--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yhvhworld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> --- 
> 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 

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

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to