreats under the orders of both Bhikhus and Bhikkhunis.
A Bhikkhuni must live her life by both the orders.
A Bhikkhuni must on two years obtain the higher ordination (Upasampatha) by both Orders.
A Bhikkhuni cannot scold a Bhikkhu.
A Bhikkhuni cannot advise a Bhikkhu.

Nuns also have more rules to follow than monks. The Vinaya-pitaka (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/vin/index.html) lists about 250 rules for monks and 348 rules for nuns.

source : http://buddhism.about.com/od/buddhisthistory/a/buddhistwomen.htm
(http://buddhism.about.com/od/buddhisthistory/a/buddhistwomen.htm)

urmiladuhan
October 6th, 2013, 02:49 PM
His philosophy, as I understand, is of compassion and kindness towards oneself and towards others. He believed in karma, that suffering is the result of bad karma. He believed in re birth. He believed that one could negate the effects of bad karma by realisation and through creation of good karma and by consciously paying attention to our thoughts...
Really very good and practical philosophy, I believe.




Would some body enlighten me about the philosophy of Buddha? All I know about him is that he was a prince. He married a beautiful woman, made her mother of a kid and when he should have fulfilled the duties of a father, husband and son as well, he fled to jungle. Well, no doubt he is inspiring figure, but certainly doesn't deserve 100/100 marks. What result he got out of his penance? He also died after suffering a lot, after growing old. He is also supposed to be bigger apostle of peace than Gandhi. Peace...#$&*#...

urmiladuhan
October 6th, 2013, 02:53 PM
With all due respect to the efforts you are making, I prefer to debate someone's original ideas. If you have original ideas on the subject and want to share, then kindly post.

Regards,

Urmila.


Then, let me provide some links for the use of the readers.

For an interesting study on the aspect link :

http://buddhism.about.com/od/buddhisthistory/a/buddhistwomen.htm

Thanks and regards

DrRajpalSingh
October 6th, 2013, 03:08 PM
With all due respect to the efforts you are making, I prefer to debate someone's original ideas. If you have original ideas on the subject and want to share, then kindly post.

Regards,

Urmila.

In all the posts the original references to the ideas of Buddha have been cited.

In history living person can quote researches, provide links to original sources and the same I have done in the instant case.

You would appreciate that general ideas of oneself can better be discussed in General discussion forum and not in history forum of the site as history need based on sources not on the authors personal ideas.

Thanks and regards

rkumar
October 6th, 2013, 04:12 PM
His philosophy, as I understand, is of compassion and kindness towards oneself and towards others. He believed in karma, that suffering is the result of bad karma. He believed in re birth. He believed that one could negate the effects of bad karma by realisation and through creation of good karma and by consciously paying attention to our thoughts...
Really very good and practical philosophy, I believe.

No doubt, message is so beautiful and this is why Buddhism spread all over Asia so fast. However, let us accept that no knowledge is final and perfect. It is humanly impossible to give perfect advice on each and every aspect of life even by most enlightened person ever born on Earth. I will like to draw your kind attention to the reluctance Buddha showed in recruiting his "Mausi" as nun but having no problem with Amrapali. Before I write my views, please throw some light on this differential behavior.

RK^2

urmiladuhan
October 6th, 2013, 04:31 PM
I am not aware of Buddhas reluctance towards his close relatives. Perhaps there was some good reason. Kindly share.

Regards,

Urmila.




No doubt, message is so beautiful and this is why Buddhism spread all over Asia so fast. However, let us accept that no knowledge is final and perfect. It is humanly impossible to give perfect advice on each and every aspect of life even by most enlightened person ever born on Earth. I will like to draw your kind attention to the reluctance Buddha showed in recruiting his "Mausi" as nun but having no problem with Amrapali. Before I write my views, please throw some light on this differential behavior.

