Ishwa helper Reged: 03/03/02 Posts: 553

Re: Achievement [Re: willie] #17095 - 06/05/02 05:09 AM Edit Reply Quote

It's very simple, Willie. You have to understand first what's modern and what's old. When you understand both, then you can compare both. But you just assumed that the modern population problem is the solution to the question about diversity, which isn't. You have to be very specific, whenever comparing anything. You have to be specific anytime you want to make a point: Take for instance your remark about the 3 groups. Which groups are you talking about? It sounds like loose sand without being specific. The Buddhist question is something more complicated. Buddha was not concentrating on Causal Brahman, but on Relative Brahman. The very word Nirv�na is the indication that he accepted Causal Brahman, and Buddhism knows of ParaNirv�na as describing Absolute Brahman. The reason why Buddha did concentrate on Relative Brahman was simply because on one hand he followed and accepted the Upanishadika/Ved�ntika Absolute tradition of his time, and on the other hand, because he wanted to solve the contemporary practical problems, which is the Relative Brahman area. Nothing in Buddhas teachings is against Vedic tradition, he was very much part and a product of the eastern Vedic tradition. If he was against that tradition he wouldn't have called his ideas Arya Dharma. But please, do read a lot more on these matters, which is freely available. About Buddhists not wanting to be called Hindus? I don't know if they object to that. But Buddhism was always recognized as a part of Sanatana Dharma in and outside India, as far as I know, before the coming of Europeans, who loved to put (foreign) ideas and people in separate blocks. It needed two purposes: to understand the nature, and to divide to subdue. (They succeeded in doing that with Sikhism as far as I understand that situation).