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.
Was Buddha a Hindu?
I'm not sure if this should be here or in another section, but, I've seen it said in quite a few places that Buddha was a Hindu, and that Buddhism was, or is, a subset of Hinduism, but, is that really true?, what is the relationship like between Hinduism and Buddhism, was Buddha a Hindu?, etc.
I've also heard that, early Buddhists were quite persecuted by Hindus, but, is that true as well?.
Thanks for any help.
I've also heard that, early Buddhists were quite persecuted by Hindus, but, is that true as well?.
Thanks for any help.
0
Comments
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/devotion/devotion10.htm
It is my understanding (I could be wrong) that gods are worshipped in Hinduism, whereas we see that the gods are the ones who are students of the Buddha. So how can he be a Hindu?
Buddha spent much of his time refuting all the Hindu Brahmins, Hindu doctrines, and Hindu philosophies.
So no, Buddha was not a Hindu. He was the complete opposite.
.
That is perhaps not entirely correct, because what the Buddha opposed was Vedic Brahmanism, which -at the time of the Buddha- was quite different from what is termed Hinduism today. One could perhaps even say that the Buddha helped shaping modern Hinduism, as there was an ongoing mutual influence of various Indian schools, especially in the philosophical domain, until the decline of Buddhism in India. The Buddha was a shramana, not a Hindu.
Cheers, Thomas
Does it change my practice to have an answer one way or another to this question? Does the answer bring me closer to awakening? Does it somehow negate my practice if the answer is yes, or validate it if it is no?
I posit that it makes no real difference to us today.
It may well be me who is confused,
namaste
The buddha taught the causes and exhaustion of suffering.
The sramana movement was indeed a revolutionary movement against the status quo but your concepts about "mystery notions" are your own.
Sure Sure:) As said, its my belief and my interpretation of the suttas and history. I very much appreciate there are other beliefs.
namaste
Buddha [Kevaddha Sutta]: "I perceive danger in the practice of mystic wonders, that I loathe, and abhor, and am ashamed thereof."
This appears to be the reason why you said there's no evidence for what thickpaper said. You can't just pick and choose what Buddha taught and ignore the rest. Yes, he taught cessation of suffering, but there's over a hundred other suttas where he taught other things.
.
I think this is why the Buddha's methodology is so powerful and wonderful, it doesn't matter if there are 100 suttas that say "X is True" and a hundred that say "X is not true".
The truth of X is shown by the light of Dharma, not by some pali scripts on some old palm leaves:)
namaste
/Victor
My point isnt about what to believe or accept as true, but what Buddha taught. For now, I'm not concerned with if the suttas say "x is true," but rather the suttas say "Buddha taught x."
People seem to portray the idea that Buddha taught one thing and that all his other teachings dont matter. I say if were going to talk about what Buddha taught, we have to look at all the suttas and sutras and not ignore his other teachings.
In short, your post about what Buddha taught was accurate.
.
I agree. But where we may have some distance is that we do not know, with anything approaching certainty, what the Buddha taught.
Perhaps only 1% of the 10,000+ suttas in the Pali Cannon have any connection with the Buddha's teaching. Perhaps only 99.9% of it does.
My point is, it doesnt matter to Dharma as doctrine or practice.
We should not belive anything in the suttas unless we can know ourselves that it is in accord with dharma.
I agree.
But in addition I think that if we are going to talk about what the Buddha taught then great benefits are to be had if we ignore all of the suttras and "be our own lights," illuminated by Dharma, not doctrine.
namaste
I should have clarified "what the Buddha taught according to the Suttas."
To talk about what the Buddha taught outside of the Suttas is meaningless because these are the only accounts of him we have in writing.
How could you even know what Dharma is without the Suttas? I understand that you can read the Suttas, and get a feel for what the essence of Dharma is, and then critically analyze other Suttas to see if they seem to fit with the essence of Dharma. But the Suttas are still necessary to even know what Dharma is.
