Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sky123
You are as entitled to your beliefs as much as we all are, it's interesting to see how others percieve things but I do expect my ' falsehoods ' to be explained but I am still waiting  I don't think finding evidence from the Academics and Archeologist's is a distraction.
Shakyamuni was born into a Hindu Family but not Hinduism as a religion, everyone born in the area of the Indus were called Hindu's, Hinduism as we know it today didn't exist at the time of his birth. It is understood that he was a Brahmin as that was the main religion at the time, he didn't agree with all Vedic teachings ( pre-Bramanism but incorporated into it ) caste system etc: so he went his own way. His teachings are all based on ' Universal dharma '. If you look at Tantric Buddhism you can see how some Buddhist's merged Hindu gods and rituals together.
It's a melting pot of different beliefs and rituals and customs all mixed together to form what we now call Buddhism, soooooooo interesting. |
Oh god, I am beside myself - I'd typed up a response, pressed Submit Reply and it popped up with 'server too busy' - argh!
That happened a lot yesterday and the day before. I'm not sure how to 'save' posts as they're being typed it's been so long since I had to do that.
Okay - I DO find all the information very interesting, sky. And I appreciate your sharing it with me. I love and appreciate the Buddha...and Buddhism as it seems to be generating more interest in the west in modern times. I appreciate what I've learned about meditation and mindfulness practices from it, because it helped me and continues to help me deal with the monkey mind and my emotions (especially since the loss of my only son).
In my previous attempt to respond started out saying that I get it. What you're trying to say and information - but Gem had made a rather important point about the competition to see who's more in the know - y'know.
I also said your ego seems to be getting in the way of allowing you to drop this demand for Jonesy to account for his unfortunate use of the word 'falsehood' when it WAS explained to you, from my viewpoint why he said that - I explained it and he not only didn't disagree, he confirmed that what I said was accurate. No need to flog a dead horse plus the OP commented that the thread was interesting and thanked all contributors.
It seems you're trying to intimidate a response from him that he's already given.