Fundamental differences between the Bhagavad Gita and Buddhism

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by BlavatskyChannel
Unless everything that is said is absolute truth then one is simply regurgitating the beliefs accepted from others..

And one can not be absolute truth constantly..

You are the truth you just haven't realized it yet.
I know absolutely.

Nothing can be 'said' that is the truth. Truth cannot be spoken.

It is nice that you believe that but in all honestly i believe that you have moments where even you are not sure what to believe

reply to post by BlavatskyChannel


I don't believe.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by BlavatskyChannel

 

I don't believe.

One of the peculiar sins of the twentieth century which we've developed to a very high level is the sin of credulity. It has been said that when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse: they believe in anything.

There is nothing so pitiful as a young cynic because he has gone from knowing nothing to believing nothing.

Every man must do two things alone; he must do his own believing and his own dying.

Now, God be praised, that to believing souls gives light in darkness, comfort in despair.

Magic is believing in yourself, if you can do that, you can make anything happen.

We are born believing. A man bears beliefs as a tree bears apples.

Originally posted by BlavatskyChannel
A man bears beliefs as a tree bears apples.

A man believes until he finds the truth.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by BlavatskyChannel
A man bears beliefs as a tree bears apples.

A man believes until he finds the truth.

One mans truth is another mans lie.

reply to post by BlavatskyChannel


Man is a manufactured belief.
Nothing is separate from God but man believes he is.

As much as i would love to continue this dialogue the truth is that i believe i am in need of a shave and a shower..

Peace and blessings to you.

the ultimate purpose of Buddhism is to move past the Buddha and operate limitless within oneself. That freedom is then naturally expressed in our lives in true harmony. It is not the mastery of the external but rather the understanding of internal and self mastery. It does not start from the external inwards, but from the internal outwards in its search for ultimate truth. Really it has no ultimate truth beyond that which you discover internally.

Buddhism is not meant to explain the outside world we perceive through a "God" and its forms. It is an attempt at understanding our internal self, by an internal "God" identity. The Buddha in you.

The Bhagavad Gita seeks to understand God through the external world and discover a fundamental eternal truth form it to be enjoyed internally. It is inarguably strict in its interpretation and more dogmatic. This is usually the case when the external and finite world is explained to the universal self. The universal self has its own view and its own interpretation of ultimate truth. When any system becomes dogmatic it is limited to the culture that it was designed for. Buddhism is not designed to explain the world and extrapolate truth from it for a certain "type" of person, but to explain to the student the human condition itself through a universal identity.

Anyone else notice that Buddhism seems maternal in that it represents more submissive, almost a martyr like feel to it? What I mean by maternal is like in astrology the moon is represented as emotional, feminine, maternal, docile, submissive, where as the Hindu description sounds descriptive of the Sun, patriarchal, aggressive, male, warlike, etc.

The comparison also reminds me of the Hebrew God and religion being Patriarchal and demanding and unforgiven whereas the Christian God, Jesus comes as a lamb and teaches lessons representing a maternal feel of forgiveness and understanding.

Here is another similarity:

The Buddha's relation with Hinduism is so close that it's easy to confuse Buddhism with Hinduism. The two religions have close connections, and yet they are distinct. This was because of Buddha's reform movements and his refining of Hindu beliefs.It would not be wrong to state, then, that Buddha founded a noble religion by distilling Hinduism, and offering a commonsense approach to self-betterment to which the people can relate easily.

hinduism.about.com...

reply to post by itsallmaya


The fertility "mother" goddess was traditionally replaced by the paternal "sun" or sky God as mankind moved into cities and agricultural life with its female centered mythology took a second place in the pantheons of any culture that made the transition into more complex societies. This also marked the birth of the priesthood who like the politics and structure of daily life were specialized avenues to power like the soldier to the army, the tax collector to the government and the leader to his people. Before access was instant and personal by the proximity of nature and so the goddess.