As Buddha said, his teaching is neither dogma nor doctrine. So really there is no doctrine. There's just a bunch of recollections of Buddha's philosophical discourses. The Dharma is based on this, so it's really hard to separate the two.
.
I disagree. Dharma was truth before the Buddha was born and it would be true had he never had been born. He discovered Dharma and surely, if nothing else, his prime teaching was to guide us to discover Dharma for ourselves.
There were no texts in the Buddhas time, how did they know Dharma then?
For me the answer is simple, The Four Noble Truths.
Could you explain that a bit more please? What is it that is necessary in the texts that is not captured in an understanding of the Four Noble Truths?
What am I missing here?
namaste
Ok, then I should restate that we could not know Dharma without the Suttas. Obviously the truth (Dharma) existed before Buddha came to be, but he discovered and shared it.
Who? The sangha that succeeded him? They kept the Suttas in their head through strict memorization. That's how they knew Dharma without texts.
Again, how would you even know the Four Noble Truths without the Suttas.
To me, the Four Noble Truths are just the shell, an outline. Inside the shell is the rest which is the real meat of Buddha's teachings.
.
All teachings can be brought back to, and condensed to the Four Noble Truths.
I have had this confirmed to me through studying through teachings and from three definite, highly reliable and indisputable sources.
Thanissaro Bikkhu, Ajahn Vajiro and a dear Bikkhuni whose name I have previously used but which now shamefully escapes me.
They have all told me that whatever one reads, learns or puts into practice in one's life, one need only really adhere to the 4NT (including the 8Fold path) and the 5 precepts, and this is an entirely adequate guide for life. Even if one never reads another sutta ever again.
Sure:) And is there any reason why had he not discovered it 25 centuries ago you could not have been the first to discover it tomorrow?
I don't think so. He was just a human.
I disagree, based on my understanding of the devlopment of Buddhism which I may well be mistaken on.
Ummmm... by word of mouth? The Four Noble Truths (and all they contain) are not difficult to pass on in this way.
Or perhaps... just by knowing it is there and working it out for ourselves?
Maybe all we need to find dharma for ourselves is to know that all things are impermanent and empty and interconnected and that all Dukka is true of all experince?
But that doesn't answer my question, what is this real meat you speak of? What do I miss?
What is there to Dharma that is held in the Suttas that is not held within, or conditioned by, the Four Noble Truths?
Your talking sounds a mystery to me, and hence... I point you back to your quote of the Kevada Sutta earlier in the thread.....
An interesting chat and an important topic:)
namaste
Sure, but the Four Noble Truths don't say or mean much, unless explained further by Buddha. The Four Noble Truths literally are an outline and don't actually explain anything. For example it says Right View, Right Action, Right Concentration. Ok, but that doesn't explain what is Right View, what is Right Action, and what is Right Concentration.
I personally focus on Right View as this is the first and most important factor of the Eightfold Path.
According to AccesstoInsight:
"Right view is the forerunner of the entire path, the guide for all the other factors. It enables us to understand our starting point, our destination, and the successive landmarks to pass as practice advances. To attempt to engage in the practice without a foundation of right view is to risk getting lost in the futility of undirected movement. Doing so might be compared to wanting to drive someplace without consulting a roadmap or listening to the suggestions of an experienced driver.
The importance of right view can be gauged from the fact that our perspectives on the crucial issues of reality and value have a bearing that goes beyond mere theoretical convictions. They govern our attitudes, our actions, our whole orientation to existence. Our views might not be clearly formulated in our mind; we might have only a hazy conceptual grasp of our beliefs. But whether formulated or not, expressed or maintained in silence, these views have a far-reaching influence. They structure our perceptions, order our values, crystallize into the ideational framework through which we interpret to ourselves the meaning of our being in the world."
-- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/waytoend.html#fn-3
.
Understanding the Four Noble Truths doesn't mean memorising, Dukka, Samuda, Niroda and Magga as if that's it. Not at all.