RK^2

DrRajpalSingh
October 6th, 2013, 05:35 PM
Perhaps, the following extract could help in sorting out the predicament of the Enlightened One on the issue of entry of women in the Buddhist Sanghas :

"The historical Buddha's most famous statements on women came about when his stepmother and aunt, Maha Pajapati Gotami, asked to join the Sangha and become a nun. The Buddha initially refused her request. Eventually he relented, but in doing so he made conditions and a prediction that remain controversial to this day.
Pajapati was the sister of the Buddha's mother, Maya, who had died a few days after his birth. Maya and Pajapati were both married to his father, King Suddhodana, and after Maya's death Pajapati nursed and raised her sister's son.
Pajapati approached her stepson and asked to be received into the Sangha. The Buddha said no. Still determined, Pajapati and 500 women followers cut off their hair, dressed themselves in patched monk's robes, and set out on foot to follow the traveling Buddha.
When Pajapati and her followers caught up to the Buddha, they were exhausted. Ananda (http://buddhism.about.com/od/The-Disciples/a/The-Life-Of-Ananda.htm), the Buddha's cousin and most devoted attendant, found Pajapati in tears, dirty, her feet swollen. "Lady, why are you crying like this?" he asked.
She replied to Ananda that she wished to enter the Sangha and receive ordination, but the Buddha had refused her. Ananda promised to speak to the Buddha on her behalf.
The Buddha's Prediction
Ananda sat at the Buddha's side and argued on behalf of the ordination of women. The Buddha continued to refuse the request. Finally, Ananda asked if there was any reason women could not realize enlightenment and enter Nirvana as well as men.
The Buddha admitted there was no reason a woman could not be enlightened. "Women, Ananda, having gone forth are able to realize the fruit of stream-attainment or the fruit of once-returning or the fruit of non-returning or arahantship," he said.
Ananda had made his point, and the Buddha relented. Pajapati and her 500 followers would be the first Buddhist nuns. But he predicted that allowing women into the Sangha would cause his teachings to survive only half as long - 500 years instead of a 1,000.

Source: http://buddhism.about.com/od/buddhisthistory/a/buddhistwomen.htm

rkumar
October 6th, 2013, 05:37 PM
I am not aware of Buddhas reluctance towards his close relatives. Perhaps there was some good reason. Kindly share.

Regards,

Urmila.

Before coming to Amrapali, let me draw your kind attention to the following;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Buddhism

I find lots of contradictions as far as Buddha's attitude towards women is concerned. According to him, women are the cause of lust and thereby a cause of hindrance towards enlightenment. This is no different than a present day milder Taliban view. Buddhism puts limits on the level of female enlightenment and tends to use royal terminologies for gradation. This might be because of royal patronage Buddhism got. I am not sure how Buddhism was viewed among masses of the day. Before we debate Amrapali and other women nuns, please have a look at the following link;

http://www.speakingtree.in/spiritual-blogs/seekers/meditation/the-story-of-buddha-and-amrapali

I am not sure if the real motive of Amrapali was Buddhism or the love for the particular monk. In my personal view her becoming nun was just a cover up so that she can remain with the particular monk she loved.

RK^2

DrRajpalSingh
October 6th, 2013, 05:46 PM
Some more thoughts on the issue of participation of women in the preaching of the Buddhism :

"Historical Buddha, Misogynist?
The Rev. Patti Nakai of the Buddhist Temple of Chicago (http://www.budtempchi.org/) tells the story of the Buddha's stepmother and aunt, Prajapati. According to the Rev. Nakai (http://www.livingdharma.org/Living.Dharma.Articles/WomenInBuddhism1.html), when Pajapati asked to join the Sangha and become a disciple, "Shakamuni's response was a declaration of the mental inferiority of women, saying they lacked the capacity to understand and practice the teachings of non-attachment to self." This is a version of the story I haven't found elsewhere.
The Rev. Nakai goes on to argue that the historical Buddha was, after all, a man of his time, and would have been conditioned to see women as inferior. However, Pajapati and the other nuns succeeded in breaking down the Buddha's misunderstanding.
"Shakamuni's sexist view had to have been completely eliminated by the time of the famous sutra stories of his encounters with women such as Kisa Gotami (in the tale of the mustard seed) and Queen Vaidehi (Meditation Sutra)," the Rev. Nakai writes. "In those stories, he would have failed to relate to them if he had held any prejudices against them as women."
Concern for the Sangha?
Many scholars argue that the Buddha was concerned that the rest of society, which supported the Sangha, would not approve of the ordination of nuns. Ordaining female disciples was a revolutionary step; there was nothing like it in the other religions of India at the time.
Or, the Buddha might have simply been protective of women, who faced great personal risk in a paternalistic culture when they were not under the protection of a father or husband."

