Any religion, ideology, philosophy is going to have people who disagree with the central ideas. Sometimes the rulers of countries try to impose religion on the people and prosecute them. In the west this was done by Abrahamics, in the East mostly by the Buddhists. Buddhism has always been a proselytising religion just like Christianity. Hinduism has never prosecuted religious heretics like the nastikas who have diametrically opposed themselves from the Hindu religion. One influential 7th century Buddhist philosopher, Dharmakirti even wrote a stanza saying:
वेद प्रामाण्यं कस्य चित् कर्तृवादः स्नाने धर्मेच्छा जातिवादाव लेपः|
संतापारंभः पापहानाय चेति ध्वस्तप्रज्ञानां पञ्च लिङगानि जाड्ये||
"Believing that the Veda are standard (holy or divine), believing in a Creator for the world, Bathing in holy waters for gaining punya, having pride (vanity) about one's caste, Performing penance to absolve sins, Are the five symptoms of having lost one's sanity."
Hindus have not stoned the Buddhist or Charvakas to death, but rather have contemplated and debates these ideas. The Charvakas pose a question for example "if the sacrificial animal goes to heaven, why don't you sacrifice your own father?" I don't know all the debates that have gone on about this question, but interestingly we can find a answer from saint Tulasi Dasa, probably unintented, in the Rama Charita Manasa: "with great fortune have we obtained this human body which is even hard to obtain for the gods as is sung in all the scriptures." Bare bhaga manusha tana pava, sura durlabha saba granthanhi gava.
You can say that Buddhist were acting similar to the Satanists, at the one hand appropiating a lot from a particular religion and at the other hand opposing strongly to its central ideas. Hindus have not seen any crime in this and therefore nastikas were never prosecuted for their religion, although Hindus have debated their ideas fiercly. Buddhism (in Asia), Islam in the (middle east) and Christianity (in the west) though have taken militairy offence of heathen ideas. Luckily the Dalai Lama in India is now making statements against proselytising.
What I think is interesting is that all these nastika philosophies have a central theme of momentariness whether they are ascetic or hedonistic, while Hinduism (and maybe Taoism also) places emphasis on the eternity of the Self. As Krishna says in the Gita there was never a time nor will there ever be a time when I nor you did not or will not exist. While in the Abrahamic religions the self is created by a God and a soul is something given to you by God. Christians have this belief that you can sell your soul to the devil, this idea does not make sense in Hinduism.
An interesting parallel in ideology between the Buddhists and the Epicureans is the attitude of "why bother?" when it comes to questions about the existence of gods or of Brahman, since in their view "living in the moment" is all important as a remedy to relieve suffering. This train of thought was present both in ancient India and in the west.
yawad jiwet sukham jivet rinam kritva gritam pivet bhasmibhutasya dehasya punaragamaya kim?
From Charvaka: As long as you live, create debt and drink ghee, when the body has turned to ashes how can you come back?
..sapias, vina liques, et spatio brevispem longam reseces. dum loquimur, fugerit invidaaetas: carpe diem quam minimum credula postero...
From the Epicurean poet, Horace: be wise, strain the wine, and scale back your long hopes, to a short period. While we speak, envious time will have {already} fled, Seize the day, trusting as little as possible in the future.
See also the topic on Kshana Bhangavada and Shankara's argumentation, all the darshanas of Hinduism (astika) disagree with kshana bhangavada or theory of momentariness, maybe that's why its called Sanatana Dharma.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks