It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why I don't hear any bad comments on Hindhuism and Buddhism?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 04:52 AM
I thought everybody knows hard core Christian and Islam really love to misinform about others.
Or they actually like to fight each other only? Jews vs Arab, Semith vs Semith?
Well if you want to continue that Semithic fights, go ahead BUT DON'T DRAW THE WHOLE WORLD ATTENTION!

Go, launch your latest terrorist technology to blast Jews asses, and go send all your armies to Middle East. But don't ask the whole world to support you Jews!

[edit on 9-6-2004 by CinLung]

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 05:00 AM
Fair enough about Budhists.

But Hindus.....?

The whole world knows the plight of Indian muslims, specially the things which has happened in last Three months in Gujarat., thousands of Muslims are brutally killed by Hindu terrorists like VHP,Bajrang Dal & RSS.

[edit on 9-6-2004 by John bull 1]

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 05:12 AM
I am sure there some bad news also about Buddhism, any?

About that Hindhuist killing Islam. Why not they killed Buddhists or Christians or any other followers?

You must think, Islam fight with everyone, they even fight each others.
Wherever they are, there are chaos, and wherever they are, they always want a piece of land for their own so they can pray better.
See the history of Bangladesh and Pakistan? And now Philippine, and Thailand? Even in Indonesia and Malaysia, they want a piece of land for their own FROM Islam itself.
So, one can easily draw a conclusion, Islam started the first blood in India.

From Sumeria became Egyptian and then mutant to Semith, and then badly mutant to Jews, and then worsely mutant to Arab.

And lol, we all stunned by this Jews vs Arab fights, from Lebanon to Palestina, from WTC to Afghanistan. After blasted Afghanistan we never hear anything from Bush about hunting Osama anymore. So the aim was invading Afghanistan or hunting Osama?

We all puzzled by this Semithic tricks.

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 05:26 AM

What do you mean by mutant?
Are you the spawn of mutants?
Am I?
Can you describe these mutations?
Some are beneficial, mutations, that is.

I think I know what you are getting at.
I also think you are misguided.

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 07:29 AM
I see this way this religions keep to themself, it may be some problems in the country of origin but they do not try to prove their points like christianity and Islam.

[edit on 9-6-2004 by marg6043]

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 07:46 AM
You can't lump Buddhism in with Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism or Islam.
It isn't a religion.

Try looking at Sri Lanka, Nepal and Thailand to see how Buddhist countries have had problems just like anyone else though.

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 07:50 AM
Yes you are right but these countries problems are mostly because the oppression of their governments.

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 07:58 AM
Not necessarily.
Sri Lanka is fighting against a Hindu invasion of it's Northern area. Repression has come about because of this fight but it did not originate it.

The Hindu Tamils wish to create their own state within Sri Lanka and for years they were funded by Hindu India. Basically a clash of one ideaology against another.

For those who think that Hinduism doesn't have problems can I suggest that you just take a look at the caste system. Again you could state that this is a cultural occurence but then I believe that culture is a part of religion.

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 08:16 AM
Leveller is correct. Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion. It requires no fanatical belief. Buddhists don't say "This is how it is. Believe like this or else _____" (fill in the blank) Buddhists say "See for yourself." If you want to find out about Buddhism, all you have to do is ask a Buddhist. They will happily tell you all you want to know. However, they will always wait for you to bring the subject up. They are very respectful of other people's religions. Unlike religions, Buddhists aren't looking for converts. They figure, you'll ask when you're ready. And that's fine with them.

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 08:26 AM

TextFor those who think that Hinduism doesn't have problems can I suggest that you just take a look at the caste system.

I studied, mythology, religion, caste system and politics when I was in college, I was quite good with history I should have been a historian, but it was not money involved on that.

But cast system is slowing changing and is not as marked as it was before.