Source :http://buddhism.about.com/od/buddhisthistory/a/buddhistwomen.htm

rkumar
October 6th, 2013, 06:31 PM
................Ordaining female disciples was a revolutionary step; there was nothing like it in the other religions of India at the time.[/FONT][/COLOR]
.......

Source :http://buddhism.about.com/od/buddhisthistory/a/buddhistwomen.htm

Jainism which is older than Buddhism, already had female nuns.

Rk^2

prashantacmet
October 6th, 2013, 07:30 PM
Even after his non-progressive views on women..I believe Budhha is/was/and will be the greatest gift to mankind..these are my personal views!

rkumar
October 6th, 2013, 07:48 PM
Even after his non-progressive views on women..I believe Budhha is/was/and will be the greatest gift to mankind..these are my personal views!

Of course. No two words about that. Buddha views on Nuns are not the same thing as his views on a common woman.

RK^2

rekhasmriti
October 6th, 2013, 09:43 PM
Just my views ......Female are emotionally weak , they are more attached to their feelings or relations .
If it takes " X " factor for a man to let go off all feelings , relations all Moh / maaya
For woman it takes " X raise to power 10000000000....." efforts .

May be Budha had some clue about it ........being NUN was no easy job . He did not say anything about woman less capable , but assumed it would be more suffering for them to be nun

urmiladuhan
October 7th, 2013, 09:52 AM
Here is a photograph from the famous Ajanta caves, which shows the scene

16878

when Buddha met his wife and son after Buddha attained enlightenment. The spiritual stature of Buddha is shown in the painting in the form of his enlarged size as compared to normal human beings i.e., his wife and son. In this Ajanta painting, Buddha is shown extending his begging bowl towards his son to give him his inheritance as a father, when Buddhas wife encourages his son to ask his father for his inheritance.






An interesting incident in Buddhas life has been captured in sculpture form (2 nd B.C.E, I believe) where Buddha meets his son and wife after his enlightenment. Buddha's wife nudges Rahula (her son) to ask his father for his inheritance from him. When Rahula approaches Buddha for his inheritance, Buddha gently advances his begging bowl towards his son, meaning that is what Buddha has to offer to his son. In true sense, Buddha was giving his son what all he possessed.




QUOTE=upendersingh;349259]Would some body enlighten me about the philosophy of Buddha? All I know about him is that he was a prince. He married a beautiful woman, made her mother of a kid and when he should have fulfilled the duties of a father, husband and son as well, he fled to jungle. Well, no doubt he is inspiring figure, but certainly doesn't deserve 100/100 marks. What result he got out of his penance? He also died after suffering a lot, after growing old. He is also supposed to be bigger apostle of peace than Gandhi. Peace...#$&*#...[/QUOTE]

urmiladuhan
October 7th, 2013, 02:08 PM
When Buddha was seeking enlightenment, he encountered Mara, through thoughts - symbolically represented by demon/temptress/enemy, who tried to create obstacles for Buddha so as to prevent him from focussing and Dhyan. Buddha overcame the obstacles and continued to meditate under the bodhi tree until his thoughts became clear of extraneous and he found clear answers to his satisfaction. That was enlightenment.
Buddha lived to be 80 years old and all these years he continued to meditate/travel/give discourses. Enlightenment was sort of the begining of his journey and not the end.

urmiladuhan
October 7th, 2013, 02:11 PM
Living in jungles was no easy task. It required overcoming fears of lonliness, wild animals, hunger, diseases, death, uncertainity etc. In my opinion, only a person who is a true seeker would take such a path.


Would some body enlighten me about the philosophy of Buddha? All I know about him is that he was a prince. He married a beautiful woman, made her mother of a kid and when he should have fulfilled the duties of a father, husband and son as well, he fled to jungle. Well, no doubt he is inspiring figure, but certainly doesn't deserve 100/100 marks. What result he got out of his penance? He also died after suffering a lot, after growing old. He is also supposed to be bigger apostle of peace than Gandhi. Peace...#$&*#...

urmiladuhan
October 7th, 2013, 02:21 PM
I suppose he fulfilled his destiny. The thoughts about death, old age, suffering etc that would trouble him when he was living in palace among all luxury, no longer troubled him after enlightenment. He found out that the source of suffering was ones own thoughts and actions and this knowledge enabled him to change his thinking and thus his life.


Would some body enlighten me about the philosophy of Buddha? All I know about him is that he was a prince. He married a beautiful woman, made her mother of a kid and when he should have fulfilled the duties of a father, husband and son as well, he fled to jungle. Well, no doubt he is inspiring figure, but certainly doesn't deserve 100/100 marks. What result he got out of his penance? He also died after suffering a lot, after growing old. He is also supposed to be bigger apostle of peace than Gandhi. Peace...#$&*#...

DrRajpalSingh
October 9th, 2013, 08:56 AM
I suppose he fulfilled his destiny. ......

And what was his destiny that he fulfilled !

rkumar
October 9th, 2013, 10:12 AM
And what was his destiny that he fulfilled !

Attainment of Buddh-Gyaan....

RK^2

urmiladuhan
October 9th, 2013, 10:38 AM
Dr. Rajpal, the answer to the question you have asked perhaps requires lot of reading and understanding of the basics of Buddhism. In my limited knowledge on the subject, I suppose, the life that Buddha led, the person that he became in his lifetime etc was the destiny that Buddha fulfilled.


And what was his destiny that he fulfilled !

upendersingh
October 9th, 2013, 11:31 AM
I suppose, the life that Buddha led, the person that he became in his lifetime etc was the destiny that Buddha fulfilled.


If it was so then he had very weak destiny. Glorifying begging can not be appreciated. All enlightenment he had was 'take pity on all living beings'. Why is life only on earth? What happens after death? What is the purpose of life on earth? What is god? I think he didn't have ability to clear all such queries human being has been carrying through the ages. If his penance was so tough and effective then he should have been young again and then immortal for good. But still I am impressed of him.

prashantacmet
October 9th, 2013, 12:01 PM
And what was his destiny that he fulfilled ! 99% people are too dumb( they may be highly intellectual in worldy affairs) to understand what buddhha was and what he preached. It's a different dimension . it's not inevitable that all intellectuals can understand it, it can not be bounded it with intellectuality

As someone asked buddha.. "what is purpose of life?".. buddha replied "end of sufferings"..the person again asked " what will be after end of sufferings" ..buddha replied "you have to see it yourself, it can not be said in words".

I am not surprised people are still blaming him that he did not clarify "what is god" 'what happends after death"..it is termed as spiritual bankruptcy.

urmiladuhan
October 9th, 2013, 12:53 PM
I agree with you Prashantji that Buddha was an experimentalist. Things have to be experienced to be understood - that was Buddha's message, I think.



99% people are too dumb( they may be highly intellectual in worldy affairs) to understand what buddhha was and what he preached. It's a different dimension . it's not inevitable that all intellectuals can understand it, it can not be bounded it with intellectuality

As someone asked buddha.. "what is purpose of life?".. buddha replied "end of sufferings"..the person again asked " what will be after end of sufferings" ..buddha replied "you have to see it yourself, it can not be said in words".

I am not surprised people are still blaming him that he did not clarify "what is god" 'what happends after death"..it is termed as spiritual bankruptcy.

urmiladuhan
October 9th, 2013, 01:10 PM
If it was so then he had very weak destiny. Glorifying begging can not be appreciated. All enlightenment he had was 'take pity on all living beings'. Why is life only on earth? What happens after death? What is the purpose of life on earth? What is god? I think he didn't have ability to clear all such queries human being has been carrying through the ages. If his penance was so tough and effective then he should have been young again and then immortal for good. But still I am impressed of him.

