Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Krishna paved the way for Buddhism?
Jainarayan
Veteran
This would probably piss off a lot of Hindus, and hopefully not Buddhists, though it's not an attempt at trolling. I genuinely think this is interesting. If it is or becomes too controversial I'm OK with it being removed or locked down.
When I first read these verses from the Bhagavad Gita the first thing that came to mind was that this is paving the way for the Buddha, and rejecting (or at least reforming) use of the Vedas as the "final word".
O Arjuna! There are people who delight in the eulogistic statements of the Vedas and argue that the purport of the Vedas consists in these and nothing else. They are full of worldly desires; paradise is their highest goal; and they are totally blind in a spiritual sense. They expatiate upon those florid Vedic texts which describe the means for the attainment of pleasure and power, which provide attractive embodiments as the fruits of actions and which are full of descriptions of rites and rituals (through which these fulfilments are obtained). In the minds of these votaries of pleasure and power, addicted to enjoyments of the above description, steadfast wisdom (capable of revealing the Truth) is never generated. 2.42-44
O Arjuna! The Vedas deal with material ends. But you be established in the Spirit, in the immutable purity of it, having abandoned all material values, attachment to possessions, and concern with the contraries of life like pleasure and pain, heat and cold. 2.45
What use a pond has got when a whole country is flooded, that much of use only the Veda has got to a Brahmana who is full of wisdom. 2.46 Wow, this is saying an enlightened and wise person is more valuable than the Vedas themselves!?
Out of curiosity I did a search on 'Krishna in Buddhism', and came up with this http://jainismus.hubpages.com/hub/Krishna-in-Jainism though this is primarily in relation to Jainism:
This seems to be a continuation of what Krishna alluded to in the Bhagavad Gita, that use of the Vedas was corrupted by men only to obtain a good life. Not unlike Jesus's attempt to reform what the Pharisees did with the Torah:
When I first read these verses from the Bhagavad Gita the first thing that came to mind was that this is paving the way for the Buddha, and rejecting (or at least reforming) use of the Vedas as the "final word".
O Arjuna! There are people who delight in the eulogistic statements of the Vedas and argue that the purport of the Vedas consists in these and nothing else. They are full of worldly desires; paradise is their highest goal; and they are totally blind in a spiritual sense. They expatiate upon those florid Vedic texts which describe the means for the attainment of pleasure and power, which provide attractive embodiments as the fruits of actions and which are full of descriptions of rites and rituals (through which these fulfilments are obtained). In the minds of these votaries of pleasure and power, addicted to enjoyments of the above description, steadfast wisdom (capable of revealing the Truth) is never generated. 2.42-44
O Arjuna! The Vedas deal with material ends. But you be established in the Spirit, in the immutable purity of it, having abandoned all material values, attachment to possessions, and concern with the contraries of life like pleasure and pain, heat and cold. 2.45
What use a pond has got when a whole country is flooded, that much of use only the Veda has got to a Brahmana who is full of wisdom. 2.46 Wow, this is saying an enlightened and wise person is more valuable than the Vedas themselves!?
Out of curiosity I did a search on 'Krishna in Buddhism', and came up with this http://jainismus.hubpages.com/hub/Krishna-in-Jainism though this is primarily in relation to Jainism:
Geeta itself was written in 4th Century C.E., in the reign of Gupt Kings, who were supporters of Vedic religion. Geeta is a separate text, and it is not a part of Mahabharat. As Vedics have a fondness of violence from the beginning, the Geeta is nothing but a book promoting war against own people.I don't know if the bold italic is actually true. Tradition has the Bhagavad Gita as part of the Mahabharata. Moreover, it's often taken as an allegory for war against one's own internal shortcomings. The second paragraph is true.
There is no doubt that Krishna was a non-vedic person, belonging to Yadus, who were enemies for the Vedics. If you take a deep look of Krishna's life, you will find that Krishna was a black, as the Yadus were, and he defeated Vedic Gods like Indra and Varun.
