Is Buddhism a religion distinct from Hinduism?

[Guest guest]

Hi all! I wrote an essay of the subject. Here it is ...

 

----------

 

IS BUDDHISM A RELIGION DISTINCT FROM HINDUISM?

 

In modern perception today Buddhism is regarded as a religion

distinct and apart from Hinduism. It is our view that such an

understanding is logically flawed and also lacks historical validity.

In the enterprise of clarifying Buddhism's relationship

with "Hinduism" we will in the essay below adopt the following

strategy :

 

1. show the inadequacy of the modern understanding of the

word "religion" in representing Indian religious traditions.

2. understand the historical context of the definition

of "Hinduism".

3. understand the inadequacy of the arguments which distinguish

Buddhism as a religion distinct from "Hinduism".

4. understand why Buddhism is regarded as a religion distinct

from "Hinduism" today.

5. attempt to understand the true relationship between Buddhism

and "Hinduism".

 

Some fundamental problems with regards defining "religion" in India

 

A religion in the modern sense is generally understood in the Semitic

mould as a faith distinguished by its belief in a historical prophet

and a holy book. Thus the combination of Jesus and the Bible or

Mohammed and the Quran establish the distinct identity of

Christianity and Islam. According to these religions salvation or

access to God is possible only if you accept the authority of their

prophet and holy book. So each of these religions hold that theirs is

the only true path and the claims of all other religions are false

and invalid. At a secondary level apart from theological distinctions

the adherents of these religions also distinguish themselves by their

distinct cultural traits - like naming themselves after the holy men

of their religions, dressing in a distinct way or

observing cultural practices particular to their own religion. So it

is in these factors – primarily the exclusive belief in prophet and

holy book and secondarily in theological beliefs and distinct

cultural practices - that the individual identity of a religion and

its adherents rests.

 

But if we look at India the concept of a prophet is totally lacking -

no saint has ever claimed that "he is the only way". With regards the

scriptures, a few streams of the Miimaamsaa consider the Vedas to be

infallible and the sole authority on matters spiritual - but even

here they're careful to stress on the importance of reason in

interpreting the scriptures. Simply put : even the Vedas cannot make

fire cold. But the majority of the religious streams were agreed

about the relative value of their scriptures and accepted the

authority of other sources too - logic, the views of enlightened men

etc. So no religious stream in India has ever claimed that they and

only they represent the sole way to

God based on their prophet and holy book and all others are false.

Simply put the argument is that God/reality is not validated by a

prophet or a holy book and is open to anybody with the right

inclination. So each religious stream at best claims to be a better

and more effective path to access God/reality.

 

With regards theological views, all religious streams of India

consider man to be caught in an endless cycle of rebirths, where each

life is inevitably sunk in suffering due to the transient nature of

the world. Salvation is escape from the cycle of rebirths. Knowledge

of the true nature of ones own self is what brings about salvation

(even for Buddhism the "I" is without substance and it is on

understanding its true nature that the root of the bonds which tie a

human being to samsaara - "I" and "mine" - are erased and thus

liberation effected). This saving knowledge can arise either by

intuition or by the grace of God. But it is imperative that one must

lead a life of control of the psycho/physical faculties and practice

compassion and charity. This is fundamental dharma and no

religious stream has ever disputed it.

 

Where the various spiritual streams differ is in their metaphysical

worldviews (whether there is one or many souls, where there's a

primal matter or infinite atoms etc) and their own particular path to

effect liberation - but this path is not anything totally new but an

emphasis on a particular set of spiritual practices of the

fundamental dharma. For eg Advaita might lay greater emphasis on self

introspection, while Mahaayaana Buddhism might give more importance

to ethics and meditation or Yoga which teaches mind control.

 

With regards cultural practices, it is to be noted that only serious

practitioners of the Indian spiritual streams, who in most cases were

monks, did anything significant to distinguish themselves from the

adherents of other spiritual streams. For example the Saamkhya

ascetics wore red robes and the Buddhist and Jainaa monks named

themselves in a particular way. But the laity of the various streams

existed together with little to distinguish between themselves. For a

Shaivite or a Vaishnavite or a Nyaaya logician to become a Buddhist

only meant abandoning a few of his existing views and practices on

spirituality and adopting new ones as taught by Buddhism. To embrace

a new path only meant adopting a slightly different way of life more

conducive to one's own spiritual

inclinations. Sometimes those who converted to a new path, not

satisfied with their current path, went back to their original fold -

the great Purva Miimaamsaa philosopher Kumaarilla Bhatta being a

notable example. But this seldom involved any change in existing

cultural practices as they were all born/married/died the same way,

ate similar food, dressed similarly, enjoyed similar past times and

upheld similar ideals about the purpose of life. It was not unusual

for an orthodox brahmin family to have a son who was a Buddhist,

married to a woman who believed in the teachings of the Mahaaveera.

