Hinduism-Buddhism different religions? No. -- Nandakumar Chandran

[Guest guest]

Srinivasan Kalyanaraman <kalyan97@g...> wrote:

Fwd. The use of the very word, 'tribal' which is a western indological

aberration, is loaded with disdain. The jaati and janajaati of

Hindustan are the bedrock of dharma which is the the land called

Hindustan. K.

 

Hinduism is a culture of the land called Hindustan. Because it is a

culture, it undergoes changes from time to time and from place to

place. No culture is strictly homogeneous.Therefore, even if some

people may say Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism are different from

Hinduism, it is not true. Some anti-Hindu people try to divide Hindus

by trying to prove that Hinduism is different from these religions.

Many Leftists try to propagate that tribals are also not Hindus. We

must condemn those, who try to divide Hindus ib various ways.

 

Keshav Acharya

 

Hinduism - Buddhism different religions?

 

By Nandakumar Chandran

 

In modern perception today Buddhism is regarded as a religion distinct

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

lacks historical validity and is also logically flawed. 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 e.g. 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 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 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. According to Buddhist prophecy even the

future "Buddha-to-be" - Maitreya - is supposed to be born as a

Brahmin.

 

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-Brahmin

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? The Buddha only taught the insubstantiality of the individual

self, but not no-substance or no-soul.

 

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 the existence or non-existence or both or

neither of the Self, 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 Vedanta 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 Vedanta. 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 birthplace in Northern 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.

 

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.

 

The underlying civilizational unity underlying all the spiritual

streams of India 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 Panini's Ashtadhyaayi and Patanjali's Mahaabaashyam, the

classical works on Sanskrit grammar, have been commented upon by both

Buddhist and Jaina authors too.

 

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 we have to find a more integrative way

to define and represent the various spiritual streams of India.

 

You could write to him at Nanda Chandran : vpcnk@H...

 

The link to this article in Nanda's site is below.

 

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~pushpasri/buddhism/budh_hindu.html

 

http://www.esamskriti.com/html/inside.asp?

cat=635&subcat=634&cname=hinduism

--- End forwarded message ---