This seems to be a continuation of what Krishna alluded to in the Bhagavad Gita, that use of the Vedas was corrupted by men only to obtain a good life. Not unlike Jesus's attempt to reform what the Pharisees did with the Torah:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism#Philosophical_rootsI can't speak for the accuracy of what's contained in the notes and citations, but it's to the credit of the author of the Wiki article that they are available. I debated with myself whether to post this or not, but I thought that my ideas may either be supported or refuted (refutation is fine too, I may not have the whole picture).
A particular criticism of the Buddha was Vedic animal sacrifice.[82] The Buddha declared that priests reciting the Vedas were like the blind leading the blind.[127] According to him, those priests who had memorized the Vedas really knew nothing.[128] He also mocked the Vedic "hymn of the cosmic man".[129] However, the Buddha was not anti-Vedic, and declared that the Veda in its true form was declared by "Kashyapa" to certain rishis, who by severe penances had acquired the power to see by divine eyes.[130] He names the Vedic rishis, and declared that the original Veda of the rishis[131][132] was altered by a few Brahmins who introduced animal sacrifices. The Buddha says that it was on this alteration of the true Veda that he refused to pay respect to the Vedas of his time.[133]
0
Comments
Not all Vaishnavas believe the Buddha is an incarnation of Vishnu, but the classic images of the Dasavatara show the Buddha as the 9th avatar. In the Srimad Bhagavatam in the Govardhan Hill incident, Indra, an important Vedic deity is now being supplanted by a non-Vedic deity (Krishna). In the B.G. Krishna doesn't totally dismiss the Vedas, however; only what they were used for.
Eat your sardines or not. Sit amongst your sardine tin collection (in my case), cod, god or similar . . . and pave your Way past Gita.
Vishnu on toast. How Holy is that?
When all your gods are dead, who will you chant to? A toast to you? :orange:
like the 3 states of mind rajasic, tamasic, and sattvic.
"Tradition has the Bhagavad Gita as part of the Mahabharata".
I'm often so ..... baffled.... by the need to intellectualize, conflate, confuse, dissect, and micro-analyze the most basic (and beautifully profound) principles and concepts of Buddhism into; I don't know what. Mental masturbation? Endless Koans and small talk? Buddhism Bible Thumping?
Why try to compartmentalize the past? What purpose does it serve?
We're advised (through Buddha and other learned teachers of Dharma), not to dwell in the past and not to hang our hopes on the future, but to live the moment we're in. Mindfully savoring it and appreciating it, yet not clinging to it, nor the past.
Does trying to deconstruct the past, to determine what opened the door to Buddhism, and then what lead up to the "modern Buddhism" we practice now, really matter? I don't think so.
Be in the moment, live the Dharma!
The "meat and potatoes" of Buddhism is the same as always; only a few of the spices get changed from culture to culture and era to era.
As always, YMMV.
Some people work from contemplation of teaching before practicing their implementation. The template may evolve into a clear understanding of what the far shore is and how to get there.
Some through living the sila and ethics, some through faith in their teachers, Yidams or Purelands, some through meditation, sadhana or Zen in the art of Apfel strudel. We are diverse in character, empty of essence and quite often full of partial wisdom that needs tempering and maturing.
The Jain source you quoted above is correct. The Gita was most likely composed after the bulk of the Mahabharata. The Mahabharata, like many classical texts (including Homer's Illiad and Odyssey, and our own Pali canon), was most likely composed over a long period of time, with many different authors contributing to it. There are linguistic clues as to why scholars believe this to be the case (the vocabulary used from one verse to another sometimes comes from different eras). The Gita was most likely interpolated into the story of the Mahabharata. It reads very much like a digression to the epic.
I actually re-read the Gita earlier this year for the first time since I'd studied Buddhism. (I grew up in a Hindu family and had been familiar with it as a teenager.) My conclusion was that the Gita was definitely influenced by Buddhism, but some parts of it actually read like a criticism of certain aspects of Buddhism. The main thing that sticks out to me is Krishna's injunction to practice karma yoga -- that is, righteous acts/service. There are verses in the translation I read that seemed to be taking to task people who turn away from the world in search of spiritual liberation. The Gita, like the Christ Gospels, is a very action-oriented scripture, focused very much on taking constructive action that serves humanity (humanity being an incarnation of God). Contrast this to the Buddhist approach, which is more about inner transformation. The Gita, although it does have elements of contemplative practice incorporated into it, is much more about active, worldly engagement.