They all belonged to the same civilization and lived as one people

under the shade of the dharma.

 

So considering all these it is a flawed theory that considers

Buddhism as a religion distinct from "Hinduism" based on modern

notions of religion.

 

Understanding "Hinduism"

 

If we see in the four thousand years worth of religious literature in

India we cannot find a single reference to the word "Hinduism"

anywhere! "Hinduism" is a word concocted by Europeans to refer to the

myriad streams of religious faiths in the land of Hindustan. "Hindu"

only means an inhabitant of the sub-continent east of the river

Sindhu. The Persians pronounced "Sindu" as "Hindu" which the Greeks

in turn pronounced as "Indu" - thus the word to refer to the denizens

of the sub-continent. Even "India" is but a Greek word for Hindustan.

 

Only after the advent of Islam and later Christianity in India, the

natives of the sub-continent who did not belong to either of these

religions, used the word "Hindu" to distinguish between themselves

and the adherents of these alien religions. Though the definition is

strictly geographical in nature but interpreted in the religious

sense a "Hindu" can be a Shaivite or a Vaishnavite or an Advaita

Vedaanti or a follower of one of the numerous such sects - each with

their own set of Gods and Goddesses, their own holy book(s), their

own spiritual founder/teachers and their own specific way of

effecting liberation. And historically we do not see even heterodox

streams like Buddhism or Jainsim being excluded from such a

definition. Neither in the works of the aastika nor naastikaa schools

do we find any distinction like "Hindu and Bauddha" or "Hindu and

Jainaa". Within themselves it is always "Vedaanti and Bauddha"

or "Naiyaayika and Jainaa". Only when there's a reference to

Christianity or Islam does the word "Hindu" come into play. So to

both the adherents of the alien and native religions "Hindu" meant a

follower of one of the native religions of India, including Buddhism

and Jainism.

 

But even then before the advent of Europeans into the sub-continent

nobody is known to have clubbed together the myriad spiritual streams

of India under a single definition of "Hinduism". Under this

definition all the adherents of the aastika and assorted

miscellaneous sects excluding the Jains and Buddhists, were

classified under "Hinduism". Though there's is no problem with

regards what constitutes "Hinduism" itself, still if you look at the

reasons why Buddhism and Jainism are identified as separate religions

distinct from "Hinduism", then we find that the definition

of "Hinduism" itself becomes untenable.

 

Problems in distinguishing between Buddhism and "Hinduism"

 

There're seven main factors which are normally used to distinguish

Buddhism as an entity apart from the various sects that make

up "Hinduism" :

 

1. Repudiation of the authority of the Vedas : It is generally held

that the Buddha repudiated the authority of the Vedas. But it is very

important to understand level this "repudiation" extended to. Nowhere

do we find the Buddha saying that the teachings of the Vedas are

false. He only questioned whether those who revered the Vedas had

experienced/seen the reality which they claimed that the Vedas talked

about - so he was not disputing the validity of the Vedas per se, but

only those who claimed to know the reality that the Vedas talked

about.

 

The Vedas have traditionally been divided into the karma kaanda and

the jnaana kaanda - the ritualistic and the knowledge sections. By

the time of the Buddha the ritualistic section had gained prominence

with brahmins performing elaborate rituals and sacrificing animals in

the name of Vedic karma. The Buddha was not opposed to rituals per se

as we find in the Nikhaayas that he has no problem in participating

in a Vedic ritual with a brahmin - he only opposed the prominence

given to the Vedic rituals in the scheme of spiritual liberation and

the sacrifice of animals in this process.

 

As has been noted by a lot of scholars, both ancient and modern, the

Buddha's teachings compare very favorably the to jnaana kaanda of the

Vedas - the Upanishads. In contrast to the orthodoxy who tried to

present the whole Vedas as absolutely valid, the Buddha only shifted

the emphasis on the knowledge section. In this he considered the

teachings of anybody who had "crossed the further shore", including

himself, to be as authoritative as the Vedas.

 

The "relativity" in the Buddha's approach to the Vedas is not unique

to him. All the orthodox schools except the two Mimaamsaas too pay

only lip service to the Vedas - where their doctrines agree with the

Vedas they are eager to show it off - but where it doesn't they

ignore such contradictions. For each school, only the Sutras of the

founder truly play the part of the scripture. The Naiyaayikas dilute

the validity of the scripture by accepting anything that's proved by

logic.

 

Even with respect to the two Miimaamsaas, it is only the Purva

Miimaamsaa which can be said to accept scriptural injunctions as

absolute. In contrast the schools of the Uttara Miimaamsaa exhibit

various positions regarding the scripture : Advaita accepts the

relativity of the the Vedas and asserts that scriptural teachings are

only to "instruct" - also from the ultimate standpoint Advaitins

consider even the Vedas to be in the realm of ignorance. The

Visishtadvaita school considers the Divya Prabandham to be on par

with the Vedas. The Saiva Siddhaanta school considers the Saiva

Aagamaas to be more authoritative than the Vedas.

 

Regarding Vedic rituals with the exception of the Miimaamsaas, all

the orthodox schools too are interested mainly in the jnaana kaanda

and are indifferent to the karma kaanda. Even with the Mimaamsaas, it

is only the Purva Miimaamsaa for which rituals form a very vital

aspect of spirituality – the Vedaantic schools in contrast emphasize

on the importance of the jnaana kaanda over the karma kaanda. Also

historically the Saamkhya and Dvaita Vedaanta too were strong in

their opposition to animal sacrifices in the name of religion.

 

Considering all these it is very difficult to establish Buddhism as a

religion distinct from

"Hinduism" merely on the basis of the Buddha's "repudiation of the

Vedas". It is also to be noted that historically Buddhist

universities like Takshila and Nalanda didn't teach Buddhist

philosophy alone - the Vedas and the philosophies of aastika schools

were also taught in these institutes.

 

2. The caste system : it is generally held that the Buddha rejected

the caste system in contrast to the other schools which accepted the

varna system. This too is not really true.

 

· In the Ambatta Sutta we find the Buddha scorned as a lower caste

kshatriya by a Brahmin. The Buddha in response points out to the

Brahmin that while the Brahmin was born of a wedlock between a

Brahmin and a lower caste woman, the Buddha's ancestors resorted even

to incest to preserve the purity of the race of the Saakhyaas! Thus

the Buddha declares himself to be superior to the Brahmin.

 

· The practical implication of the doctrine of karma itself is that

one is born in a higher caste due to the virtues of past lives. The

Buddha himself admits that to be born as a Brahmin in a spiritually

conducive environment reflects a life of dharma lived in past lives.

 

· Nowhere in the dialogues of the Buddha do we find him declaring all

castes to be equal - nor is it supposed to be so even after they join

the Buddhist order. In the Nikhaayas we find brahmin disciples of the

Buddha addressed as brahmins even after they have joined the sangha.

 

· Even after the Buddha, his followers in many instances have harped

on his "royal" birth to assert the validity of their religion - quite

like Jainism it is a regular practice in Buddhist literature to

assert the superiority of the kshatriya caste over the Brahmin caste.

 

· The Jaatakaas too assert that the Buddha in all his past and future

existences will be born only as a Brahmin or a kshatriya and never in

a caste lower than these two.

 

Due to the reasons given above we find it hard to accept that the

Buddha was against the caste system. The Vedic religion allowed only

the dvijas (the top three castes) access to spiritual knowledge - the

Buddha only opened up such knowledge for the lower castes and women.

So this does not necessarily mean that the Buddha was opposed to the

caste system per se, but only disputed the claims of spiritual

supremacy of the Brahmins and asserted that anybody with the right

inclination can take up spirituality. Also the Buddha was not

particularly against brahmins - for we find recurring instances in

the Nikhaayas where the Buddha affirms that it is a virtue to give

alms to brahmins. So in reality the Buddha was only against the

exaggerated claims of the spiritual prowess of brahmins, but not

against Brahmins or the caste system per se.

