Labels With (out?) Differences [was christian yoga]

[Guest guest]

, "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta wrote:

>

> *** Yoga does already exist divorced from Hinduism since appx. 2500

> years. you just didn´t notice. Since appx 500 years before Christ,

> Buddhism was founded. ***

>

> If I my interject, this too is all a matter of labels; a

distinction

> without a difference. The following excerpt from Narendra Nath

> Bhattacharyya's 1974 essay on the development of modern Hinduism,

> entitled "The Formative Period, c. 600 BC- AD 300," sets out the

> fact that these "-ism" labels have been mainly applied by outsiders

> -- scholars, historians, ethnographers, etc. Below I've excerpted

> just a few key paragraphs from NNB's lengthy analysis to support my

> assertion. Arguments, examples and specific details may be found in

> abundance by referring to the original:

>

> **********

>

> "The popular view that Buddhism or Jainism -- as well as the later

> monotheistic creeds such as Vaisnavism, Saivism and others -- were

> in constant conflict with the adherents of the 'orthodox

Brahmanical

> religion' (itself a misnomer) is fallacious. There was no such

> Brahmanical religion in Indian history, though there is no dearth

of

> Brahmanical influence on most religious systems [that arose in

> India], including Buddhism and Jainism. In fact, the renowned

> Buddhist and Jain teachers and theoreticians were mostly Brahamnas

> and they [influenced] these systems' orientation through the

process

> of Sanskritization. [...]

>

> "The Buddha and Lord Mahavira did not found any new religion. They

> set forth a way of life based on ethical principles. Although their

> teachings later assumed a religious character, their original

> purpose was different. [...] Though they had some functional

> differences with the Vedic systems and their sectarian offshoots --

> which subsequently came to be known as Hinduism -- from the

> viewpoint of religio-philosophical terms and concepts, the basic

> similarity underying all these systems cannot be overlooked or

> ignored.

>

> "[...] Hitherto in the studies on Indian religion the so-called

> differences between various systems has been overemphasized by most

> scholars, and their basic unity ignored.

>

> "It is wrongly said that Buddhism and Jainism are anti-Vedic

> systems. The evidence of the Buddhist and Jain texts suggests that

> both the Buddha and Lord Mahavira did not consider Sruti or the

> Vedas as the only source of valid knowledge. [but] the Buddha did

> not reject the Vedic gods. Surprisingly enough, all the Rgvedic

> nature-gods have a place of honor in Buddhism. Even the legends

> pertaining to them occur in Buddhist mythology. Just as in the

later

> Samhitas and Brahmanas the Rgvedic gods were subordinated to the

> ritualistic principle called yajna and in the Upanisads to the

> idealistic principle called Brahman, so also in the Buddhist texts

> the Rgvedic gods were subordinated to the Buddha. [...]

>

> "So the post-Vedic [period's] thought-ferment -- whether of the so-

> called non-Brahmanical heterodoxy, or of the so-called Brahmanical

> orthodoxy -- yielded the same or similar ethical principles of

> universal application that formed the substrata of the functional

> aspects of all the subsequent sects and cults [within Hinduism,

> Buddhism, Jainism, and others]."

>