The Buddha and Hindu Way of Life

November 22, 2008

Yes Yes indeed. Dr. SKB is on mark. The Buddha indeed had high regard for the Vedas.

As per record the Buddha never said even anything remotely to suggest that he was expounding anything Non-Hindu or away from Hindu (thought) or any thing alike or unlike.

During his time there were 2 paths -

(i) penance - inspiration personified by Digambars. Saranath is the 11th incarnation place of 11th lord jaina mahavira and there was his asrama and students/followers

(ii) hi-fi scholarship - inspiration picked up from the Saiva Sidhantims.

Both required a life style non-burdened with family (much as alike the Nobel Laureats of c.19 to 21st).

The Buddha espoused a middle path ~

(iii) realistic thought & life style. A new coinage, innovation and not an Invention. He did not force any to switch.

Even Nehru gave a middle path (we are still at it). Nehru and India as a whole have been taking flak on and often. Nehru did not get any flak during his life time as alike The Buddha (there are much better examples and numerous). Mind please, it all happened centuries later in the case of Tathagat.

The Budha's 'middle path', is also Vedic in ethos and content. The Buddha was not an erudite person. His methods, nomenclatures, terms and dictions were rank simple. The Vedas being scholarly works, making a compare results in the conclusion as has been indicated by Dr. SKB.

At Saranath the Sangha (niyoga/gosthi/samaja) was formed. It also was not away from Hindu. After the Buddha had taken his Parinirvana.

The Buddha's bodily remains were burnt ? If Yes, How non Hindu ?

Worshipping rodents and dogs and skull is also Hindu as much is Brahmo samaja (albeit there are reasons - we need not get into that here). How come a 'middle path' be extra Hindu, when it is innovated and articulated by a 100% native Hindu of original stock (the Buddha)? What about the work, life and times of saintly personalities like Vivekananda - to- Prabhupada. Are they all Non Hindus ?

The Jaina Mahaprabhus (apostels) say 'do not harm the snake'. The Buddha meant 'do not worship it', Rest of the Hindus did anything between killing, trapping for joy- & -play, or worship. Non were non Hindus.

But come c. 2nd B.C., and again c.7th A.D., Nagas and Siddhantims (both are non icon worshippers) respectively had wrought havoc to Buddhist heritage. WHY ?

Socio -Economic- Political factors transpiring out of size and prosperity of faith-sect - Niyogas ?

Was the Buddha ever declared as Non-Hindu or as an Out-Cast by any one ?

At Sri Jagannath Temple, The Buddha is considered as Lord J's incarnation. Even The Lord J puts on The Buddha vesa (attire). Every day Jagannath awakes with the public sigining "esa....Buddha Sarira, Jaya Jagadisa Hare"....composed by Jayadeva of Cuttack/Puri dist.

Somewhere down Mimansa (compromise) happened ? WHY ?

Please belt out Hard facts ...(specially to the contrary - if you know).

Hence, Regards to all.

Dr. db.

-

Sunil Bhattacharjya

Friday, November 21, 2008 11:05 PM

Re: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

Dear Khandavalliji,I just want to add that Lord Buddha was trained in Sankhya by his guru Alara Kalama. Sankhya says that existence of God cannot be proved and for this very reason Sankhya and the teachings of Buddha are Godless but not atheistic. Lord Buddha believed that there is ''Cause'' for this world in a Cause-Effect relationship, which is a Sankhya approach. After six years of Tapashya he found that there is ultimately no separateness in this world and that is how he could explain that finally there will not remain separate freed souls but all in a non-separate state.Further Lord Buddha had high regard for the Vedas as he said that one should understand the true meaning of the Vedas.Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Thu, 11/20/08, ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj > wrote:

ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj >Re: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence .... Date: Thursday, November 20, 2008, 6:34 AM

Dear Bruce,I completely agree. However to add a perspective to define Vedic Hinduism, this is an extract from one of my articles.

Scope and Definition

What classifies one as belonging to or outside the fold of Sanatana Dharma, is not as straight forward as answering what classifies one as belonging to or outside the fold of any particular community.

