Buddha Not a Reformer (of the then Hindu Dharma)?

[TatTvamAsi]

Buddhism is seen as an offshoot of Hinduism by most Hindus. Most Buddhists on the other hand, see themselves as part of a distinct and separate path for many reasons.

In the modern day, Hindus who are keen on "keeping good relations with all" (LOL) people, tend to view Buddha as a reformer of Hindu cultural mores of his day (6th century BCE). They claim that Buddha's message to cease suffering is no different to that of Hindu Dharma in essence. It differs only in practice (ritual etc.).

Since the inception of Buddhism and its rapid rise in the Indian sub-continent, Hindus were not able to contend with many of Buddhism's underpinnings until the advent of Adi Sankara in the 8th century CE. Buddhism's rapid decline in the subcontinent was primarily due to the loss of patronage that it had enjoyed unchallenged for almost a thousand years (since the time of Asoka the Great).

Many anti-Indians and anti-Hindus, posing as 'scholars', posit that the reason(s) for Buddhism's rapid decline in India was due to Hindu aggression and violence, something that is completely erroneous. One of the main reasons Buddhism declined in India was due to the invasion of Islam in the 8th century onwards. One of the greatest centers of Buddhist learning (vihar) was Nalanda; it was completely destroyed by Iltutmish, a marauding Afghan invader in 1197 CE.

Fast-forward to the modern day and Buddhism was again "revived" in India due to Bhimrao Amedkar, the scion of the oppressed sections of society in India, converting to it citing the caste system of Hinduism as the reason. Millions of "dalits" converted to Buddhism in his support, quite cleverly avoiding the death cults of Islam and Christianity in the process.

Koenraad Elst, a Belgian scholar, recently wrote an article describing the Buddhism and the caste system. Buddha is often portrayed in the modern day as a social reformer (by Hindus) and an anti-Hindu by non-Hindus. Anti-Hindu in the sense that he disavowed the Veda, its strictures, and of course, the infamous Varnashrama Dharma (caste). Elst shows, with evidence, that this is actually not the case. Buddha's emphasis was on ending one's suffering. His "Four Noble Truths" in its original (Sanskrit) are actually "catvāri-ārya-satyāni". With the word "arya" standing for "noble", Buddha subscribed to the notion that nobility (not in the idiotic sense known in the west) refers to Vedic culture. And thus, one who is an "aryan" is one who is part of the Vedic culture (Indian/Hindu).

So, Amedkar was primarily the reason why Buddha is seen today as someone who was against varna-dharma and someone who eschewed the (superiority of the) Veda.

Link: http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/201...and-caste.html

He states that Buddha and his immediate culture was unequivocally Hindu and that he too was a Kshatriya. One of the most striking things that he cites in his article is that the Buddha had stated that the "next Buddha" will be born in a "Brahmin household". If Buddha was "anti-caste" and anti-Vedic (anti-Hindu), why would he say that?

It is an interesting read and offers some food for thought.

[wundermonk]

In my experience, I have encountered two types of Buddhists.

(1)Those who are fine with Hinduism.
(2)Those who are intent on proving that Buddhism is better than Advaita. I fail to understand why Buddhists feel if Buddhism is proven better than Advaita, they have defeated Hinduism. Mimamsa and Nyaya had significant dialectics with Buddhists and some of the most powerful arguments against Buddhist doctrines (theory of epistemology, theory of momentariness, etc.) arose from within these realist schools.

Some also feel that it was mere accident that Buddha took birth in India. The context, society and culture of India was merely coincident to Buddha's birth and his enlightenment. Buddha is a non-Indian figure for them. De-Indianizing Buddha is essential for them.

But in any case, the above is my personal experience and admittedly of a very small sampling. I am sure in many other cases Buddhists and Hindus get along just fine. I have not come across many Buddhists who want to wipe out Hinduism. There was just one person who held such a view.

[TatTvamAsi]

In my experience, I have encountered two types of Buddhists.

(1)Those who are fine with Hinduism.
(2)Those who are intent on proving that Buddhism is better than Advaita. I fail to understand why Buddhists feel if Buddhism is proven better than Advaita, they have defeated Hinduism. Mimamsa and Nyaya had significant dialectics with Buddhists and some of the most powerful arguments against Buddhist doctrines (theory of epistemology, theory of momentariness, etc.) arose from within these realist schools.