In these transitions we see reflected a tendency for role reversal of the life giving "fertility Goddess" and the offspring. One of many examples is the tale of Mardok. He kills his great great grandmother (Tiamat), and slays an evil enemy of her creation. He then takes her dismembered body like in many myths across the globe and becomes the creator of all, using her broken body to make all of creation.

This is a recurring theme in earths mythology.

IMO, Buddhism is a rebirth of ancient knowledge in response to the trend of mankind searching for greater civilization which required more male centered roles in everything from the family unit to governance. This consequently led to misbalance with our inherent nature and that which we strived to achieve. Buddhism could be understood as a quest for balance. Paternal centered mythologies tried to justify the role of the father god to all other deities, like the ruler to the people, or the father to the family.

Alternatively, the mother was always the source of all life in the past and her role was more important to all cultures, so these cultures tended to reflect that in their ideas of "god". The transition made her into an evil monster and creator of evil (conflict). This was an old VS new conflict overcome by the destruction of old institutions and customs and from their reorganization ( the dismembered god mythos) was the new civilized world made. In any cultures mythology this conflict was overcome by the victor male God and his pantheon which he was the father or single ruler.

as far as I have understood it anyways.

the ultimate purpose of Buddhism is to move past the Buddha and operate limitless within oneself. That freedom is then naturally expressed in our lives in true harmony. It is not the mastery of the external but rather the understanding of internal and self mastery. It does not start from the external inwards, but from the internal outwards in its search for ultimate truth. Really it has no ultimate truth beyond that which you discover internally.

reply to post by zedVSzardoz


countless straws in your argument. buddha taught nothing different from gita and i wonder how many of you know that the path of meditation wasn't invented by buddha.
buddhism is about one of the many paths taught by krishna to attain moksha,thus buddhism is a subset of gita.

The Bhagavad Gita seeks to understand God through the external world and discover a fundamental eternal truth form it to be enjoyed internally. It is inarguably strict in its interpretation and more dogmatic. This is usually the case when the external and finite world is explained to the universal self. The universal self has its own view and its own interpretation of ultimate truth. When any system becomes dogmatic it is limited to the culture that it was designed for. Buddhism is not designed to explain the world and extrapolate truth from it for a certain "type" of person, but to explain to the student the human condition itself through a universal identity.

can you quote anything from geeta which supports your lies?? i wonder if you ever read it.
i will give you a simple task, provide me a single teaching of buddhism which isn't in gita?? anyone.

Originally posted by itsallmaya
Anyone else notice that Buddhism seems maternal in that it represents more submissive, almost a martyr like feel to it? What I mean by maternal is like in astrology the moon is represented as emotional, feminine, maternal, docile, submissive, where as the Hindu description sounds descriptive of the Sun, patriarchal, aggressive, male, warlike, etc.

The comparison also reminds me of the Hebrew God and religion being Patriarchal and demanding and unforgiven whereas the Christian God, Jesus comes as a lamb and teaches lessons representing a maternal feel of forgiveness and understanding.

Here is another similarity:

The Buddha's relation with Hinduism is so close that it's easy to confuse Buddhism with Hinduism. The two religions have close connections, and yet they are distinct. This was because of Buddha's reform movements and his refining of Hindu beliefs.It would not be wrong to state, then, that Buddha founded a noble religion by distilling Hinduism, and offering a commonsense approach to self-betterment to which the people can relate easily.

hinduism.about.com...

hinduism is not a religion and anyone which considers it as one is an idiot.
you can be an atheist and be a hindu as hinduism is a way of life.

reply to post by deepankarm


All I see in geeta is another rigid system of faith that leaves little variance in the interpretation of its concepts so as to establish a proprietary authority to any form of higher thought.

Buddhism is not subject to anything. It is yet another system. You can't say that any concept you find in your preferred system could not have evolved independently on its own in another. Next you will say geeta invented the God concept itself.

I speak not to defend any one system or deny any other.