 

On a related note, we'd like to point out that this is the exact case

with respect to the Bhakti saints too. If the bhakti saints can be

accommodated within the ambit of Hinduism, then why not the Buddha?

 

It is also to be noted that even for the Saamkya and Yoga systems

anybody who's enlightened is considered a guru irrespective of caste.

The Visishtadvaita and the Saiva Siddhaanta reveres many non-dvija

teachers as saints.

 

Considering all these it is very difficult to establish Buddhism as a

religion distinct from

"Hinduism" merely on the basis of the Buddha's alleged "repudiation

of the caste system".

 

3. Philosophical views : It cannot be said that just because of

distinct metaphysical views

Buddhism is a distinct religion - for the same can be said about all

the schools which constitute "Hinduism" too. They all have distinct

metaphysical views which distinguish them from each other. Here it is

sometimes pointed out that Buddhism does not accept a creator God -

but the same applies to even orthodox schools like classical Saamkhya

and the Purva Miimaamsaa.

 

4. Anatta : it is sometimes said that while the traditional view

of "Hinduism" is based on the Atman (Self), the Buddha in contrast

taught the anatta.

 

But here it is to be noted that anatta only meant that which is not

the Self - the non-self. It

doesn't mean "no self". Nowhere do we find the Buddha denying the

reality of the Atman. He just maintained silence when questioned

about the Atman.

 

The Buddha's attitude to philosophy was that it was more meaningful

to understand the known than wasting time speculating about the

unknown. Thus it is the non-self - the skandhas or aggregates - which

should be contemplated on and understood. But his stress on the non-

self doesn't mean that the Buddha negated the self - Naagaarjuna puts

anatta in the right perspective when he questions in his

Mulamaadhyamaka Kaarikaa : without the self how can the non-self

exist?

 

It is also to be noted that the great Advaitin teacher Gaudapaada

quite in line with

Mahaayaana Buddhism asserts that it is only those who go beyond the

notions of Self, non-self, both or neither, are truly omniscient.

 

So Buddhism cannot be distinguished from "Hinduism" based merely on

simplistic notions of the concept of anatta.

 

5. Teachings : Even with regards his teachings there's nothing in

what the Buddha taught that cannot be found in texts earlier to

Buddhism. The four noble truths are unanimously accepted right across

the Indian philosophical spectrum - right from the Upanishads to the

darshanas these truths are accepted as fundamental reason for a life

of the spirit.

 

The origins of the theories of anatta, kshanikavaada (momentariness),

pratitya samutpaada (dependant origination) can all be found in the

Upanishads (this has been noted by as orthodox a thinker as

Kumaarilla Bhatta in his Tantravaartikam). Schools generally picked

out what they could relate to in the scriptures and expanded on them.

The Buddha too only did the same thing.

 

Even with regards to later Buddhist philosophy it didn't develop in

isolation and only developed in relation to other schools of

philosophy. Naagaarjuna was primarily responding to Gautama's Nyaaya

Sutras. Vaatsyaayana the classical commentator of the Nyaaya Sutras

addresses many of Naagaarjuna's concerns. Likewise the Buddhist

logician Dignaaga answers Vaatsyaayana; the Naiyaayika Udhyotakaara

responds to Dignaaga; and Dignaaga's disciple Dharmakirti addresses

the concerns of Udhyotakaara.

This was the way Indian philosophy developed. So directly or

indirectly each school influenced the philosophy of other schools. So

Buddhism developed only in relation to its native cousins and thus

its identity itself depends on its cousins to a great extent.

 

6. aastika Vs naastika : as noted above many of the so called aastika

schools stood for the

same things that Buddhism did. So it is not easy to identify aastika

schools with Hinduism either. Also historically even schools like

Saamkhya and Advaita Vedaanta have been branded "naastika" in certain

quarters.

 

Further the hostility we observe in the texts of aastika schools

against Buddhism itself cannot be used as a point to establish

Buddhism as an independent entity apart from the aastika schools.

Because even as the aastika schools were opposed to Buddhism, they

were mutually antagonistic to each other too. Also we find many

aastika scholars like Gaudapaada who are sympathetic to Buddhism and

revere the Buddha. As traditional a scriptural text as the Devi

Bhaagavatham considers the Buddha as the Lord descended in human form

to prevent cruelty to animals in Vedic sacrifices.