Some also feel that it was mere accident that Buddha took birth in India. The context, society and culture of India was merely coincident to Buddha's birth and his enlightenment. Buddha is a non-Indian figure for them. De-Indianizing Buddha is essential for them.

But in any case, the above is my personal experience and admittedly of a very small sampling. I am sure in many other cases Buddhists and Hindus get along just fine. I have not come across many Buddhists who want to wipe out Hinduism. There was just one person who held such a view.

I too have come across some so-called "Buddhists" who claim the above (in bold). These have ALL been western converts. I bet in a few years, they will say the same of our rishis and even Sri Krishna himself.

The sad part is that Buddha is being caught in the crossfire as people are trying to reinterpret his teachings and message and even his identity! There is a concerted effort, by western "scholars" (my foot), to show that the historical Buddha, that is, Siddhartha Gautama, was actually born about 200 years later than he actually was (circa 3-4 centuries BCE). This is to then push the dates of the other Indian philosophers and "texts" even later to ultimately claim that the maha-fraud jesus and his cronies influenced Buddhist philosophy instead of the other way around. There is already a big movement in Tamil Nadu to claim that one of that charlatan's sycophants, Thomas, arrived on the shores of Kerala in the first century CE (~ 45 CE). This is, in all intents and purposes, an absolute falsity; a myth. This dubious claim is used to fool Tamils not concerned with Hindu history that many aspects of Tamil culture were influenced by Christianity! These rats even claim that Thiruvalluvar, of Tirukkural fame, lived in the CE and wrote the Tirukurral based on Christian theology! LOL! Breaking India beautifully explains this with ample evidence to show the "research" being conducted in university departments around Tamil Nadu on this fatuous nonsense!

Getting back to the Buddha, by redefining his history and his philosophy, the same Abrahamic vermin will start claiming that Buddha was influenced by Christianity and that Buddhist philosophy is merely an adaptation of their trashy myths. In fact, many western converts (again, my foot) to Buddhism are starting to claim that karma and reincarnation are actually not integral to Buddhism! This way, they can make it a "secular" religion and claim that the west "influenced" Buddhism enough to "cleanse" it of cultural baggage and is thus appropriate as a 'world religion'. In other words, Buddhism will become digested into the dirty belly of "western universalism" (LOL.. oxymoron if I've seen one). Some people feel that this trend will rapidly accelerate once the current Dalai Lama passes on.

To prevent Hindus and Hinduism becoming victims of the same fate, the scholarship, practice, and any and all discourse on it absolutely must remain with Indians/Hindus. There is no two ways about it.

To read more about the rascality of these vermin, see here: http://www.umass.edu/wsp/lectures/buddha.html

That is the information on the claim that Buddha was born much later than conventionally believed.

When will Indians/Hindus awaken? Oh wait, forget that! Rowdy Rathore is out! I must go watch it!

[wundermonk]

The questions for me are:

Why is Western academia even interested in Eastern philosophy?

There could be few reasons:

(a)Eastern philosophy is truly superior to any philosophy that originated in the Middle-east and these Western academicians want to soak in the splendour of Dharmic faiths.

OR

(b)These Western academicians are caught in the Abrahamic mindset which seeks to cast every non-Abrahamic philosophy within the Abrahamic framework. They cannot look beyond Adam/Eve and need to explain those philosophies that are different by looking for some minute similarity that can then be taken advantage of and expanded upon. This is making a mountain out of a molehill. It is intellectually dishonest and a defamation on the academic profession. An example would be the claim that Indians are the result of Noah's curse on Ham.

I do not know of Eastern academicians explaining Columbus's discovery of America or the crusades or the support of slavery within the Arab/European tradition by providing an alternative narrative. Why do not the Western academicians extend the same principle of charity when they are writing about a culture and tradition that is different from theirs?

This reveals a sinister agenda.

Also, I have seen Ahmadiyas, Christians, Muslims all claiming Buddha as their own. Hey Abrahamics, can you let Buddhists and Hindus speak on behalf of Buddha instead of you guys claiming him as one of your non-existent Abrahamic prophets?

Another question is, why do non-Indians and non-Hindus focus so much on AIT? What is in it for them?

Do you find Indian Hindus going on and on about Japanese mistreatment of Chinese or Hitler's slaughter of Jews and the complicity of the Catholic church in the massacre or the slaughter of Native Americans by invading Europeans in America or the mistreatment and lynching of African Americans?