I also thought the Gita was interpolated into the Mahabharata. not to go off track, but another interpolated story is in the Ramayana, the version in which Rama actually banishes Sita, and she lives in the forest raising their sons.
Anyway, I absolutely agree about the action aspect of the Bhagavad Gita. It is, after all, pretty much all about svadharma. I have also noted contradictions in it, which makes me wonder if it is even a single work. The most glaring contradictions are those between obtaining jñāna yoga (knowledge of Brahman, which is of course, oneself in advaita vedanta)) and karma yoga. If I recall correctly, these directives are in alternating chapters. That leads me to suspect at least two authors.
I have an even more radical idea... did parts of the Bhagavad Gita (and other scriptures and ideas) make their way to the Middle East over the silk road trade routes, giving rise to some of these contradictions? I think there was a lot of cross-pollination all the way from Rome through the Middle East, Near East, South Asia and East Asia, and back and forth. All these contriutions to one work, creating contradictions are not unknown even in the modern literary world.
Consider the contradictions in J.R,R. Tolkien's massive works that he had to explain away in appendices and subsequent publications and revisions. Btw, I love Tolkien, so that's no criticism.
but in the sense of dwelling in the non-discursive present awareness. But then, so are you when you do. Other than this I see no use for the question. Surely the Buddha came from the Hindu tradition. Krishna was a personification of God-ness. Only in the present moment. The Buddha also came to Parinirvana but this is only symbolically
a person accomplishment. The idea of a person or Purusha in Sanskrit, is the cause of ignorance and bewilderment. Your question merely implies the small self and applies it to the greater presence which was Krishna and Gautama. Best, Dennis
Gassho.
Moreover, I answered the "question" in the 2nd paragraph When I first read these verses from the Bhagavad Gita the first thing that came to mind was that this is paving the way for the Buddha, and rejecting (or at least reforming) use of the Vedas as the "final word" and provided reasons for it. That's called supporting an observation.
I don't see Krishna as you do. I see him teaching only right action as a necessary consequence of previous action. The Pandavas were made to violate their standards of conduct by Krishna because their cousins had willing performed corrupt acts and had stolen their reign. The war was a necessary consequence of right action or Dharma (that which holds). This is perfectly in keeping with the Vedic Sutras. Krishna came as God
and in this sense he is the completion of Karmic necessity. But, this is a Vedic view and not a Buddhist view. The BG is consistent with the Maha Bharata. The Bharata (white faced), were as I understand, representative of Aryan infiltrations into India and after their victory they subdued the dark peoples but kept the ancient Vedic lore. So historically this has little to do with the Buddha or even the Vedas. As a matter of religious understanding I believe my first comment was definitive. Sorry to offend.
By just playing games I meant are you simply looking at various elements of a puzzle like a chess game or are you reaching for understanding. Did I answer your question?
I play chess and go, so game playing is fine with me. Best, Dennis
Brahmanism/Hinduism paved the way for many different views, I'd say.
I like the Vedic hymns too, but I don't consider myself Hindu (anymore). Yet I don't know if I am truly Buddhist (yet), though I have been practicing nianfo, and am not having a hard time at all with the Three Jewels. In fact I do recite and believe them, as well as the bodhisattva vow in my little sadhana. I think we're on the same page here too; we actually agree, just having said it differently. There's that failing of the written word again. I don't think of Krishna as God, but perhaps a god. I thought I was Vaishnava, but things just didn't sit right with me.
Thanks for delving more into this, because it expands my knowledge and views, and clarifies and augments what we're both saying.
Vamana, the dwarf (#5); Parashurama, Rama with the axe (#6); Rama, of the Ramayana, and later king of Ayodhya (#7); then Krishna (#8); and sometimes Balarama as #9 in place of the Buddha. The Hindu temple I used to go to had Balarama as one avatar in the Buddha's place on one sanctum wall, and Dhanvantari (the god of medicine and divine physician) as #9 on another sanctum wall. These sanctums were for different regional forms of Vishnu.