--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yhvhworld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- > Thanks for posting this(below) excellent discourse! What > he says is apparently true in regard to what may come > "later" - after the primal sounds and so forth. > > OTOH, Buddhism is no less "Dharmic" than Saivite Hinduism, > but the Buddhist Masters cognize their own Scriptures. > MMY seems to equate "Vedic" with "good" (if it's not > Vedic, then it isn't worth a hill of beans). All > Buddhist teachers would disagree with this.
I think the difference in the two systems (Hindu and Buddhist) as to how they view "cognition of truth" is related to the baseline assumptions that underly each tradition. Hinduism is very much a "creation myth-based" belief system; it's linear. There was a moment of First Creation, with gods and goddesses and beings of power directly involved with the Creation. Buddhism believes that the universe is eternal, and that there has never been and will never be a moment in which the universe was not manifest and created. So it makes sense that the Hindu system would "look for" truth in something that supposedly was "closer" to the "moment of Creation" (in other words, in their myth system, the Vedas) than the Buddhists would. The Buddhists are free to look for truth in pretty much anything in creation, at any moment in time. Hinduism believes very strongly in a "fall from grace," similar to the Christian fall from Eden. Because time *is* linear in its view, there have been various Yugas, and like everything else in the Hindu system, these Yugas or time periods are hierarchical. The oldest (closest to the moment of Creation) are considered "higher," more evolved; the later ones (further away from the moment of Creation) are considered "lower." (And then everything repeats itself, like a stuck record.) Again, Buddhism, not burdened with the notions of linear time and a hierarchical representation of that time, considers every moment as NOW and allows for the full cognition of truth in every moment, whether the object or moment being used as a trigger for cognition took place centuries ago or a moment ago. In the Buddhist system it is as easy to cognize truth right here, right NOW as it ever was at any moment in time. Therefore, Buddhists don't have the same built-in reverence for and preference for scriptures of the past that Hindus have, and are more willing to look to everyday objects around them as having as much innate meaning and truth as the scriptures of old have. Finally, Hinduism has a strong element of predetermination in its models of consciousness. There is a strong feeling that "nothing is new under the sun," that you are merely "rediscovering" ancient truth, as opposed to stumbling upon a brand-new way of appreciating truth, or as opposed to actually discovering a new truth. Because many Hindus assume that they are *not* in charge of their own ability to evolve and realize enlightenment, much less their ability to perform their own actions, they are less likely to consider themselves capable of cognizing any "new" truth in the everyday world around them. Instead, in their view divine forces cause them or enable them to "rediscover" truth in the "oldest" objects, the Vedas. Buddhists have no problem with regard to taking credit for their own initiative, or with doing something "new," cognizing some new truth in the everyday objects of the world around them. The Buddhist "operating system" is based on each individual having total free will; there is no sense of predestination or of having one's actions "led" or "determined" by an outside agency. Therefore Buddhists are free to try new things, to experiment, and, occasionally, to *find* new truths in the everyday objects of NOW. Anyway, the purpose of all of this is not to start a Hindu/Buddhist dick-size contest. :-) I just think that it's important, when comparing Buddhism to most other philosophical systems on the planet, to realize *how* different its baseline assumptions are from most of the others. Buddhism doesn't believe in a Creation, in a Creator, in the "better-ness" of the past as opposed to the present (or a "better" future, for that matter), and it *does* believe in total free will (within the boundaries of a wonderful teaching mechanism called karma). All in all, these are *very* different baseline assumptions than those that would be made by a Hindu, or a Christian, or a Jew, or whatever. Not better, but vive la différence. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/