 

So it is not possible to distinguish Buddhism with "Hinduism" based

on simplistic notions of aastika and naastika.

 

7. vihaara Vs temple : Apart from these technical distinctions it is

also pointed out that Buddhists have their own temples or vihaaraas.

But the same applies to even traditional Shaivites, Vaishnavites,

Shaaktaaists etc - each will go only to temples which house their

deity and none other. Vaishnavites will not go to a Shiva temple nor

will Shaivites go to a Vishnu temple.

 

In conclusion we find that it is not possible to distinguish Buddhism

as a religion distinct from "Hinduism" on the basis of the reasons

given above. It is true that at the time of the Buddha, he did preach

something quite distinct in the prevailing environment with regards

caste, philosophy, spiritual practice etc. But it did not take long

for the other spiritual streams to accept and reconcile the validity

of these teachings with their own worldview. In some cases even

Buddhism itself wasn't able to live up to the original world view of

the Buddha : Departing from the original monastic tradition,

Mahaayaana with the intent to increase the scope of the sangha in

spreading the dharma tried to reconcile spirituality with worldly

life - thus the introduction of the bodhisattva

ideal in the model of the brahmin householder to spread the dharma.

This naturally compromised Buddhism's traditional opposition to the

brahmins; in the religious sphere it embraced theism; philosophically

it accepted reality to be pure consciousness. So as time passed the

differences narrowed so drastically that Buddhism could no more

sustain its individual identity in any meaningful sense and thus

could no more be distinguished from other religious streams. The same

is the case with the non-Miimaamsaa schools which were all

assimilated into one or the other form of the Vedaanta. Jainism quite

like Buddhism dominated certain parts of India at certain points in

time - but it too met the

same fate as Buddhism. Jainism has all but disappeared from its one

time strongholds and survives only in tiny pockets mainly near its

historical birth place in Western India, where it is held together

more by clannish loyalties rather than any meaningful religious

distinction with the sects of Hinduism. But for all practical purpose

most Jains today consider themselves as Hindus only.

 

So why is Buddhism regarded as a religion distinct from "Hinduism"

today?

 

By the time modern Indologists started their enquiries into Indian

culture, Buddhism was no more a living religion in India and so these

scholars couldn't evaluate it as a living religion on its own in its

native soil. Jainism too had lost its once dominant position in India

and survives only in tiny pockets in North western India. Influenced

by their own exclusive Christian backgrounds western Indologists seem

to have viewed Indian religious streams in the same mould - basing it

on the validity of a single scriptural text - the Vedas, or a

prophet - the Buddha or the Mahaaveera. The ancient distinction

between aastika and naastika based on the acceptance or otherwise of

the validity of the Vedas and the supremacy of the brahmin in the

chatur varna system seems to have strengthened

their opinion on the validity of such distinctions between "Hinduism"

and Buddhism/Jainism. Plus what they saw of Buddhism in practice in

countries like Tibet, China and Japan, obviously influenced them to

identify Buddhism as a religion distinct from "Hinduism".

 

But as noted, we cannot distinguish between Buddhism and "Hinduism"

the way the latter can be distinguished from Christianity or Islam.

Also historically the development of Buddhism in India is different

from the way Buddhism developed in other countries. Buddhism in India

grew only in relation to its native cousins and its relationship with

them is different from its relationship with the religions of the

alien lands it spread to. So while it might be meaningful to

distinguish between Buddhism and Taoism or Shintoism as distinct

religions primarily because of the native cultural and philosophical

contexts in which each religious stream developed, the same doesn't

hold for its relationship with the so-called "Hinduism".

 

Understanding the relationship between Indic spiritual streams :

Dharmic Substratum

 

One of the important questions to be asked in understanding

Buddhism's relationship with Hinduism is : Did the Buddha consider

himself to be starting out a totally new tradition apart from the

Vedic tradition?

 

This cannot be so because the Buddha accepted that what he was doing

was only continuing the ancient arya tradition - puraana aarya

dharma. It is in this spirit that though his name was Siddhaartha,

the Buddha let himself be addressed to by his Vedic gotra name -

Gautama - and also in many cases took care to refer to other people

by their Gotra names - Vaccha (Vatsa), Kaashyapa etc. This clearly

indicates that he considered himself to be a part of the existing

tradition.

