Is Buddhism just an offshoot of Hinduism?

ShiftPlusOne

Once in a while, I hear someone make that claim. It doesn't seem to inherit any of the ideas. It seems to me that the only thing they share is some of the language and regions, but the actual teachings seem very different. At the same time, I can see how there's some truth to the statement. I suppose it depends on who you ask. Hindus and many Westerners seem to think so.

What's your take on it?

Cloud

Aren't we all just offshoots of our parents? Does that make us our parents?

ShiftPlusOne

So then you'd say that it is indeed an offshoot of Hinduism?

Cloud

Buddhism isn't an offshoot of Hinduism in the same sense as Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism. In the former, the previous beliefs are either thrown out entirely or re-defined. In the latter, a new layer is added onto an existing system, with the former beliefs still held as being true.

I would not say that Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism. I would say that Hinduism was part of the culture from which Buddhism arose, and so naturally that which existed then played its part; a light bulb doesn't come before electricity.

Every thing is necessarily shaped from the conditions that bring it forth, but that does not mean it is the same as what came before. It's a "both yes and no" or "neither" kinda thing.

Fenrir

I agree with Cloud. Buddhism can not really be considered as an offshoot of hinduism because it rejects the idea of of self or atman (skt) atta (pali). This is clear from the doctrine of the three marks of existence i.e. impermanence, suffering and nonself (anatta- pali).

I think this is correct and hope it helps.

Fenrir

ShiftPlusOne

Hmm, I suppose it depends on how you look at it and who you ask. In some ways it is and in some ways it's not. It's kind of like asking whether or not the belief that the Earth is round is an offshoot of the belief that it's flat, or maybe chemistry being an offshoot of alchemy, or perhaps Newtonian physics being an offshoot of Aristotle's physics.

There's a varying degree of 'offshoot-ness' there and it will depend on the individual as to where the line is drawn and arguing about it is pointless.

Cloud

There you go.

ShiftPlusOne

Thanks again for the answers.

Jason

Once in a while, I hear someone make that claim. It doesn't seem to inherit any of the ideas. It seems to me that the only thing they share is some of the language and regions, but the actual teachings seem very different. At the same time, I can see how there's some truth to the statement. I suppose it depends on who you ask. Hindus and many Westerners seem to think so.

What's your take on it?

From what I understand, Hinduism is a relatively modern term (coined by the British if memory serves me right) that's used to describe a diverse collection of Indian spiritual traditions, many of which arose after the Buddha's lifetime. Much of the Mahabharata, including the Bhagavad Gita, for example, was most likely composed after the Buddha's lifetime, as was the Ramayana and the majority of the Puranas. In fact, I think it's fair to say that Buddhism actually influenced much of what we call 'Hinduism' today.

For example, it should be noted that the concept of anatman in Sankara's version of Advaita Vedanta is similar to the Buddhist anatta, being derived from it. In one of his commentaries, Sankara writes, "Whenever we deny something unreal, we do so with reference to something real; the unreal snake, e.g. is negatived with reference to the real rope." Sankara essentially used the notion of anatman to deny the reality of the individual self (atman) in favour of Brahman. Many of Sankara's critics actually accused him of being a Buddhist in disguise.

The Buddha, who was born into the khattiya (warrior) caste, was one of the great wandering ascetics (Pali: samana, Skt: shramana) who taught in the later Vedic Period, and whose teachings were considered heterodox because they rejected the authority of the Vedas, the self (atman) of the early Upanishads, and the four main social classes (varna).

The most prominent 'orthodox' tradition in northern India at that time was Brahmanism, which, of course, relied heavily on the Vedas for their religious authority, and included some of the early Upanishads as well. It's clear from the Suttas that the Buddha was extremely familiar with them, but it's unclear as to precisely how he acquired this knowledge. Being from a prominent family, it's possible that he studied them, or it could be that he learned of them while wandering and debating with other religious teachers.

In any case, while many people think of the the Buddha as a reformer of Brahmanism, I think it's more correct to say that he replaced it with his own unique philosophy, often redefining many of the key philosophical terms and concepts of his contemporaries, giving them his own meaning and context. This is clearly documented with a variety of words such as brahmin and kamma.

The Buddha was also an expert at word play, especially puns (which don't always translate well into English), and many of these were in reference to passages from the Vedas and Upanishads. Much of this was apparently lost on later Buddhist commentators, but has since been rediscovered by modern scholarship and textual analysis. Nevertheless, the Buddha wasn't limited to just puns, and he added his own unique ideas to Indian thought, e.g., his introduction of khandha as a technical philosophical term (and possibly nibbana as well). Moreover, in The Place of Buddhism in Indian Thought, Ananda Guruge writes:

Lastly, the contributions to Indian thought made by the Buddha should be carefully borne in mind. It was no doubt the Buddha's admirable sense of humility, which led to his statement that he was not an original thinker. His theory of Dependent Causation or Origination was the most remarkable contribution to Indian thought. It is unique in the history of philosophy.

So, in the end, I think it's safe to say that both Buddhism and Hinduism are closely related and have a lot in common, but I definitely wouldn't go so far as to say that Buddhism is just an offshoot of Hinduism. I think doing so is not only inaccurate, but does a disservice to both in that it denies their individual achievements in the history and progression of Indian thought.

Simonthepilgrim

I think we need to be careful when speaking about 'Hinduism'. It is a relatively modern concept and certainly did not exist in its current forms at the time of Gotama and his Shakya people. Nonetheless, there were preceding traditions as the Vedas show and I think that the religious ferment of Gotama's time is further testimony to a pre-existing system ripe for reformation. We have seen the same thing in the West within Christianity and Judaism, both of which have undergone extraordinary transformations over the past millennia.

After all, as the philosopher sage tells us there is nothing new under the Sun and King Lear declares that "Nothing comes from nothing". Each 'new' spiritual system, just like each child, carries and mutates the 'DNA' of its antecedents.

Unless, of course, it is important to someone to imagine that the Turning of the Wheel of Dharma and the teachings of the Buddha were sui generis and owed nothing to ancestral voices, such a suggestion may seem almost blasphemous.

Simonthepilgrim

Thank you for the details, Jason.

I see it like this: both Buddhism and Hinduism are branches of the same stem on the same tree.

ShiftPlusOne

Excellent, thanks!

compassionate_warrior

As Simon says, it depends on how you define "Hinduism", but also how you define "offshoot". And which branch of Buddhism you're talking about. Hindu tantrism got recycled into Vajrayana Buddhism.

Wednesday

Yes, first there was hinduism then buddhism.

Simonthepilgrim

Yes, first there was hinduism then buddhism.

No. That's not what we're saying.

SherabDorje

Yes, first there was hinduism then buddhism.

No. That's not what we're saying.

I think Jason explained it very very well.