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.
Hinduism
I just wanted to know more about it. There are a ton of gods and things and traditions. So if you can tell me about it or if you practice it or anything this is the thread.
0
Comments
Adiana :type: :mullet:
I think that, here in the West, we tend to brush aside the close links between Buddhism and Hinduism. The style of many sutras is similar to the Vedas or the Gita. the gods are certainly included in the mythologies.
Much the same, of course, has happened with Christianity, which brought Jewish (Old Testament) heroes and myths into the European body of belief.
Thank you for this information, John, and for your post about respect for those to whom Buddhism includes religious practice. It is sometimes all too easy to forget that there are cultures across the world where Buddhism is in the air they breathe and where it has a very definite style of its own.
It's like some discussions on this forum - even though this is about Buddhism - there are many references about the teachings of Christ - because that's a frame of reference many of us have.
-bf
I know two other Americans, one Buddhist and one Thelemic, who also have Ganesha statues, but neither of them would consider their interest "worship" either.
Except that it's the other way round with Buddhism and Hinduism. Hinduism as such didn't exist at the time of the Buddha. The term itself wasn't around until the 11th century. The Gita for example was written after the Buddha's time, as were the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. Also, Sankacharya's Advaita Vedanta tradition was a direct response to the Buddhist teachings, in particular those of Nagarjuna. What there was at the time of the Buddha was a Brahminic tradition which long after the Buddha became what is now known as Hinduism. This may be of interest:
Hinduism in Buddhist Perspective
Buddhism too of course is a convenient term and nobody pretends that the actual term is very old. However, the problem when it comes to Hinduism is that there has been a long standing practice on the part of some Hindus, particularly Hindu fundamentalists, of ascribing great antiquity to various texts, teachings and practices in order to legitimize them, and to claim that what is now called Hinduism is itself ancient, which it is not. Westerners and less educated Asians have sadly swallowed this myth whole for the most part, and so there is the oft repeated and entirely untrue generalisation that Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world. Claiming that Buddhism came out of Hinduism is kind of like claiming that Christianity gave rise to Judaism, which is obviously nonsensical, and yet is precisely what the uninformed maintain with regards to Hinduism and Buddhism.
Hinduism, not just as a term, but identified as the actual body of religious beliefs and practices as forming some sort of whole, did not exist until many hundreds of years after the time of the Buddha, whereas Buddhism has existed continuously since the time of the Buddha. In the words of Gail Omvedt, from the University of Pune,
"Buddhism is the oldest universal religion of India. ``Hinduism'' frequently makes that claim - and the fact that large sections of scholars the world over accept this has been one of its victories in the ongoing culture wars. However, the main aspects of what is widely accepted as Hinduism, including karma, dharma and all the themes of the Vedanta, crystallised only about the time of Buddhism, and partly in response to Buddhism and other shramanic religions."
Some very good works on this and other aspects of Hindu and Buddhist history, as well as Hinduism's borrowings from and growth in response to Buddhism, are those such as the classic: 'Eternal debt to the Buddha' by Mahatma Ghandi and 'Discovery of India' by Nehru. And then there is the testimony of the principal of the Sanskrit College of Calcutta, which is, along with Benares Hindu University, the world leader in Hindu history and Indic studies, refering more specifically to the Brahminic response to Buddhism that we now know as Vedanta.
"The Hindu system of philosophy would have lost much of their depth, interest and value, if they could not assimilate much from Buddhism, and if they were not forced to take an independent stand by its side.
I yield to none in my profound respect for the great teacher Sankara, but a careful analysis of his writings demonstrate indisputably that he largely borrowed his doctrine, his phraseology, his dialectics and his method of approach from Buddhism. Not only Sankara but many of his followers like Sri Harsha, Ananda Janana and others who have constructed the Vedantha into a rational system of philosophy. deliberately followed the footsteps of Nagarjuna and other Buddhist writers."
(Dr. S. N. Dasgupta, Principal, Sanskrit College, Calcutta)
I don't know enough about Sanatana Dharma to expound on it here, but it does date back at least 5,000 years. Here's one Link: http://www.dharmacentral.com/faq.htm
I am a vedantist, which is not at all limited to Hindu texts and practices. veda + anta means the End, or the Fulfillment of the Vedas. However, the meaning of "vedas" to a vedantist is not restricted to any "books," or even to Hindu things. The Vedas are the accumulated wealth of spiritual laws and insights discovered by enlightened beings through the ages.
May Bliss Precede You !
Let the Pathway Behind You Be Littered With Seeds Of Bliss !
May Your Very Name Be Bliss !
Or is it more "willy waving"?
However, the fundamental difference of Buddhism is its lack of belief in a creator god. Hinduism does believe in a creator.
That, and of course, the emphasis Buddhism places on personal responsibility....
