Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Can you be both Buddhist and Hindu?
Do you guys think it is possible to be both Hindu and Buddhist?
0
Comments
The Dalai Lama refers to "God" in many of his books and the traditional devotees of India hanker after the Lord's grace. So where's the big gulf, if they revere the Buddha's Dharma while still appreciating the truths of the Hindu culture? These things are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The fact that a basket containing 28 pieces of fruit has 24 apples does not negate the fact that there are also four pears in it.
There are lots of different dimensions to religion, and some who have more exposure to more traditions do tend to be drawn to more than just one.
On the other hand, religionists who are leaders often cause rifts which are later hard to bridge, causing shared tendencies to diverge. Perhaps if, historically, a few more Islamic leaders were more persecuting of the Sufis, someone might today be asking if someone could be both Sufi and Muslim. They'd be answered firmly in the negative!
_________________________
Assuming that someone reading this thread might not know anything about Sufism or Islam, Sufis are an ecstatic mystical Moslem sect, but still not disavowed by most Muslims. (Not too sure about the word most here, might be some??)
Of course, you can be both Buddhist and Hindu.
It all centers on which Chosen Ideal is yours. If it's Vishnu or Siva, fine! However, say you choose Buddha, as many must, you're in.
If the ultimate ground of reality is worshipped before an altar stacked with flowers, and the nectar in those various flowers is what most partakes of the ultimate ground of our being —in my mind it is the Buddha that is by far the better nectar-gatherer than Vishnu or Siva.
True, Krishna (Shivite) has a lot of attractive qualities such as power and disinterestedness and so on... However, for those Hindus who have Buddha as their Chosen Ideal, Buddha is simply the one that most appeals and draws them.
I believe this could be said much more succinctly, but I just wanted to put this out there as an addendum to my hasty first reply. I'm even afraid some might have misinterpreted me to understand me as believing that Sufis were not Muslims, which they are, indeed.
There is much less of the internal locus of control (a psychological term) in Hinduism, and much more external locus of control. At first I found it hard to give up the idea that there was a higher power I could appeal to (I was raised in yoga by mom, who had been a direct student of a swami called Paramahansa Yogananda) ... but now I much prefer it.
Additionally, having been raised in a family of yoga-practitioners, and two of us having become Buddhist in our later years ... it's the Buddhism that seems to change people, not the yoga. All the yoga-practitioners we've known ... they still have their tempers, their attachments ... but those who became Buddhists have found a stillness, a gentleness.
Just as much as it is possible to be Buddhist/Christian, Buddhist/Jewish, Buddhist/Muslim, or Buddhist/<insert other religion here>.
Fine for a while, but I feel, after a while, you're going to have to plant your mast very firmly in either one or the other.
As has been said many times, you can practise any religion you like, and incorporate all of the aspects of Buddhism.
But you cannot practise Buddhism and incorporate all the aspects of *insert other religion*.
I agree with this. I believe that if you are "in-between" when it comes to your chosen religion, that you can't necessarily state, "I am half buddhist and half hindu."
I'd say you are just "searching."
The central and most basic tenants of buddhism and hinduism are conflicting. Also, it is a very common theme in many buddhist sutras for Brahmins to become enlightened by the teachings of the buddha and to profess faith in the buddha, dharma, and sangha.
I'd say, if you are unsure if buddhism is the correct path, then continue to educate yourself and continue to be a loving and kind person. There's no doubt that no matter what religion you wish to follow, love and kindness for others is always praised.
To yourself be True.
My guru used to say there were as many religions in the world as there were people.
Rings True For Me.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" —Marx
Maybe I'm just a pig, but I'm also capable of loving more than one person at a time. The fact that I do not avail myself of certain pleasures notwithstanding, I know it to be due to things other than purity on my part.
A picture of my guru's shrine in the public chapel:
The picture is of Sri Ramakrishna of Calcutta:
Tolerance and acceptance of other religions is not the issue here.
That should in all cases, be a given.
the discussion is actually focussing on practising Buddhism and an other religion (I would presume fully) simultaneously.
Can't be done, in my opinion.
But I like the photo.... and concur.
.
Please forgive my pedantic nature, but it's the proof-reader, in me...
The word is 'tenets'.....
I apologise.
But it's like nails on a blackboard to me....