Sanatana Dharma, as it means, is the eternal law – hence anyone by definition is included in it. It does not classify people as followers and non-followers, believers and non-believers and so on. Thus by definition, it is universal and all-inclusive. This is because it talks of the natural and universal order or law, and not of the universe as seen by any particular seer.

However, when seen in a social context there do exist many classifications. The people belonging to the civilization of Bharata share a common cultural and social base; they differ in philosophy and few social aspects. The first such division is Vedic-Unvedic.

Accepting the authority of Veda is the primary criterion, for defining a person as belonging to Veda mata. And this covers all the branches, such as srauta, smarta, Tantric and so on. However, there are further classifications in this: There are schools that hold Atharva vedins as unvedic. There are schools that hold some Tantras as unvedic. And so on. However, with all the philosophical and religious differences, they all share one cultural-social base.

The schools that do not hold Veda as a primary authority are called Unvedic. Bauddha and Jaina, though they believe in salvation (having their own versions of Nirvana and Kaivalya respectively) are thus called Unvedic. They do not however call the Veda as false knowledge. Bauddha and Jaina also share the same civilizational and philosophical base, and the worldview as Vedic religion. Hence they are very much parts of the Bharatiya Civilization.

However it should not be understood in the sense that Veda is to be taken as an “authority”. Veda is taken as a Pramana or a source and reference for validation of knowledge. And a school that does not accept Veda as pramana, implies that it does not believe in statements other than those that could be validated through other means of knowledge. There are acceptable pramanas under each school, like pratyaksha, anumana, upamana and so on which could be translated as (perception, logic, comparison, etc.). And the knowledge that could not be validated by these, according to Vedic religion, is to be taken as valid, if it finds validation in the Veda. The reasoning given for this by the followers of Vedic religion is that Veda is knowledge of the eternal and contains that knowledge which cannot be validated. So “something that cannot be validated can exist and still be accepted as true” is the premise. And this pramana was not listed first; in fact it was listed after pratyaksha and so on, to imply that you do not need the pramana of Veda for something that can be validated through direct means. According to Unvedic darsanas like Bauddha, only the knowledge that could be validated by pratyaksha and anumana is to be taken as valid. Thus, the difference is purely at a philosophical level, and not really at a religious level. Therefore we could see there are a lot of similarities in the religious practices of all these schools, such as Tantric and other methods. However, high level philosophical differences had social implications, such as accepting the Vedic social order or Varna-Ashrama dharma. Still, they all shared the same cultural-civilizati onal base. However, it was easy to assimilate them in the social order – for they did not create a new social order, and they were not different socio-cultural systems.

Thus the Vedic-unvedic became a slightly different classification, Astika - Nastika. There are two criteria that make one an Astika or having astikya: believing in Veda’s pramanya, and following varna-ashrama dharma. The belief in Veda translating as Astikya borrows sense from the above explanation, of “something that cannot be validated can exist and still be accepted as true”.

Accepting God or Iswara, has never been a criterion in classifying something as Astika or Vedic or Hindu for that matter. Owing to the differences in approach and diversity in worldviews, accepting the existence of God has always been a matter of choice and one’s philosophy. Diversity in attribution of supremacy to God, religious practices, philosophical traits, none of these matter in classifying something as Vedic-Unvedic.

However, Carvaka differs greatly from all other systems including Bauddha and Jaina – they accept pratyaksha (sense-perception) as the only pramana. Every other school, Vedic or Unvedic accepts at least two pramanas. And they do not accept akasha as a mahabhuta or a primordial element, which all other schools accept. Akasha is the element which is both the origin of all the other elements and listed as an element (in its unmanifest form). This causes all other differences such as treating body as self, not accepting rebirth and so on. In this, Carvaka comes very close to the western materialistic thought pattern. For this reason, not only did Carvaka have a different philosophical but also an entirely different social style emanating from an entirely alien worldview which is incompatible with all the other schools.

However, all other Bharatiya peoples, including tribal, should be called as sharing the same philosophical base. Either by their practices, or by their goals, their origin lies in the same.

Any philosophy that came from outside, or developed independently in Bharata and came in contact with Sanatana Dharma, has been assimilated in its comprehensive, all-inclusive system.