A more accurate term to describe this teaching (used by the Buddha himself) would be 'Dhamma' which is a pali term, somewhat similar to 'Truth'
The Awakened One has demonstrated Practical teachings for us to examine, study and ultimately (should we wish) Trust, in order to engage aand contribute and co-exist with the Global Community that is Mankind, in a Mindful, $killful way... By following the Eightfold Path....
My favourite!!
Thanks Fede - as usual a full and understandable explanation. Every time I come onto this site I am thankful for the number of people who know so much more than me. Blessings on the patient ones who explain!:bowdown:
Apparently, it is commonplace in many Buddhist temples to have a small effigy of Ganesha there- I have one or two photos from Lhasa in Tibet that show Ganesha being used as a protective deity for the temple. In most of these photographs, Ganesha is painted red. Like Lindsay, I have a statue of Ganesha, which I have placed next to my statue of the Buddha for much the same reasons as she has.
We should also remember that the Buddha’s family name is Gotama which is a Brahmin name. In the Vedas, Gotama is the name of a Rishi who belongs to the Angirasa tribe. The name appears in the Rig Veda. Interestingly, in also appears in the Buddhist canon (cf. Nakamura, Gotama Buddha, 41–42).
Mujaku, how far can we compare the relationship between the Shakyamuni Buddha and Vedic tradition to that between Jesus the Christ and Second Temple Judaism? Is it a valid comparison, in your opinion? Or is it revisionist?
Buddhism was in Alexanderia way before the Romans burned the second temple. Let me say that I think Christianity (Saul's) is Jewish Buddhism. Now turning to Buddhism, it is nothing but reformed Brahmanism. I could go into detail but suffice it to say that it is rife with Brahmanical terms and all positive.
I can pretty well get a sense of Saul's Christianity and that Ur-Buddhism. Both were tied to the idea that one could actualize the animative principle which was eternal and undying.
An aside, reading the works of Moshe, it seems to me to be a rather deep and profound meditation for gaining access to the un-named which I will have to say is only perfected when 'it' is revealed to the Jewish people in their realization of the animating spirit in the here and the now (not in the past or in the future). Short of this all is error (harmitia). As Saul would say to the esoteric Jews, i.e., the Annointed/Bodhisattvas, "Because (huper) of our ignorance we kill the annointing (abhisheka/christos) of the light of life (or holy spirit). Until we crucify ourselves of these carnal bodies while living (prajnaparamita) distinguishing spirit from flesh, we are doomed."
I don't believe this, but where could one find evidence saying you can't convert?
What about the Krishna Conciousness movement of the 60's and even some today who were not born Hindu but practice it?
Sounds very like the Orthodox jewish system where the mother has to have been a Jew for the child to be considered jewish. Both the Old Feller and I were born of Jewish fathers and goy mothers so we are only considered jewish by the Reform Rabbis - not that it bothers us but causes confusion amongst other jews when we meet them, our surname being 100% Talmudic.
Like you, I, too, am a mischling, son of a Jewish father and a gentile mother. My answer to those who try to deny my Jewishness is that I am Jewish enough to have gone to the gas chambers with my cousins.
Very true Simon. Last year we went to Dachau. Going into the crematorium I broke down. I couldn't move and stood in the doorway sobbing. A nice old gentleman in a silk kupple came and patted my arm. He didn't ask if I was Jewish, he didn't know, he was moved by my distress. Says it all.
There is no mystery.
Avijja was the cause.
Jason
Hello! I was viewing all the posts and saw this.
I disagree Buddhism is in NO way Brahmanism. Brahminism is a false belief system which states "brahmins are the highest spiritual attainment". In other words, the goal of the religion of brahmanism is to make everyone into a brahmin.
Buddhism clearly states Buddha is a king and a warrior, he also said that the spirit of the warrior is the highest and the goal of Buddhism is to make one into a Holy warrior or holy king -- an Arya (related to aristocracy) on the BASIS OF SPIRITUAL MERIT and not birth.
So the true definition of "Arya Dharma" is the religion which makes one a holy and Noble warrior or Dharma King -- priests are not -- never, a part of the aristocracy.
The Chinese and Europeans all recount their Emperors (Jade and Yellow Emperors)) and Kings as the most holy and valuable.
The Jews are correct by calling their religion "Judaism" named after the king tribe of Judah.
In that regard, Hinduism is clearly the most ignorant religion.
Im actually a practising Hindu. I used to be quite into Buddhism but personally found it a hard path to follow without the ''God'' element.
Now im practising Hinduism Im starting to be more and more interested in Buddhism too. Im finding that in many ways its almost identical to Hinduism and im planning to restudy the teachings of Buddha as from what i know about them they are a good way to ''round out'' my existing faith and knowledge...