[philosoraptor]

The questions for me are:

Why is Western academia even interested in Eastern philosophy?

There could be few reasons:

(a)Eastern philosophy is truly superior to any philosophy that originated in the Middle-east and these Western academicians want to soak in the splendour of Dharmic faiths.

OR

(b)These Western academicians are caught in the Abrahamic mindset which seeks to cast every non-Abrahamic philosophy within the Abrahamic framework. They cannot look beyond Adam/Eve and need to explain those philosophies that are different by looking for some minute similarity that can then be taken advantage of and expanded upon. This is making a mountain out of a molehill. It is intellectually dishonest and a defamation on the academic profession. An example would be the claim that Indians are the result of Noah's curse on Ham.

Pranams,

Interesting questions. I suspect, based on the academics that I have met, that the motivations are something else entirely. For some, there is the perception that Eastern religions are more "progressive" in their attitude towards non-believers. Many academics are liberal humanists who don't like the aggressive, proselytizing attitude of Semitic faiths, at least in my observation. Another class of academics seem to be motivated by a desire to paint all religions, in particular the "Eastern" ones which are not historically seen as intolerant, as equally intolerant and aggressive. This class of academics appears to be motivated at least indirectly by Marxist theories of class-conflict.

I do not know of Eastern academicians explaining Columbus's discovery of America or the crusades or the support of slavery within the Arab/European tradition by providing an alternative narrative. Why do not the Western academicians extend the same principle of charity when they are writing about a culture and tradition that is different from theirs?

Probably because they are not the same academics.

Also, I have seen Ahmadiyas, Christians, Muslims all claiming Buddha as their own. Hey Abrahamics, can you let Buddhists and Hindus speak on behalf of Buddha instead of you guys claiming him as one of your non-existent Abrahamic prophets?

I agree with this. I also wish Hindus would stop trying to tell the world that Jesus is really Krishna in a different form, that Hindus really know what Jesus and Mohammed meant when they taught their followers, etc.

Another question is, why do non-Indians and non-Hindus focus so much on AIT? What is in it for them?

These things are governed by grant money. If they simply accept the version of history which Hindus accept, then there will be no need to provide an alternate version (i.e. AIT) and thus no need for grant money from the higher ups.

Do you find Indian Hindus going on and on about Japanese mistreatment of Chinese or Hitler's slaughter of Jews and the complicity of the Catholic church in the massacre or the slaughter of Native Americans by invading Europeans in America or the mistreatment and lynching of African Americans?

Hindus as a society don't seem to have a well-organized academic tradition for studying the history of other cultures. This may be good or bad, depending on your point of view. Rajiv Malhotra points out that there are political ramifications for some of the misrepresentations of Hinduism that are rampant in Indology. These things have a way of influencing foreign policy.

regards,

[shian]

Well,
this phenomena is normal in this world
and even normal for great religious
even in a small village custom (or religious) they will have many character of follower and happen many things between them

Many peoples see that Adi Shankara have defeated the Buddhist,
maybe some Buddhist will feel angry when hear this and start to search some theory of Hinduism and try to wrote it in wrong way to make the feel he or she as Buddhist already defeat Hindu !

But how i see Adi Shankara ?
i never meet Him, and there is many version of His life story... just like another saint story (in every reeligion)

Offcourse one religion have many sect and even in one sect they have different character of peoples, a word Buddha as religion is not a Truth itself, because that is more like organization, or just a lable, sometimes when some persons have doing wrong whatever their lable of sect or race, they will defeated.

So dont worry to hear,
hey we are Buddhist defeated Hindus
Hey we are Hindu defeat Buddhist
Hey we are XXX sect defeat XXXX sect
etc...

whatever label peoples use, this things will happened in this material world because there is so much ordinary peoples who still strugle to recognize and understand their self.

[realdemigod]

I don't know about the historical linkages of Buddhism with Hinduism but all I know and feel is Buddha was only interested in people getting rid of their suffering and stop the cycles of birth and death. I have great respect for this religion (even though Buddha wouldn't have liked what had been done in his name) but Buddhist psychology of mind and its way of life is impeccable and simple. I also feel Hindu scriptures do offer literature on mind but Buddhism is very simple even considering the fact that a lot of rituals have been put into place over the years by his followers which absolutely are not needed in my opinion. I have never come across any Buddhist who slanders anyone or any religion it's just pure western influence of rewriting the history of the religions.