(Don't take it personally, I'm this snotchy with everyone....! Nirvy will vouch for that!:D)
People can only appropriate so much and then they "wing it." My teacher's statement, ofttimes repeated by him, was that there are truly as many different religions as there are people. That is one way of looking at things and is a more expansive view.
Which is false, Koran or Veda?
What rings false is false to you and what rings true is true to you.
There is no corpus of teachings that is without some teaching that would lead one into error if one had to be following it. If there is any true religion, it is the religion of the heart —and the heart only, for only the heart can be true.
For me, the Lord Buddha towers, but I see many semblances of him in the Lord Jesus. What are the garments of righteousness? Our fidelity to only "One True Path?" I think not.
If the path be narrow, as Jesus says, it's because it's only for a single human being, one paving stone at a time, from alone to alone. Walking the narrow path does not mean one has to BE narrow.
Well, certainly not in a full manner. But practices and readings from both traditions can help someone along their individual path.
Also, while there are many similar things and agreements, there are also many divergences that are not insignificant. Another thing to keep in mind is that 'Hindu' is actually a set of varying traditions with Vedic origins. Samkhya philosophy is a lot different than ritualistic Bhakti focused traditions.
4th Vow:
In a future lifetime, upon my enlightenment, may all sentient beings choose to follow the peaceful way of bodhi instead of traveling the path of evil. If there are beings who are proceeding via the Sravaka or pratyekabuddha vehicle, may they become engaged by means of the great vehicle.
9th vow:
In a future lifetime, upon my enlightenment, all who are caught in the net of evil shall be released from their entanglement in heterodox practices. if there are those who have fallen into the dark forest of evil views, they shall all become established in the correct perspective and gradually assume practice of all the bodhisattva discplines, quickaly actualizing Buddhahood.
Compare the ultimate teachings of each system and they differ only in flavour. The methods are strikingly similar, the philosophical approaches heavily influenced by each other. Post-Shankara advaita owes as much to Nalanda as to earlier Vedic tradition.
There is a richness of methods in Vajrayana which has been to some extent lost in the various Hindu tantric traditions. The bodhisattva ethic is also so wonderfully spelled out in the Mahayana tradition that while the ideals are not absent in Hindu practice, they are less explicit and poetic. On the other hand, the approach to devotion in Hindu practice is far more developed than in Buddhism, while also not absent there.
I have always thought, "Why choose?". I can read anything from the Agamas to the songs of Ramprasad to Kaballah mysticism to the Nikayas, like a bee flitting from one beautiful flower to another drinking deeply from each.
I, Lalla, dropped off body and mind,
and stepped into the Secret Self.
Look: Lalla the sedgeflower blossomed a lotus.
Palzang
To be conversant in, and to be engaged in the concepts, practices, and "worship" of different traditions at the same time is a "following" of each.
The above statement needs refinement and perhaps some fleshing out, but that is my sincerely held view. This is a subject that is of great interest to me.
Fede said above that I was clouding the issue. That is not my intent.
Please, somebody, take me through the steps whereby I may be shown the essential error of my position. I am not gonna cling to my position for dear life, but neither will I drop my position without being shown my error.
I was in India in 1996, and every historical Buddhist shrine or place that I visited had been coopted by the Hindus, usually desecrating it. For instance, we visited the pit where Mandarava had been thrown by her father after he found out Padmasambhava had been teaching her and her attendants in defiance of his ban on any males coming into their compound. There was no trace of anything Buddhist left and instead there was a Hindu something or other there that looked more like a public restroom than a shrine of any sort. It was disgusting. The same was true at Marathika Cave in Nepal which is where Mandarava and Padmasambhava attained the deathless state of Amitayus. There Shaivites (followers of Shiva) had also claimed the site, and there were tridents everywhere. Sorry, but I don't have much respect for the Hindu habit of coopting every other religion or belief system into their own. It is one of the reasons that Buddhism all but disappeared in the land where it was born.
Palzang
We cannot live in two treehouses at once (unless you can swing like Tarzan) but we go down to the ground and it is the same.
Buddhism all but disappeared because of the destruction of the monasteries and extermination of the monastic community by the Muslim invaders. Hinduism is not in the habit of "co-opting" anything. That cave was doubtless used by countless siddhas and rishis before Guru Rinpoche was there, and countless more since. In point of fact, the deathless state of Amitayus is not the property of any religion. Rather it is the natural condition beyond all concepts and opinions.