 

Also the very fact that Buddha accepted that he had gone through

various births and it was due to adherence of the dharma in past

lives that he has come to the present stage of Buddhahood, itself

implies that there was dharma prior to him and he was an integral

part of it. But like various teachers prior to and after him, he only

gave that extra individual addition to the dharma, which was his own

individual contribution to the understanding of the dharma. But this

doesn't make his school a totally new tradition divorced from its

cultural ancestors and contemporaries - if this is so then all other

schools too have to be considered likewise.

 

So there is little doubt that even as other spiritual streams the

Buddha considered himself to be a part of an age old tradition. And

historically too all the spiritual streams were acutely conscious of

their traditional connection to the underlying age old religious

tradition of the land and took care to emphasize it – in fact each

school claimed that they were the true representatives of the

tradition and this is more than evident in the shared philosophical

heritage that they all d to. All streams predominantly

worked under the same philosophical framework and mainly used

Sanskrit as the lingua franca amongst themselves. In this regard it

is to be noted that Paanini's Ashtadhyaayi and Patanjali's

Mahaabaashyam, the classical works on Sanskrit grammar, have been

commented upon by both Buddhist and Jainaa authors too.

 

With regards to the identity of this tradition there are two

possibilities :

 

1. The Buddha considered himself part of the Vedic tradition, but

disputed the brahmanical interpretation of the Vedas.

 

or

 

2. There's an even earlier dharmic substratum of which even the Vedic

tradition is but a part - and it is this ancient dharmic substratum

that the Buddha considered himself as reviving/following.

 

Either way there is little doubt that the Buddha considered himself

to be following in the footsteps of his civilizational ancestors in

spreading the dharma. The same is the view of his rivals too. It is

due to this common dharmic ancestor that all religious streams of

India share many common beliefs in philosophy and spiritual

practice : that there's a cycle of rebirths and each life is filled

with suffering due to the transient nature of the world; karma which

conditions each existence based on past actions; salvation is knowing

the reality inherent in oneself which is effected by living a life of

dharma (control of the psycho/physical faculties, compassion and

charity) in combination with meditation or devotion - thus does one

escape the cycle of rebirths.

 

Thus the various spiritual streams of India are better understood

from the standpoint of the dharma. It is from the same dharmic tree

that all the great spiritual streams of India, including Buddhism,

sprung as branches to teach their own brand of dharma with the common

goal of salvation from the cycle of rebirths. It is in this spirit

that each school referred to other schools only as a darshana (school

of philosophy) or a siddhaanta (spiritual philosophy) and not as

independent religions. Hence the significance of works like Sarva

Darshana Samgraha or Sad Darshana Samuccaya.

 

In conclusion given the civilizational/dharmic unity underlying all

the spiritual streams of India one thing is very certain : we have to

find a new way to define and represent the spiritual streams of India.

[Guest guest]

vpcnk wrote:

 

> IS BUDDHISM A RELIGION DISTINCT FROM HINDUISM?

 

Buddhism certainly is a complete and well defined religion.

 

If the word Hindu is used in the historic sense, Hinduism is not

a religion, but a culture.

 

If it is required that a Hindu should regard the Vedas as fundamental

scriptures, then Buddhists are not Hindu. If one desires to use the

term Hindu in the general sense, it should be used in the historic

sense.

 

> Jainism has all but disappeared from its one

> time strongholds and survives only in tiny pockets mainly near its

> historical birth place in Western India, where it is held together

> more by clannish loyalties rather than any meaningful religious

> distinction with the sects of Hinduism.

 

Western Indian is not the historic birthplace of Jainism. Jainism, as

reestablished by the last Tirthankara, originated in Bihar, although

it existed before him.

 

Jainism survived in several pockets. The Jains today can be natives

of any of these areas:

 

- Punjab/Haryana/Delhi/Western UP

- Gujarat/Rajasthan

- MadhyaPradesh/UP (Bundelkhand)

- Karnataka/Maharashtra

- Tamilnadu

 

Yes, there are Jains who are historically and thoroughly Punjabi as

well as those who are completely Tamil.

 

However for the past 2-3 centuries they have spreadout and are found

in just about all parts of India.

 

>But for all practical purpose most Jains today consider themselves

>as Hindus only.