Rather it means, to me and I would imagine others, knowing where these truths come from (Annica, Antaman and Dukka). Knowing how they are connected (Dependent Origination), Knowing how they condition our experience (Karma) and knowing how this conditioning can be stopped or reduced (Reducing attachment and delusion by practice of the Path.)
What else is there?
namaste
The four noble truths express a lot if you are prepared to listen closely. I have discovered Buddhism 15 years ago simply by pondering the four noble truths, nothing else, for at least a month before picking up a book. Of course, some elucidation is required to make sure that your thought doesn't wander off in completely wrong directions, but such explanatory help can be quite basic. Initially I had some trouble with the word "dukkha" since there is no direct English translation, but after contemplating the various meanings for a while, it all became quite clear.
I have to agree with Federica about the pivotal position of the 4NT. The dhamma revolves around it, and all you need is the 4NT+N8P+5P for a complete dhamma practice kit. In fact, I took this "minimalist" approach for quite a few years and -although in the meantime I am into sutta studies, abhidhamma studies and Mahayana sutra studies- I don't think you actually require more than the named dhamma kit to begin a meaningful practice.
Cheers, Thomas
But because the building (teachings) is so large (and at times, elaborate) it's easy to forget or negate the foundations.
Nios.
Only a month!!
Me too.
Sure, but dont forget the N8P + the precepts are all within the 4NT's... we could go even more nbasic and sat the 4NT's are within the Three Marks.
In my experience these contradict or attempt to stupify the four noble truths, but that may be because I dont get it...
namaste
Like you said... the Buddhist universe develops from the nucleus of the 4NT, like the cosmos develops from a point singularity, where the Abhidhamma is like a remote galaxy... the splendor of which is praised by many... I am still undecided.
Cheers, Thomas
Bearing in mind it was written about a thousand years after the time of the Buddha (Unlike the rest of the PC) and has no clear connection with the Core teachings of Dharma we agree on, it is very remote indeed!:)
I don't think the Buddha would recognise it as anything to do with what he discovered or taught?
namaste
Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the Abhidhamma first written somewhere between 100 and 200 years after Buddha's death, not a thousand?
The way I look at Abhidhamma (and I know some will disagree) is that it is Buddha's desciples figuring out what Buddha was teaching, putting it in their own words in ways they could understand.
This tradition still continues to this day although we don't call it Abhidhamma. We are all desciples of Buddha trying to figure out what Buddha was teaching, putting it into our own words. Where the difference lies, is that the Abhidhamma was written by well learnt (and probably respected) scholistic monastics.
As different people interpret the teachings, they will, undoubtadly add their own twist. The Abhidhamma should not be seen as gospel, but neither should it be out-right rejected just because it is not Buddha's words (or indeed, if we disagree with a small portion).
Even in the Pali canon, their are suttas in which a disciple of Buddha was giving teachings.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/abhi/index.html
Nios.
I don't think anything was written down until 300 to 500 years after his death and the Ahibdharma was much later than this, at least that's what I remeber, but I may well be wrong.
I don't see that, as in, I dont see it is what the Buddha taught. Top me it is more like a snowball of later additions and musings, often trying to connect the exoteric with the esoteric and, imho, failing.
namaste
Did you read the link I gave?
Nios.
OK. But as this thread has been pointing out by me and others, there isn't much more to Dharma than that which is within the Four Noble Truths.
My believe is that year by year, from the Moment of Buddha's death, his teachings have become increasingly more intractable/mystical/unphilosophical. The Ahibdharma is a prime example of this. (Incidentally this "extendingd" has happened with Christianity, Judaism, Islam and probably other religions to)
To accesstoinsight? Yes, but what was I looking for?:)
namaste
Nios.
These are just a couple of examples. The abhidharma is absolutely not an example of what you are saying, since it is the source from which the inspiration for these later works were drawn.
This is also absolutely untrue. Where did you get this idea?