Simplicity is beauty and happiness

[shian]

acctually, i love spiritual philosophy from India, beautiful

they are amazing saint is from India

but i dont know

why some peoples like to show that they India is hate each other , i said some peoples, not all. So when i read some about India philosphy sometimes i find they denounce each other, said each other is bad etc, look like not realize that they are is one , one from Bharat. So not showing the beautiful side of Bharat. Sometimes make me feel : "Ouch... full of harted ... how come they can keep this kind of harted in mind, and want me follow to hurt their own brother and sisters..."

[Spiritualseeker]

Namaste,

I always enjoy seeing your post Shian. You seem like a very authentic human being. I love your approach to this. I feel realized saints who are raised in Hinduism or Buddhism will accept each other. I could never imagine a realized yogi dismissing a Buddhist etc.. The Truth is One, but the expressions are many.

Om Namah Shivaya

[Crane-Foot King]

Buddhism is seen as an offshoot of Hinduism by most Hindus. Most Buddhists on the other hand, see themselves as part of a distinct and separate path for many reasons.

In the modern day, Hindus who are keen on "keeping good relations with all" (LOL) people, tend to view Buddha as a reformer of Hindu cultural mores of his day (6th century BCE). They claim that Buddha's message to cease suffering is no different to that of Hindu Dharma in essence. It differs only in practice (ritual etc.).

Since the inception of Buddhism and its rapid rise in the Indian sub-continent, Hindus were not able to contend with many of Buddhism's underpinnings until the advent of Adi Sankara in the 8th century CE. Buddhism's rapid decline in the subcontinent was primarily due to the loss of patronage that it had enjoyed unchallenged for almost a thousand years (since the time of Asoka the Great).

Many anti-Indians and anti-Hindus, posing as 'scholars', posit that the reason(s) for Buddhism's rapid decline in India was due to Hindu aggression and violence, something that is completely erroneous. One of the main reasons Buddhism declined in India was due to the invasion of Islam in the 8th century onwards. One of the greatest centers of Buddhist learning (vihar) was Nalanda; it was completely destroyed by Iltutmish, a marauding Afghan invader in 1197 CE.

Fast-forward to the modern day and Buddhism was again "revived" in India due to Bhimrao Amedkar, the scion of the oppressed sections of society in India, converting to it citing the caste system of Hinduism as the reason. Millions of "dalits" converted to Buddhism in his support, quite cleverly avoiding the death cults of Islam and Christianity in the process.

Koenraad Elst, a Belgian scholar, recently wrote an article describing the Buddhism and the caste system. Buddha is often portrayed in the modern day as a social reformer (by Hindus) and an anti-Hindu by non-Hindus. Anti-Hindu in the sense that he disavowed the Veda, its strictures, and of course, the infamous Varnashrama Dharma (caste). Elst shows, with evidence, that this is actually not the case. Buddha's emphasis was on ending one's suffering. His "Four Noble Truths" in its original (Sanskrit) are actually "catvāri-ārya-satyāni". With the word "arya" standing for "noble", Buddha subscribed to the notion that nobility (not in the idiotic sense known in the west) refers to Vedic culture. And thus, one who is an "aryan" is one who is part of the Vedic culture (Indian/Hindu).

So, Amedkar was primarily the reason why Buddha is seen today as someone who was against varna-dharma and someone who eschewed the (superiority of the) Veda.

Link: http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/201...and-caste.html

He states that Buddha and his immediate culture was unequivocally Hindu and that he too was a Kshatriya. One of the most striking things that he cites in his article is that the Buddha had stated that the "next Buddha" will be born in a "Brahmin household". If Buddha was "anti-caste" and anti-Vedic (anti-Hindu), why would he say that?

It is an interesting read and offers some food for thought.

The 28 Buddhas of this time period were all either Kshatriyan or Brahmin. Lord Buddha once said "Who is an outcast? An outcast is the man who is angry and bears hatred; the man who is wicked and hypocritical, he who embraces error and is full of deceit. Whosoever is a provoker and is avaricious, has evil desires, is envious, wicked, shameless, and without fear to commit wrong, let him be known as an outcast. Not by birth does one become an outcast, not by birth does one become a Brahman; by deeds one becomes an outcast, by deeds one becomes a Brahman."
By deeds will Maitreya be a Brahmin, not by birth.