[edit on 9-6-2004 by marg6043]

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 08:28 AM
i am a bhuddist. and yes that it's true, we dont "folow" a god, or try to "convert people!, Bhudda it was not worshiped like a god, we just try to folow what he teached. the primal objective od the Bhuda representantions are just to remember us how "small" we are.
there are actualy arround 18 diferent "schools" of bhudism teachings, and the more "fundamentalist " of them are the "Zen bhuddism" from japan.althou even them do not create any kind of problems, exactly because we must folow a "gold rule" that says , that every one must folow a "faith",independent of what faith it is, we must alowed "free will" in all the life beens.
althou some forms of fundamentalist hinduism can be dangerous and they realy kill for they'r belives! but that are a small part of the hinduism, the majority of they'r other diferent "schools" are quite pacific also.

[edit on 9-6-2004 by kangaxx]

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 08:36 AM
Thats is one thing I don't get why from every religion or believes is always a radical group that want to change the original doctrines of their ancient teachers,.

The problems is not the religion or believes themselves these are quite wise, but the people that distorted those teachings for their own gain and the ignorant that follow them.

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 09:38 AM
Well, marg6043, that's a good question. I wish that I could tell you that there wasn't a real problem, that it was all just a series of simple, easily correctably misunderstandings, but I can't, and it isn't.

That is the precise reason that I eschew organized religion. They've taken good systems, and perverted them to the point where the only similarities to their original incarnations are the names. (By they, of course, I mean people.) Northern Ireland comes to mind. Here we have two denominations of the same religion (Christianity), fighting and killing each other when one of the primary teachings of both denominations is "Love thy enemy". Go figure.

[edit on 9-6-2004 by Ouizel]

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 09:50 AM
As a person born into the Hindu Faith, let me assure you, our religion is just as corrupted by men who call themselves pandits as any other major religion out there.

and fyi, hindus and muslims have been fighting since the beginning of history in India and in other parts of the world where there is an Indian population.

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 12:22 PM
I have tried to post something here, after long typing I clicked submit but the message was gone and the thread moved to here. Frustrated.

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Leveller
For those who think that Hinduism doesn't have problems can I suggest that you just take a look at the caste system. Again you could state that this is a cultural occurence but then I believe that culture is a part of religion.

The caste system, originally described in the Vedas, but much abused and maligned over the years, is nothing but a representation of an efficient human society. The four castes described in the scriptures are - the Brahmins, the Kshatriyas, the Vaishyas, and the Shudras. According to the Vedas, an efficient human society is based on the strength of its educational/knowledge-pursuit system (Brahmin), its military and defense system (Kshatriya), its economical and business system (Vaishya), and a strong, happy, productive workforce (Shudras).

This noble representation was misinterpreted, exploited, and abused by a few in the Indian society, leading to the indiscriminate creation of thousands of castes and sub-castes, including the so-called "upper" castes. Fortunately, the caste system has been more or less abolished since Indian independence and the distinctions are beginning to disappear and there is a significant change atleast with the educated and young.


It is said that the caste system is no more than one of economic exploitation of lower castes by upper castes. The conclusion of the sociologists is quite different. They see it as less exploitative in the economic field than other systems prevalent in the past or even in the present. The popular misconception has arisen because there is no social equality in the system. The concept of equality came up only at the time of the American and French Revolutions. Before that there was feudalism in the West based on inequalities. The American innovation of equality and liberty has led to capitalism (with some help from slavery) where profit is the main motive and human considerations are at best marginal. In both feudalism and the subsequent development there is class if not caste resulting in economic inequalities and hence in exploitation and social tensions.

Originally posted by Leveller
You can't lump Buddhism in with Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism or Islam.
It isn't a religion.

Originally posted by Ouizel
Unlike religions, Buddhists aren't looking for converts.

The basic teaching of Hinduism is that our real nature is divine. God, the underlying reality, exists in every being.

The teachings of Hinduism are not based on any individual proclamation but, rather, are a body of knowledge that transcends sensory experience. This wisdom has been tested by generations of seers, ancient and modern, through their personal and direct experiences. Hinduism provides each individual the means and opportunity to discover his hidden potentiality.

Gradually he comes to the realization that he is not an island, but is interconnected with all life, with all existence. He becomes permeated with the Supreme Consciousness, described variously, in the religions of the world, as God, Brahman, Nirvana, Father in Heaven, Allah, Jehovah, etc.