I also quite like the way that so much of Buddha's insight came without the back up of a deity... To me Buddhism is very calm and clear - if that makes sense.. ?? and im definatly planning to incorporate practices like meditation and study of the Buddha into my own faith..
There are a ton of resources for Hinduism... Im a Hare Krishna devotee so if you dont mind ill link you to www.iskcon.org
but if you are interested in a particular deity or all of them id suggest googling words like Hinduism or Ganesha or Durga etc...
Or why dont you see if there is a Hindu temple near you ? Most - if not all of them are very welcoming to visitors and people interested in Hinduism and if you are familiar with Buddhist temples I think youll find the similarities quite amazing..
Cheers.
- On caste system
Me thinks that's a myth. Hindus never converted anyone, or maybe they didn't see the need for one. At least in Nepal. The caste system was introduced by a king in 14th century for administrative purposes, you could be promoted or demoted depending on your deeds. The lower castes were barred from public places because they worked in unhealthy places (sweepers, cobblers and blacksmiths were the lowest castes) and deemed untouchables, which could have made sense at that time.
-On conversion
The main goal for a hindu is to receive mokshya, to end the cycles of birth. You can follow the guidelines anytime, so I guess you can "become a hindu" anytime.
Again there are these rituals, in my setting you wouldn't recite the gayatri mantra unless received by your teacher during a bratamandha, it was not to be recited in public and women if chanted it would go mad, but you find a lot of women recording it these days! Nothing happens.
It has been tweaked a lot so don't have an rigid opinion on it, it's like book published by loads of journalist by hearing a writer who never wrote it.
I still recite the Gayatri mantra at times. It helps being alert. I don't count myself as a Hindu or a Buddhist. You are a hindu when you want to be. Although you could find and expert and learn more on the topic.
I think the differences between both are superficial (brahmanism, not the hinduism that believes in Ishvara), and there is no substantial difference once you look deep enough.
I don't know after looking at both for long enough, it seems that buddhism follows the same tenets as hinduism EXCEPT the buddha refused to believe anything that couldn't be directly observed.
anatta: The Buddha introduced this concept to explain not-self or no substantial being. The term he deliberately chose to be in direct opposition to the Brahmin concept of the Atman - or universal soul. Clearly the Buddha disagreed with this concept.
rebirth: This concept on the surface appears only triflingly different to the Brahman concept of reincarnation, however, upon further investigation, this concept is tied up with the concept of anatta and is in direct conflict with the Brahman concept of reincarnation. In the buddhist process of rebirth, there is nothing that is reborn from one lifetime to the next. In Brahmanism it is of course the soul that is reincarnated. Once again, clearly opposing concepts.
anicca: Impermanence - All conditioned things are impermanent. The Buddha describes Brahma as being deluded in seeing himself as everlasting. This is the wrong-view of seeing the permanent in the impermanent.
There are many other differences, however I have just quickly focused on the major ones here.
What you say holds true for most Buddhists, but not all. In particular, Vajrayana allows for post-mortem rebirth, but not in the same way as Hindus.
The Buddha also taught rebirth after the 'break up of the body', but we've done that thread to death!
(sorry, weak humour).
As for the caste system being a myth - well, it was alive and kicking when I was last in India a couple fo years ago.
I disagree. As Buddha spoke plainly, I think the 'break-up of the body' is making it very clear that we are talking of the death of the body, not some other kind of 'death'. It is actually OK IMHO to hold the view that we are constantly changing and impermanent and also are reborn after the death of the body. The Tibetan view, for example, may encompass the rebirth of the mind, but not of the same personality with awareness of previous lives etc. except as asserted by a few individuals.
However, to stick with the Hindu aspects, whilst it is true that well off city dwellers can rise above issues of caste, I've very rarely seen this when it comes to marriage, and never seen it in the slums of those cities.
In rural India practices linked to caste may be so extreme as to 'marry' village children as young as 6 to avoid them straying into an undesirable marriage and the perils of sex outside marriage. Of course, at 6 there is no cohabitation etc. - this is introduced when the children are in their teens.
For example, Christianity is cited as the base of the anti-homosexual movement in America, especially the controversy against gay marraige. However, in Christianity, there are no commandments barring homosexuality and their marriage. In some deleted text from the bible its even hinted that Jesus slept with a man. This whole homosexuality thing is a conservative cultural thing, not a religious thing.
And I don't know, if nibbana isn't unification w/ a brahman, what is it? In Buddhism, there is a belief we are all connected, how, if we are not all brahaman? Nibbana is described to be unconditioned and thus everlasting... that sounds pretty NON impermanent to me... Correct me if I'm wrong of course.
Nivarna is freedom from suffering being liberated from the cycle of death and rebirth.