I am quite certain that Guru Rinpoche would be happy that people would come to the Maratika cave with an attitude of reverence. All that come there surely make a connection with him. Mount Kailash is also revered in both Hindu and Buddhist tantra. Many of the mahasiddhas taught Hindu tantra to their Hindu students and Buddhist tantra to their Buddhist students... particularly Matsyendranath and Goraknath.
Parochialism is baffling to me, particularly when Hindu and Buddhist tantra are so close as to be almost indistinguishable at times. Should we not delight in others that devote themselves to wisdom and compassion, regardless of the labels they use? Whether you worship Pashupatinath or Avalokiteshvara, does it really matter?
http://www.dabase.org/ribhu.htm
Everyone seems to accept a priori that there is a difference and then sets out to find fault with the terminology, rather than to try to understand it on its own terms. This is usually based on the anachronistic idea that Lord Shakyamuni set out to refute the advaita vedantin view, which in its present form did not evolve until the time of Adi Shankara, a millenium later. Adi Shankara and his guru Gaudapada were accused of being "crypto-buddhists" in their own day. They were obviously and profoundly influenced by the extant buddhist philosophical traditions.
As Nguyen says so eloquently in his 1990 dissertation "Sthiramati's Interpretation of Buddhology and Soteriology":
"It is a truism in modern studies of systems of meaning (such as cultures, languages, religions, mythology) that it is necessary first to see such a system of meaning from within, in terms of its own categories and concepts, and its own inherent logic. If on the contrary, we set out by attempting to view a system of meaning in terms of categories fundamentally alien to it, we are in danger of misconstruing the system and constructing a distorted interpretation of it that overlooks its basic meanings and inherent structure."
Sure you can.
you can certainly be labelled as, or label yourself as...
But can you really "be" any such thing? Are you a label?
Actually the Source can be anything it wants even as it is Not.
To think that it is not that which it manifests as is also off-mark though IMO.
As to your original question, the label is not the error per se - the belief, the mis-identity will be the eternal error.
Hence meditation, hence the Eightfold. There is no other way.
Blessings.
http://youtu.be/hd3hMFUFhtY
I had a dream during childhood day and I could not figure out then. There was this combination of a wholesome head in my dream - the face is similar to jesus image, but sparkling black, having long beard and wearing sort of songkok with rainbow colors. and at the top of the songkok, there is this blue diamond. Any offensive remarks is unintentional and pls no hard feeling is this discussion. Namaste and thank you
心如工画师 能画诸世间 五蕴悉从生 一切唯心造
Poetry by a bodhisavattas namely 覺林菩薩云
Taisho Tripitaka Vol. 36, No. 1742 大方廣佛華嚴經 [The Flower Ornament Sutra or Flower Adornment Sutra]
大唐(Tang Dynasty) 證聖元年(Time)于闐(Place)實叉難陀(Person)譯(Translating)
夜摩偈 Stanza - 夜摩 The most powerful heavenly beings that dwelled in the sixth heaven讚品二十 The 20th phrase in Praise of Buddha and sentience inherent nature of bliss (卷(chapter) 同同須彌讚)
覺林菩薩云 (A bodhisavattas relates the bliss in you over his personal attainment as mentioned by Buddha Sakyamuni)。譬如工畫師分布諸彩色 Figuratively like a master in art drawing with variety of ideas and colours to produce a complete flawless painting。
虛妄取異色。大種無差別。大種中無色。
Grasping over from the deluded phenomena. The pristine bliss condition is immutatable, colourless and odourless.
色中無大種。亦不離大種。而有色可得。心中無彩畫。
Neither there is phenomenon of drawing existed, nor apart from its noumenon. Neverthless, this phenomena never cloud the bliss of pure mind (noumenon) and bliss of heart (phenomenon).
彩畫中無心。然不離於心。有彩畫可得。
The phenomenon of the drawing has no mind, and yet it is not no mind in it, and there is this blissful phenomenon of drawing to enjoy.
彼心恒不住。無量難思議。示現一切色。
Your pristine lovely heart never dwell. Beyond perception and discourse, and it manifesting in all its phenomena.