Some people call it begging i.e., in a derogatory way. Buddha did not need to beg for food, clothes etc for he was a prince and had all the luxuries if he wanted them. I read somewhere that Buddha would stand holding his food bowl in very specific way with his thumb positioned on the inside of the bowl in a specific way, with his eyelids drooping down in meditation, and the bowl would be moved closer to the alm provider for the ease of delivery. I think, it is the thought with which he accepted the food that decides whether Buddha considered himself as a beggar or not. And I think he did not consider it begging i.e., in a derogatory way.

DrRajpalSingh
October 9th, 2013, 04:34 PM
To put the discussion on Buddhism and concept of destiny on sound footing, perhaps, these links could be helpful :

http://edge.jadebuddha.org/2009/03/buddhas-perspective-of-mans-destiny.html

And His theory of Karma:http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm

DrRajpalSingh
October 9th, 2013, 04:45 PM
Kindly log in : http://www.happy-science.org/fate-and-destiny

About fate and destinyFate or destiny is often regarded as the “course that life takes” and karma is one of the factors that influence this course. People often believe that fate is pre-destined and nothing can be changed, but is this really true?

“Your destiny is shaped according to the combination of conditions pre-determined at birth and other factors that you are able to change through your own efforts.”
(From the book: The Essence of Buddha | p.140)The factors that form a person's fateA person's fate is decided by a complex combination of conditions and factors. Some of them are already decided at the time of a person’s birth and some of them come into play later and shape the course further. There are five factors that form our fate or destiny:
1. Tendencies of our soul, otherwise known as karma
2. Family environment
3. Social climate
4. Our own efforts and self-discipline
5. Influence of other people.

Buddhism on destiny, more links :

Questions, Part 4: Buddhism and Destiny - Digital Tibetan Buddhist ... (https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=15&cad=rja&ved=0CHsQFjAO&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftibetanaltar.blogspot.com%2F2007% 2F09%2Fquestions-part-4-buddhism-and-destiny.html&ei=EDVVUpyLLo2IrgeU0YH4BA&usg=AFQjCNFKSbfUh9nV8PGersZS5CFJMoVHKA&bvm=bv.53760139,d.bmk)<cite style="color: rgb(0, 128, 42); font-style: normal; font-size: 14px;">tibetanaltar.blogspot.com/.../questions-part-4-buddhism-and-destiny.html</cite>‎

http://www.blia.org/english/publications/booklet/pages/03.htm

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090912113830AAus4uf

DrRajpalSingh
October 9th, 2013, 04:54 PM
99% people are too dumb( they may be highly intellectual in worldy affairs) to understand what buddhha was and what he preached. It's a different dimension . it's not inevitable that all intellectuals can understand it, it can not be bounded it with intellectuality

As someone asked buddha.. "what is purpose of life?".. buddha replied "end of sufferings"..the person again asked " what will be after end of sufferings" ..buddha replied "you have to see it yourself, it can not be said in words".

I am not surprised people are still blaming him that he did not clarify "what is god" 'what happends after death"..it is termed as spiritual bankruptcy.

Buddha never felt offended or provoked when oddest of odd questions were put to him.

Moreover, the question on which you feel so provoked is not addressed to you at all.

DrRajpalSingh
October 9th, 2013, 04:56 PM
Attainment of Buddh-Gyaan....

RK^2

In addition to it, perhaps right application of the attained knowledge.

prashantacmet
October 9th, 2013, 06:14 PM
Buddha never felt offended or provoked when oddest of odd questions were put to him.

Moreover, the question on which you feel so provoked os not addressed to you at all.

Wrong assumption!..I am not provoked at all and I am not buddhha and i did not claim that I belong to that remaining 1%. Please Don't feel offended..I quoted you so don't assume that it was specially for you..sorry for confusion

rkumar
October 9th, 2013, 07:57 PM
.................................... Glorifying begging can not be appreciated. .............................

Concept of begging is most ill understood from Indian culture's perspective. Concept of begging/alms has its origin in our Verna system. Segment of society which was responsible for education/ preaching was kept free of any other work to earn livelihood. These people were not employed by any institution on some sort of salary. Entire society was responsible for the upkeep of these people (called Brahmans and Rishis). In Buddhism the preachers were called "Bhikshuk". These people had the highest respect in the society. Like any other institution, this institution too got misused and eroded with time. Bad characters in the garb of Brahmans and Rishis started exploiting the system. First documented misuse of the system was by Ravan who in the garb of Brahman went to Sita and asked for alms. In all our holy books denying alms is considered very bad for the reasons explained above. However, misuse of the system has brought it to the level of social evil.