Hinduism is an open book, being ever ready to incorporate the discoveries of sages yet to come--It is a 'federation of faiths' and a 'commonwealth of spiritual concepts.' Hinduism provides help to all men and women in their spiritual development, regardless of their religious affiliation. Hinduism does not seek to convert anyone, but to help the seekers of truth on their own spiritual paths. Many of the principles of this philosophy can be studied and practised in conjunction with any religion. In this sense, Hinduism (more specifically--Vedanta) can be called the 'science of spirituality.'

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 03:05 PM

Originally posted by DivineSoma

Originally posted by Ouizel
Unlike religions, Buddhists aren't looking for converts.

The basic teaching of Hinduism is that our real nature is divine. God, the underlying reality, exists in every being.

How, exactly, does this relate to Buddhism (to which I was referring)? You see, I have looked into Buddhism, but not extensively into Hinduism. Is Hindu a philosophy or a religion? I know that Buddhism is a philosophy. (A pretty good one at that, IMHO)

But, I can't speak intelligently about Hinduism. Care to enlighten me?

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 03:35 PM

note: at the end of my reply, I mentioned "Vedanta" when explaining Hinduism...

The Vedanta philosophy is the foundation of Buddhism and everything else in India; but what we call the Advaita philosophy of the modern school has a great many conclusions of the Buddhists. Of course, the Hindus will not admit that that is the orthodox Hindus, because to them the Buddhists are heretics. But there is a conscious attempt to stretch out the whole doctrine to include the heretics also.

The Vedanta has no quarrel with Buddhism. The idea of the Vedanta is to harmonise all. With the Northern Buddhists we have no quarrel at all. But the Burmese and Siamese and all the Southern Buddhists say that there is a phenomenal world, and ask what right we have to create a noumenal world behind this. The answer of the Vedanta is that this is a false statement. The Vedanta never contended that there was a noumenal and a phenomenal world. There is one. Seen through the senses it is phenomenal, but it is really the noumenal all the time. The man who sees the rope does not see the snake. It is either the rope or the snake, but never the two. So the Buddhistic statement of our position, that we believe there are two worlds, is entirely false. They have the right to say it is the phenomenal if they like, but no right to contend that other men have not the right to say it is the noumenal.

Buddhism does not want to have anything except phenomena. In phenomena alone is desire. It is desire that is creating all this. Modern Vedantists do not hold this at all. We say there is something which has become the will. Will is a manufactured something, a compound, not a "simple". There cannot be any will without an external object. We see that the very position that will created this universe is impossible. How could it? Have you ever known will without external stimulus? Desire cannot arise without stimulus, or in modern philosophic language, of nerve stimulus. Will is a sort of reaction of the brain, what the Snkhya philosophers call Buddhi. This reaction must be preceded by action, and action presupposes an external universe. When there is no external universe, naturally there will be no will; and yet, according to your theory, it is will that created the universe. Who creates the will? Will is coexistent with the universe. Will is one phenomenon caused by the same impulse which created the universe. But philosophy must not stop there. Will is entirely personal; therefore we cannot go with Schopenhauer at all. Will is a compound a mixture of the internal and the external. Suppose a man were born without any senses, he would have no will at all. Will requires something from outside, and the brain will get some energy from inside; therefore will is a compound, as much a compound as the wall or anything else. We do not agree with the will-theory of these German philosophers at all. Will itself is phenomenal and cannot be the Absolute. It is one of the many projections. There is something which is not will, but is manifesting itself as will. That I can understand. But that will is manifesting itself as everything else, I do not understand, seeing that we cannot have any conception of will, as separate from the universe. When that something which is freedom becomes will, it is caused by time, space, and causation. Take Kant's analysis. Will is within time, space, and causation. Then how can it be the Absolute? One cannot will without willing in time.

If we can stop all thought, then we know that we are beyond thought. We come to this by negation. When every phenomenon has been negatived, whatever remains, that is It. That cannot be expressed, cannot be manifested, because the manifestation will be, again, will.


For a more complete understanding of this concept of "Vedanta" (arguably the greatest philosophical thought to emerge from India) please check out The Complete Works of Swami Vivikananda here...

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 03:51 PM
Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

BTW, I'm not buddhist, or hindu, or anything else that could be catagorized at this point. So I really do appreciate the link, and I will absolutely check it out.

new topics

top topics


log in