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.
Buddha was a hindu?
I was reading an article online that mentioned that buddha actually called for reformation on Hinduism, and not rejection of it.
I was very interested in this, and hadnt heard of that before.
Is this most likely true?
Any other interesting details with buddha and Hinduism?
I was very interested in this, and hadnt heard of that before.
Is this most likely true?
Any other interesting details with buddha and Hinduism?
0
Comments
Some have similarities with Buddha Dharma. Some dont.
The Sakya Tribe was not one of the 'Hindu' tribes, it was an Indo-Scythian tribe and culture more akin to the Scythians of Central Asia.
Whether Buddha studied the Vedas, we cannot know. We may speculate that he probably did because many local scholars were indoctrinated to that system of beliefs.
I personally imagine that the Buddha made no attempt to 'reform' anything; including Hinduism, but simply presented the truth as he knew it in his own way.
So, its untenable to argue that Buddha was Hindu. It would be more accurate to say that he was culturally coming from a Brahmanical society.
this designation divorces him from any tradition
At the time of the Buddha, there were many denominations.
Most of them belonged to one of two groups: the Brahmins and the Samanas.
The Buddha himself was called a Samana, a wandering monk.
He had his "own" monks and nuns representing his teachings.
At the same time, he taught and interacted with both Brahmins and Samanas.
Later, Brahmanism incorporated the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu.
Vishnu was probably known as the deva Venha at the Buddha's time.
And thus became of the Brahminist belief system what today is called Hinduism.
However, to say the Buddha was a Hindu is misleading in many respects.
With metta.
The society that the Buddha taught in was late vedic society. However, he grew up among the Sakyas, who had a different society and different customs. He entered late vedic society as an adult, and became a sramana, someone who renounced conventional society. So the Buddha was never a full participant in late vedic society.
The Vedas were composed in an antique form of Sanskrit. During the Buddha's time, study was limited to people who could understand this old Sanskrit, which meant the Brahmin caste. Also, the Vedas were not written down until after the Buddha died, so study was also limited to people who were able to study with someone who had memorized the Vedas. Since the Buddha grew up among the Sakyas and was not a brahmin, it's unlikely that he ever studied the Vedas. (The Buddha identified himself as a kshatriya, but he was using a term that his late vedic hearers would understand. The Sakyas had no caste.)
Your post is clear and to the point. It is also not commonly understood information. Thank You for helping clarify this contextual history.
There are many references that the Buddha was familiar with the Vedas.
Otherwise he'd have had a hard time teaching the Brahmins.
With metta.
The brahmins weren't coming to him for instruction in the Vedas. Why would he have a hard time teaching them?
While the brahmins who studied the Vedas claimed that the Vedas were to be taken as true even though no one had experienced what they described, the Buddha emphasized that he taught what he himself had experienced. The Buddha didn't need the authority of the Vedas. He relied only on the authority of his own experience.
At its core the Buddhist teachings are the same as Yoga, and the Buddha was a teacher who made extensions to Yoga. The Vedic civilisation was not in competition with Buddhism, and the Buddha was not some kind of 'rebel' against the 'evils' of a civilisation whose history goes back several millenia.
With regard to the Buddha being a kshatriya and allegedly knowing nothing about Brahminism, I believe this is false because the kshatriya does have some Vedic sacrificial duties.
Disagree. There's some evidence that yoga may have existed prior to the influx of Indo-European people. What seems clear is that Yoga existed independently of Brahmanism, and Brahmanism gradually became more and more influenced by Yoga. At the time of late vedic society, when the Buddha was alive, this process of influence had only started.
There's no evidence for this. All the available evidence indicates that the rejection of ascetic practices started with the Buddha.
There are significant differences between core teachings in Buddhism and Yoga. The fact that Buddhism incorporated aspects of Yoga doesn't support the claim that the core Buddhist teachings are the same as Yoga.
I've just reread the thread, and I can't find a post where anyone suggests these things.
No one said this either. I pointed out that the Buddha called himself a kshatriya, and I pointed out why it was unlikely that the Buddha studied the Vedas. It's fairly obvious that the Buddha knew something about Brahmanism.
The Buddha _called_ himself a kshatriya when talking to listeners who were part of late vedic society and were unfamiliar with the Sakyas. There actually was no such thing as a kshatriya among the Sakyas, and it's unlikely that the Buddha participated in vedic sacrifices.
the buddha told the brahmin audience , a true brahmin is not by birth but by one's virtue; there are no such things as holy or unholy externally, it all arise in one's state of mind; all those brahmins at his time is talking nonsense to the people as they never meet the Brahma themselve, but the buddha met Brahma face to face.