RK^2

urmiladuhan
October 9th, 2013, 08:00 PM
From the alm givers perspective, the one who gives for a good cause makes merit in his/her life and hence it is encouraged from a spiritual perspective as well.


Concept of begging is most ill understood from Indian culture's perspective. Concept of begging/alms has its origin in our Verna system. Segment of society which was responsible for education/ preaching was kept free of any other work to earn livelihood. These people were not employed by any institution on some sort of salary. Entire society was responsible for the upkeep of these people (called Brahmans and Rishis). In Buddhism the preachers were called "Bhikshuk". These people had the highest respect in the society. Like any other institution, this institution too got misused and eroded with time. Bad characters in the garb of Brahmans and Rishis started exploiting the system. First documented misuse of the system was by Ravan who in the garb of Brahman went to Sita and asked for alms. In all our holy books denying alms is considered very bad for the reasons explained above. However, misuse of the system has brought it to the level of social evil.

RK^2

rkumar
October 9th, 2013, 08:02 PM
From the alm givers perspective, the one who gives for a good cause makes merit in his/her life and hence it is encouraged from a spiritual perspective as well.

Agreed 100%. Nothing is spiritually as fulfilling as giving. This is why "giver" is called "Devta".

RK^2

DrRajpalSingh
October 9th, 2013, 10:27 PM
Wrong assumption!..I am not provoked at all and I am not buddhha and i did not claim that I belong to that remaining 1%. Please Don't feel offended..I quoted you so don't assume that it was specially for you..sorry for confusion

Friend,

Okay,

None of us is Buddha.

Thanks

dahiyaBadshah
October 10th, 2013, 12:24 AM
Agreed 100%. Nothing is spiritually as fulfilling as giving. This is why "giver" is called "Devta".

RK^2


"Giving is godliness" - Rig Veda

dahiyaBadshah
October 10th, 2013, 12:35 AM
Concept of begging is most ill understood from Indian culture's perspective. Concept of begging/alms has its origin in our Verna system. Segment of society which was responsible for education/ preaching was kept free of any other work to earn livelihood. These people were not employed by any institution on some sort of salary. Entire society was responsible for the upkeep of these people (called Brahmans and Rishis). In Buddhism the preachers were called "Bhikshuk". These people had the highest respect in the society. Like any other institution, this institution too got misused and eroded with time. Bad characters in the garb of Brahmans and Rishis started exploiting the system. First documented misuse of the system was by Ravan who in the garb of Brahman went to Sita and asked for alms. In all our holy books denying alms is considered very bad for the reasons explained above. However, misuse of the system has brought it to the level of social evil.

RK^2
According to one study over 10 million Sadhus are estimated in India today. They hardly contribute anything back to society but I won't say all have degenerated to the level of social evil.

dahiyaBadshah
October 10th, 2013, 01:25 AM
99% people are too dumb( they may be highly intellectual in worldy affairs) to understand what buddhha was and what he preached. It's a different dimension . it's not inevitable that all intellectuals can understand it, it can not be bounded it with intellectuality

As someone asked buddha.. "what is purpose of life?".. buddha replied "end of sufferings"..the person again asked " what will be after end of sufferings" ..buddha replied "you have to see it yourself, it can not be said in words".

I am not surprised people are still blaming him that he did not clarify "what is god" 'what happends after death"..it is termed as spiritual bankruptcy.


