I would like to hear from Buddhists here what they think are the teachings that are unique only to Buddhism.
(By the way, I am an airplane pilot, and in the piloting world OAT stands for "outside air temperature," so please consider yourself a special part of nature!)
One big difference between Hinduism and Buddhism is that Hinduism teaches of a soul ("atman") while Buddhism does not.
When I am enlightened I'll let you know.You're not Tao then??!!.
Jainism is non-theistic. And while Taoism talks about gods, it does not seem to have the belief of an almightly creator god. So I guess non-theism would not be a unique aspect.Maybe you really need a person with a dispassionate interest and knowledge of religions to answer this.
How about non-theism; is that a unique aspect?
What I said was "As I understand it, Hinduism says that ultimately everything come from the ONE and the soul is merely part of the ONE where the ONE is a kind of primordial intelligence that they call God. If so, then the soul is not the real atman."OAT,
"...the soul is not the real atman."
--> This really gets into the difference between the Christian concept of the soul and the Hindu concept of Atman, which of course are quite different.
Please google for "Vedànta vis-à-vis ShentongVedànta vis-à-vis Shentong" (System does not allow me to post link as my number of posts so far is less than 10)."In some quarters of Buddhism, it appears that there is similar monistic belief, in which case, atman and anatman is hardly distinguishable..."
--> Really? Do you have some examples?
I suppose it is all relative. Who knows, someone may come up with an enery efficient system that will cool the top half of the aerofoil and warm the bottom half and result in a net saving of fuel consumed on take-off in hot weather."...as for being "outside air temperature" ... no wonder I am...."
--> Watch out for those hot-weather takeoffs! (The hotter the outside air temperature, the more difficult the takeoff.)
Alternatively...one may call them Ennobling Truths. They are not something to believe but to be examined and...experienced...and practiced in life...Four Noble Truths - The Four Noble Truths seemed rather ordinary until I learned that it is called Noble because its truth can only be known by someone who has realized the real nature of existence. That someone would be a "Noble" one or an Arya. So people like myself can only have an intellectual understanding of it.
I'm sorry, I can't see the difference here.Non-dualism, the idea that all that exists is oneness - I think the majority of Buddhist schools does not subscribe to the idea that all that exists is oneness. Yes, they subscribe to non-dualism but at the same time they don't subscribe to oneness.
What I said was "the author was arguing that Shentong Buddhists are really not different from Hindus in their view of the ultimate"You said,
"Shentong Buddhists are really not different from Hindus in their view of the ultimate."
--> I agree, although Shentong Buddhists are certainly not representative of most Buddhists. We cannot generalize Shentong beliefs to all Buddhists.
"...ultimately everything come from the ONE and the soul is merely part of the ONE...."
--> I think most Buddhists would disagree with such a statement, although I think they would agree with it if they thought about it long enough.
What I said was "As I understand it, Hinduism says that ultimately everything come from the ONE and the soul is merely part of the ONE where the ONE is a kind of primordial intelligence that they call God."...the ONE is a kind of primordial intelligence that they call God...."
--> Buddhists will certainly disagree with this. And on a slightly different topic, I agree with anyone who says there is a God, but that there is something that is higher than God.
Did you read the article "Vedànta vis-à-vis Shentong". I read it, that was why I said "In some quarters of Buddhism, it appears that there is similar monistic belief...""In some quarters of Buddhism, it appears that there is similar monistic belief..."
--> Are you Christian? I do not understand your need to impose monism on Buddhism.
As I understand it, Buddhism says Atman does not exist only in relation to the world of appearances, ie. the world as manifest by dependent origination. As for the ultimate, Buddhism as I understand it says that one can't say anything of it."...atman and anatman is hardly distinguishable..."
--> I agree, in the sense that only the One exists and nothing else truly exists. It can be said that Atman does not exist because nothing here exists (which is what I think Buddha actually meant, and that many people have misuderstood).