各各不相知。譬如工畫師不能知自心而由心故畫。
Its individual phenomenon never know each others, like the master of art did not know his lovely heart, and it's being drawn from this lovely heart.
諸法性如是。心如工畫師。能畫諸世間。
The compassionate mind of all phenomena is suchness, liken to the lovely mind of this artist manifesting its lovely presence in all the phenomenons.
五蘊悉從生。無法而不造。如心佛亦爾。如佛眾生然。
應知佛與心體性皆無盡。
Upon the bliss of 5 skandhas arises, it creates all bliss of dharma/phenomenon, liken to its lovely nature heart and that of the enlightened one; and similarly, as that of the enlightened one and the sentience.
若人知心行普造諸世間。是人則見佛。了佛真實性。
If sentience aware from the nature of this loving heart of bliss that created all its phenomenon. This sentience is known as having the right perception of its pristine bliss nature of the enlightened one. Liberated from all the deluded phenomenons into lovely blissfull mind.
心不住於身身亦不住心。而能作佛事。
Lovely mind neither dwells on form nor it dwells on heart, neverthelessly in the manifestation on all enlightenment processes.
自在未曾有。若人欲了知三世一切佛。應觀法界性。
Unobstructively beyond perception and words. If sentience dearly wishes to be awakened the Buddha nature of past, present and future, one should dwell on the right perception on the blissful nature of the dharma world.
一切唯心造。
All the phenomena is created by this lovely blissful heart.
十智林菩薩云。所取不可取。所見不可見。所聞不可聞。一心不思議。
Beautiful. Thanks.
I couldn't, but maybe you can.
we can only be what we are.
we can add as much labels as we want to, to certain activities that we do, but it only defines us in a limited intellectual way; it doesn't change anything to what we are. Just makes conversation easier.
Point taken, Epicurus. However, many of us feel that all religions are to be reverenced (not all followers, however!), and that sometimes makes us feel kinship with more than one religion . Therefore, it is sometimes hard for us to disambiguate, seeing parallels and "magic" in each religion.
And as for the Hindus "coopting" Buddhist holy sites, I have no problem with Hindus and have great respect for their religion. However, I do have a problem with them taking over Buddhist holy sites and making them look like public toilets. I know it really upset my teacher to see it, and it upset me as well. That's what I was complaining about.
Palzang
Idea factory :cool:
Do you?
Or is it not cryptic at all and im just missing some kind of reference?
either way can you explain please
I still have much bad karma to dissolve, and i do get caught up in it sometimes.
you?
Yet the teachings again and again emphasize that to achieve the supreme siddhi what is necessary is not a technique but instead devotion to the guru. Trungpa Rinpoche would call the approach of using a technology to obtain happiness "spiritual materialism".
As opposed to yourself who worships only the True and Real Gods (TM), of course.
I have practiced Advaita Vedanta, Shakta Tantra, Qabalah, Hermeticism and Vajrayana each according to its tradition. I am not saying that this is common or necessary, but please demonstrate to me how I am confused as a result. It is no different than practicing many yidams each according to their root tantra, or practicing mahamudra and dzogchen.
Who said anything about eclecticism?? Picking and choosing what one wants is possible just staying within buddhism. Not sure what it means to believe something absolutely, in light of Madhyamaka. Might evidence and at least the bare bones of an argument be more effective in conveying your point of view than simply claiming something absolutely?
Wasn't this the same lady that was touring India in a leather motorcycle jacket? I think her cultural sensitivity might be more suited to Brooklyn than Bodhgaya or Bangalore. Those caves and sites are not owned by any tradition. For a housewife from Brooklyn to be telling the Indian people what they can do with their own cultural and religious sites because of who she thinks she was in a past life is silly. What's next, visiting Alexandria and complaining about how the Queen of Sheba's palace is not as she left it?
Yeah I don't understand that reverence I guess. Respect should be reserved to people, not ideas, in my opinion. That is also why I don't like taboos when discussing ideas/religions/whatever...and why people sometimes take offense ....because they are associating themselves with the ideas/religions. Foolish, if you ask me.
But sure. I simply don't understand the need for religion.
Palzang : That smogasbord you were talking about...I don't think it's skillful to choose a bit of this and bit of that without a solid reason. The point should be to find the truth. If I had to believe in reincarnation to see some merit in buddhism...I would have ditched it long ago.
don't you think so?