Buddha

[Guest guest]

Members who don't feel comfortable posting

enquiries have been often requested to send their questions

to founders and we would post it for them. We

received the following question.<br><br>"Is Buddha the

incarnation/avatar of lord vishnu.<br>Please explain,thank

you."<br><br>Hope to hear more on this from our esteemed members,

specially those of whom follow the Buddhist

path.<br><br>_/\_ Tat twam asi<br><br>Uma

[Guest guest]

I am posting a reply to a similar question in

another club which I wrote some time ago. Dates are

rounded off. I'm looking forward to members adding,

subtracting or making corrections if needed. <br><br>The

period in the subcontinent till around the 500 BC was

called the Vedic age and Brahmanism was the main system

of religious practice. This practice by then had

become heavily biased towards sacrifices, rituals and

incantations, further corrupted with money and wrongful use. It

was centered on the caste system where the Brahmins

had established a superiority in hierarchy over

others. <br><br>Buddha was born and raised in an

environment of extensive dissent, arguments and challenges

made towards the mainstream Brahmanism. One that had

played a big role in the demise of the latter was

Charvak philosophy which in a nutshell said .. what you

see is what you get! In Bengal where it was most

popular.. (most dissensions are popular in Bengal . lol..

another discussion perhaps ) the philosophy said “Hrinam

kritam gritam pivet”. Splurge on ghee even if you have

to borrow .. because life is nothing more than

totally material. <br><br>Being a Kshatriya, Gautama

Buddha was trained in the knowledge of both war and the

basic vedic texts. As we know, he left home in search

of the Truth when he first saw suffering and death.

After years of practicing in the ways prescribed by the

traditional Hindu ascetic and yoga teachings, he felt nothing

was working and went to meditate under the Bodhi

tree, determined not to get up till he got the answers.

And he did.<br><br>Buddhism didn’t really become

popular in India till King Ashoka established it around

200 BC and it prospered under various kings till King

Harsha in around 700 AD. Many Buddhist temples and

monasteries was built and it was a period of much growth in

art, literature and religion. Meanwhile, the teachings

of Buddha was getting diluted and influenced by

‘Hindu’ concepts. Buddhism broke up into different sects,

some followed the simplicity of the original teachings

while other deified Buddha and adopted many ritualistic

practices prevalent in those times. ‘Hinduism’, too, began

to focus on views brought out by Buddha and even

incorporated Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu. This Vishnu’s

incarnation theory is not accepted by Buddhist academic

scholars, however it seems to fall into place with the

fundamental Hindu notion of avatars being reborn again and

again whenever the need arises. In the words of a

historian “Brahamanism killed Buddhism by a fraternal

embrace”. The Arabs when they invaded around 700 AD or so

found a country made up of calm, peace loving people

and monks, totally unprepared for war and conquered

with ease. All places of Buddhist interest were

destroyed and thousands of monks killed. <br><br>Meanwhile

the within the Hindu world, the upanishads were

developing and gaining importance thus removing ritualism as

the core of Hindu philosophy replacing it with

Vedantic truths. <br><br>Shakaracharya in about 800 AD was

instrumental in what is often called the renaissance of

Hinduism and won back the four ancient seats of learning

through a challenge of debate. He showed that the

principles of Buddhism were inherent in Hinduism and there

wasn’t any need for a separate religion for the purpose.

This basically was the end of Buddhism in India,

though by then its principles of gentleness, and loving

kindness had already gained a firm footing outside the

country through a “bloodless quest of Asia”.

<br><br>........ Cont'd.

[Guest guest]

Spiritually the difference between the two

systems of thought is illustrated by an example often

used by Buddha himself. A group of hunters went

hunting and one of them got hit by an arrow. Injured

seriously, he fell bleeding and was in severe pain. The

question Buddha asked here is ....For this injured man

what use is it, to discuss the past karma which led to

this pain, or what is going to happen in the future

and how to change it? What is important is addrsssing

the present pain and relieving it in the now.

<br><br>Dealing with the present moment is the core of his

teachings. Each being is a potential Buddha separated only

by a veil of ignorance perpetuated by the cycle of

rebirths. All life, as we experience it, including what we

perceive as joy, is transient, and sorrow and pain is part

of the attachment to a belief that it is permanent.

Realizing ones true Self – the Buddha within -- helps one

in breaking through the bond of karma and thus

rebirths. His techniques thus involve various kinds of

mindfulness meditations or being in the present moment which

experientially helps release the attachment to the waves of this

transient pain and pleasure. The only thing that is

permanent is the Buddha within.<br><br>While there are

several theoretical differences between the two

‘religions’ they are mainly with regards to concepts,

definitions and authority. <br><br>_/\_ Tat twam

asi<br><br>Uma

[Guest guest]

Greetings,<br><br>"The Arabs when they invaded

around 700 AD or so found a country made up of calm,

peace loving people and monks, totally unprepared for

war and conquered with ease. All places of Buddhist

interest were destroyed and thousands of monks

killed."<br><br>It is ironical to note that while several Hindu and

Buddhist places of worship were destroyed, Hinduism by

itself survived.<br>Hindus owe that to the militant

saadhus who took-up arms to protect the Indian

subcontinent from the Islamist invations.<br>That militant

form of Hindiusm survived thru the centuries and at

the present times is seen in groups such as the VHP,

Bajrang Dal and the RSS-although RSS is more than just a

militant group.<br>The sevaks in RSS are highly disciplied

followers of Hinduism.<br>The Islamists however proved

progressive to a large extent because they brought an

entirely different ideology and schools of thought.<br>It

enriched Indian culture and thought.<br>The sufi movement

is an example.

[Guest guest]

Can i ask exactly what is meant by the RSS group--<br><br>Is this the Radha

Soami Satsang group? If not, then what exactly does this stand for?

[Guest guest]

Greetings,<br><br>I am not sure, but I think the

RSS stands for the Rashtriay SwamSevak

Sangh.<br>Please someone from India correct me if I am wrong (and

forgive me !!).<br>RSS was formed during the 1920s and

since then has been active in the social as well as

political levels.<br>While they are often criticised for

their militant views, they are actually a group of

self-disciplined social workers.<br>No, I am not associated with

them in any way whatsoever, so this is not an

advertisenment or any kind of appeal.