 

I think that is not true. Some Jains do use the term Hindu, but they

generally use the word in the historic sense.

 

Yashwant

[Guest guest]

Thanking Yashwant, who wrote:

 

> If the word Hindu is used in the historic sense, Hinduism is not

> a religion, but a culture.

 

Correct. Therefore, both the mythical "Buddha" – if we may use the term "Buddha"

as a shorthand allusion to the dressed up protagonist of the Pali Literature, or

else to the "authors" of the texts themselves – ...both the mythical "Buddha"

together with his "-ism" are incontrovertibly Hindu; i.e., products of ancient

sub-continental "_culture_" – as you rightly point out.

 

However, having elsewhere discussed the etymology of "Hindu"

http://www.apsara.clara.co.uk/troyoga/mh/mh.htm and arrived to the conclusion

that it simply means "Indian," my current usage would obviously be somewhat

rhetorical. For the very idea of "Hinduism" (certainly as used in the modern

sense) existing at the remotely historic period of the Buddha would be, as

Gombrich (1997) rightly states, "wildly anachronistic." So let us then not be

bothered by it; neither by the fact that the Buddha was a Hindu.

 

Now, to the question of whether or not Buddhism is a religion distinct from

Hinduism, it is a wrongly stated question. For Hinduism is not a religion. A

valid and highly pertinent question would rather be stated: Does Buddhism fall

within the bounds of Hindu culture. Of course it does. This is why the Buddha

was an early Hindu philosopher.

 

Furthermore, and again, this is why Buddha, together with its "-ism," can never

be conceived as something beyond or incongruous with the aboriginal Indian

premise. There is a very significant saying in India: "Never compare the beauty

of the daughter with that of the Mother."

 

But then the "Buddha-," as distinct from the "Jaina-cult," has a particular

relation to its Brahmanical field, as it principally exists in contradistinction

to its own misperceived notion of the meaning of Hindu.

 

Troy Harris

 

 

 

 

 

New DSL Internet Access from SBC &

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear "vpcnk" [i mean, you can call yourself what you want. What's the

problem?]:

 

Again, as I have elsewhere said, one really needs to decide if we are

a church or an academic community here – or somewhere in between. I

think it is somehow probably or therefore necessary to declare

whether or not we are Buddhist too. My angle being, how pointed can a

scientific probe actually be when one holds to the tenets of the sect

one is probing. I was quite puzzled in reading Gombrich (1997) remark

how in certain cases Buddhism offers the best method to its own

analysis, 'taking a middle path.' How sickening. So you seem to be of

the belief that "the Path," as such, actually exists; that there is

some sort of heavenly abode awaiting the earnest spiritual seeker. A

magical creme to clear up the cankers. You take all this literally

while at the same time exercise academic discipline. But I find it

sort of funny that – at least among Indologist – one is never

supposed to believe in the gods one studies. But with contemporary

Buddology, it is starkly the opposite. And questioning the

historicity of "The Buddha" will only get you thrown out of school.

 

Your essay is quite good. But how to boil it down to the bones? I

prefer to suck on the well-cooked bones – metaphorically speaking.

The man behind the mask is strictly veg.

 

But there is an alternate way to the classroom and the church; that

of the radical skeptic. This is no "middle way." But let's not go

there now. No. Let's be religious. So, if there is indeed a "path,"

metaphorically or otherwise, then each and everyone of you has to

both find and walk your very own path. And you speak of "attainment."

That's all the more something that everyone has to find out for

themselves, _and by themselves_. There are, thus, an infinite number

of paths.

 

And, again, "all things being equally unique," every path is

infinitely distinct. If Buddha's path is "very, very, very,

distinct" – then fine and dandy. He's just like all the rest of us.

But whatever his path may or may not have been, one thing is clear:

you will never know it. You will never know anything. Knowledge is a

myth, a fairytale. So you have to walk your very own road... And

besides, trying to ascertain what some fictional being was chatting

to his sycophants some 2,500 years ago is to my mind complete and

utter nonsense, except, that is, in the professional academic sense,

or as an interesting cultural pastime.

 

In conclusion, let's put it like this: all traditions come to the

point where the ultimate reality is inexpressible. That is the

meeting point of all traditions.

 

Troy Harris [was: Kali Tantra, et al]