Of course Buddha was an experimentalist that too of high order. Buddhism all talks and no substance couldn't stand the test of time and collapsed....
Dr. Ved Prakash views :
Buddha's teaching: Ahimsa Parmo Dharma (Ahimsa shreshtha hai)
Buddha picked (half) corrupted form of Gita's message to suit his Non-violence experimentation.
Lord Krishna's full message: Ahimsa Parmo Dharma; Dharma Hinsa Tathev Che.(Dharam ke liye hinsa bhi param Dharam hai.)
Giving heed to Buddha's teachings of Non-violence kings and queens in India disbanded their armies to build hospitals, maths and to fund cherity works.
On seeing police officer hanging a fisherman for killing fish, Kumaril Bhat or Shankra Charya (one of the two) asked why you did this?
"He committed violence" Cop said
"You are teaching Non-violence with violence" Sage asked.(1)
It generated controversy/discussion about Buddhas idea of Non-violence which (2) pose a threat to national security as well.
Monks failed to address public concern and eventually Buddhism disappeared fron India as we know.

prashantacmet
October 11th, 2013, 11:46 AM
Of course Buddha was an experimentalist that too of high order. Buddhism all talks and no substance couldn't stand the test of time and collapsed....
Dr. Ved Prakash views :
Buddha's teaching: Ahimsa Parmo Dharma (Ahimsa shreshtha hai)
Buddha picked (half) corrupted form of Gita's message to suit his Non-violence experimentation.
Lord Krishna's full message: Ahimsa Parmo Dharma; Dharma Hinsa Tathev Che.(Dharam ke liye hinsa bhi param Dharam hai.)
Giving heed to Buddha's teachings of Non-violence kings and queens in India disbanded their armies to build hospitals, maths and to fund cherity works.
On seeing police officer hanging a fisherman for killing fish, Kumaril Bhat or Shankra Charya (one of the two) asked why you did this?
"He committed violence" Cop said
"You are teaching Non-violence with violence" Sage asked.(1)
It generated controversy/discussion about Buddhas idea of Non-violence which (2) pose a threat to national security as well.
Monks failed to address public concern and eventually Buddhism disappeared fron India as we know.






I may agree with you. If you see budhism with the eye of a religius denominations..it may fail you. but with the eye of spiritualism , it's an ocean.

RajatSingh
October 11th, 2013, 01:41 PM
Gautam Buddha ne bhut ache karye kiye. kfai sarahiniye hia.

urmiladuhan
October 11th, 2013, 03:40 PM
According to one study over 10 million Sadhus are estimated in India today. They hardly contribute anything back to society but I won't say all have degenerated to the level of social evil.


I beg to disagree. I think the learned ones share their knowledge with other seekers. Many show spiritual and ethical path to others. The knowledge that is gained with introspection, deep thinking on various human and social aspects etc.

urmiladuhan
October 11th, 2013, 03:44 PM
Of course Buddha was an experimentalist that too of high order. Buddhism all talks and no substance couldn't stand the test of time and collapsed....
Dr. Ved Prakash views :
Buddha's teaching: Ahimsa Parmo Dharma (Ahimsa shreshtha hai)
Buddha picked (half) corrupted form of Gita's message to suit his Non-violence experimentation.
Lord Krishna's full message: Ahimsa Parmo Dharma; Dharma Hinsa Tathev Che.(Dharam ke liye hinsa bhi param Dharam hai.)
Giving heed to Buddha's teachings of Non-violence kings and queens in India disbanded their armies to build hospitals, maths and to fund cherity works.
On seeing police officer hanging a fisherman for killing fish, Kumaril Bhat or Shankra Charya (one of the two) asked why you did this?
"He committed violence" Cop said
"You are teaching Non-violence with violence" Sage asked.(1)
It generated controversy/discussion about Buddhas idea of Non-violence which (2) pose a threat to national security as well.
Monks failed to address public concern and eventually Buddhism disappeared fron India as we know.






Buddhism spread far and wide in the east (as far as Japan) and South Asia. I do not think it has collapsed.

urmiladuhan
October 11th, 2013, 03:56 PM
I think there is truth to what you have said. Sirpur, in Chattisgarh, has recently been found to have had been a prominent Buddhist centre during the time of the existence of South Kosala kingdom (6th C.E). Excavations in the area have yielded lot of Buddhist artifacts and monastery layout. However, the local religion these days is prominently Hindu. Where have all the practising Buddhists disappeared? I suppose, over time, Buddhism as a religion of the masses or as state religion did indeed disappear in India.