The abhidhamma pitaka was being taught in the 2nd or 1st century BCE, that is nowhere near a thousand years after the death of Buddha.
I have the dictionary too, it doesn't mention what composed means, it doesnt make sense to mean written down because we know none of the PC was written down until after that.
Interestingly my version of the dictionary (2004) says "several centuries" rather than "a few centuries".
The consensus is they were much later than the other "baskest".
I'd both disagree and agree with this. The 4NT are the core, the foundation of all dharma, but without explanation and expansion, it would be difficult to make it practical and apply it to life. I'm not saying it's impossible either, but Buddha continued to teach his whole life, expanding on the 4NT. If it was not needed, he wouldn't have done it.
It's incredibly hard for us to understand what life was like in the time of the Buddha. We have no more than stories and artifacts to give us clues as to what it was like. Our modern, technological, scientific, methodical society would look mystical to them. I wonder what the Buddha would say to that :winkc:
I'd include EVERYTHING to that list. This is the Buddha's teaching of imperminance
The link was to information regarding abhidhamma. That is all
Nios.
I am not saying it is unsophisticated, I am saying it is not the simple, true, immutable and indubitable Dharma captured by the four noble truths.
It may be the worlds most awesome philosophical system (My take is it is far from that) but that doesnt mean it is relevant to the original teachings of the buddha.
So is superstring theory, it doesn't make it true....
If so, then there are many who follow the Vajrayana path, or the Mahayana path, or those that use the Abhidhamma and it works for them. Who are we (myself inc) to question that? :om:
Nios.
If your talking about when it was said to be taught then you could say it was first taught in Heaven by the Buddha to his mother, as I just learned there is a ledgend that that is the case.
The abhibdarma was the last of the PC to be written down, and the PC was written down many centruries after the Buddha's death.
I have a copy of Kalupahana's History of Buddhist Philosophy here (yawn), Ill see if it has any more info.
Hmmm, I don't think so, for me (A strict Kalama Sutta kinda guy) the way to see Dharma is to see that which cannot be doubted.
Practice enforces this, because the fruits are clear to experince, but that is not why I believe Dharma.
I
I question that the Ahibdharma is what the buddha taught, if others don't, that's their path, not mine:)
Here we talk about our paths, and obviously, they are all very different.
I've come across people who say "cannot be doubted" many times. How do you doubt and not doubt them? What is the basis of doubt? What are you comparing Buddhism to, in order to doubt it?
Nios.
Here is how:
Try to doubt the Four Noble Truths.
Can you?
Can you come up with any instance in which any aspect of them could be false?
I cannot.
It is that simple to me.
How's about you?
(this is why I've refrained from posting lately
Nios.
I doubt that there is a Loch Ness Monster. Why? Because I can think of countless other explication for the phenomenon, I can make sense of the contingencies.
I do not doubt that 2+2=4 because I canot make sense of the continegncies, the alternatives that would need to be true to make that sum false. It is indubitable to me.
I do not doubt that delusion leads to attachment which leads to suffering, because I cannot think of an alternative to dependent origination which which would falsify those conditionings.
No Not at all, as the KS says, they are all subject to falsifiability.
I think maybe the reason you find this hard to grasp is because you think in of doubt terms of the western idea of analytic certainty. But that isnt what the Buddha offers, what he says is that we can have no certainty in this sense, all we can have is clarity: "When you know yourselves..."
namaste
Anyway, I think I've thrown this thread off-topic for long enough.
Back to topic :type:
Nios.
That can be corrected. Let's talk about contingencies.
For example, in a ternary number system 2+2=11, in a quaternary number system 2+2=10, yet semantically the result is still the same. Enter abstract algebra. Let's define a set Z4 consisting of the integers 0-3. We can define an addition table where the result 3+1 wraps to 0, 3+2 wraps to 1 and so on. Since this can be shown to be an Abelian group, you have an algebraic ring in which 2+2=0. Perfectly valid, perfectly logical.
Am I digressing?
Cheers, Thomas