Of course Buddha was an experimentalist that too of high order. Buddhism all talks and no substance couldn't stand the test of time and collapsed....
Dr. Ved Prakash views :
Buddha's teaching: Ahimsa Parmo Dharma (Ahimsa shreshtha hai)
Buddha picked (half) corrupted form of Gita's message to suit his Non-violence experimentation.
Lord Krishna's full message: Ahimsa Parmo Dharma; Dharma Hinsa Tathev Che.(Dharam ke liye hinsa bhi param Dharam hai.)
Giving heed to Buddha's teachings of Non-violence kings and queens in India disbanded their armies to build hospitals, maths and to fund cherity works.
On seeing police officer hanging a fisherman for killing fish, Kumaril Bhat or Shankra Charya (one of the two) asked why you did this?
"He committed violence" Cop said
"You are teaching Non-violence with violence" Sage asked.(1)
It generated controversy/discussion about Buddhas idea of Non-violence which (2) pose a threat to national security as well.
Monks failed to address public concern and eventually Buddhism disappeared fron India as we know.
-

upendersingh
October 11th, 2013, 05:40 PM
I do not think it has collapsed.

It is not collapsed, but Buddhists don't care about their religion much or I should say comparing to other religions. Diwali the main festival for Hindus, X-Mas for Christians, Eid for Muslims....what for Buddhists? If any then not popular one. If statue of Buddh vandalized then they don't care. I think here on JL almost 90% people don't believe in karma or rebirth (though I believe). In this world as well there are lot of people who don't think so that their karmas have anything to do with their fate. He showed the real path, but how many follow?

urmiladuhan
October 11th, 2013, 05:48 PM
:). Nice.


P.s: Very interesting post.



It is not collapsed, but Buddhists don't care about their religion much or I should say comparing to other religions. Diwali the main festival for Hindus, X-Mas for Christians, Eid for Muslims....what for Buddhists? If any then not popular one. If statue of Buddh vandalized then they don't care. I think here on JL almost 90% people don't believe in karma or rebirth (though I believe). In this world as well there are lot of people who don't think so that their karmas have anything to do with their fate. He showed the real path, but how many follow?
.

urmiladuhan
November 10th, 2013, 11:05 AM
here is a 2nd century relief sculpture showing the scene of Buddha leaving his palace in search of truth. buddha is not shown in human form but as an invisible horse rider. it wasnt until few centuries after the death of buddha that buddhist started showing buddha in human form.

16950

DrRajpalSingh
November 10th, 2013, 11:43 AM
here is a 2nd century relief sculpture showing the scene of Buddha leaving his palace in search of truth. buddha is not shown in human form but as an invisible horse rider. it wasnt until few centuries after the death of buddha that buddhist started showing buddha in human form.

16950

Good information, kindly share source/place where the relief was found/located.

Thanks.

DrRajpalSingh
November 10th, 2013, 11:46 AM
Buddhism spread far and wide in the east (as far as Japan) and South Asia. I do not think it has collapsed.

Truth is that it has lost followers in the country of its birth place.

urmiladuhan
November 10th, 2013, 12:32 PM
Any guess?



Good information, kindly share source/place where the relief was found/located.

Thanks.

DrRajpalSingh
November 19th, 2013, 03:31 PM
Any guess?

None !!!!!

urmiladuhan
November 20th, 2013, 09:24 AM
Currently in a Japanese museum, I believe.


Good information, kindly share source/place where the relief was found/located.

Thanks.

DrRajpalSingh
November 22nd, 2013, 09:12 AM
Thanks for sharing information.

DrRajpalSingh
November 27th, 2013, 08:08 AM
Read for archaeological evidence on the Lumbini Bagh, the birthplace of Gautama Buddha in 'The Tribune,' Chandigarh, 27th November, 2013, page, 9 caption: Discovery suggests Buddha lived two centuries earlier.

or link log in : www.tribuneindia.com

prashantacmet
November 27th, 2013, 11:15 AM
Truth is that it has lost followers in the country of its birth place.

so we are thanksless people..it is not fault of budhha

DrRajpalSingh
November 27th, 2013, 02:40 PM
so we are thanksless people..it is not fault of budhha

Though Buddhism as a religious sect has disappeared but many of its teachings and practices have become part of Hindu way of life. Therefore, no question of thanklessness or remorse !