However, the ones that are not assimilated are the exclusivist ideologies like Abrahamic religions. In a way, they are as philosophically and socially incompatible with Sanatana Dharma as Carvaka was at one time.

So any other school is, technically speaking, belonging to or related to Sanatana Dharma. One one hand there are schools like Shanmatas that are part of it, and on the other hand there are schools like Bauddha that have origin in it but are outgrowths from it.

Bruce Duffy <bwduffy (AT) netspace (DOT) net.au>Thursday, November 20, 2008 7:54:18 PMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

Yes, your take is correct, but what sets Vedic Hinduism apart from other religions is that its most revered religious 'texts' do present a logical and coherent notion about the nature of existence that is very clearly revealed to us by great commentators like Shankara. Some Indian scholars argue that the Veda contains reference to a number of what are considered modern scientific inventions, and they may be right about that, but they may also be focusing on these sometimes obscure and not so easy to argue scientific references in the Veda and be blind to the very strong possibility that they have presented very clearly in the Vedic 'texts' what could arguably be the most perfect theory about the nature of existence ever conceived. That theory being the concept of the One or Brahman.

Bruce

On 19/11/2008, at 7:25 PM, ODDISILAB wrote:

My take on the question is

SPRITUALITY.

(this issue has been long long ago settled- Read Vivekananda, Sankara,.... .)

-

Kamlesh Kapur

Tuesday, November 18, 2008 8:47 PM

RE: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

Can you please explain your ideas-

It is important to know the perspective of diverse people on the subject.

I teach Hindu Dharma to various age groups and am currently compiling a book of lesson plans for three different age groups.

You can send it as a private Email in case the group does not want to have a thread on the discussion on the subject.

Also, we are helping the state dept of education to improve their core curriculum for teaching Hinduism.

Regards,

Kamlesh

[ancientindi a ] On Behalf Of Bruce DuffyTuesday, November 18, 2008 8:39 AMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

Dear Kishore, earlier today, in relation to the below message, I wrote:

"Dear Kishore, although I enjoyed reading it I find this message somewhat puzzling. In the below story who is the very conservative, judgmental man and who is the somewhat liberated and free spirited woman. Is it just a story or are they characters I should be familiar with?

All the best, Bruce."

After a second reading of the below message it came across as a rather inspired piece of writing and the author as being a lot less judgmental than I had at first judged him to be. A second reading of the below short passage saw it as beautifully capturing the awkward attempts of two people who have a respect for each other, but come from very different backgrounds and cultures trying to relate to each other and accept each others values without being too judgmental. With a bit of imagination and artistic license Radhakrishna Warrier could have the basis of a good novel here that as well as describing the attempts of a man and a woman from two very different backgrounds trying to relate to each other in a meaningful way would also give the author ample opportunity to discuss the Vedic religion and Hinduism.

I would love to answer his question about what is the fundamental principle of Hinduism (Vedic Hinduism) and to be able to talk about brahman, but I am not sure his Yavana Sundari would be ready to hear about such a concept, and an important teaching of the Upanishads and Bhagavadgita is about how one should not expose a person to such knowledge if they are not fit to hear it or ready to hear it.

As far as my query about the identity of the people being discussed in the message please ignore it. I was getting confused and thinking it may have been referring to members of our group.

Bruce

,

November 23, 2008

Dear Dr. Deepak,

I think one should bear in mind that we speak of different teachings

(bauddhadharma, sankhya, jain etc.) that happen to co-exist inside a

common culture (which may be called Hindu or just Indian, perhaps?).

That does not mean that these teachings necessarily share the same

views, which you all know very well. Shared cultural traits are often

not significant to the content of the teaching. Though there are always

connections between culture and the teachings that evolve on the basis

of it, that does not mean that the teachings are bound to that single

culture. As you know bauddhadharma has been spread to practically all

continents, and been perfectly adopted to very different cultures -

still remaining bauddhadharma. The important is the message, the

teaching, and not the cultural "package". It is common knowledge that

among the Indian teachings e.g. the Sankhya and the Bauddhadharma are

a-theist in a sense that differs them quite radically from other Indian

philosophic theachings. Buddha says that there is no higher being that

is the creator of the universe - he says that even Brahma is a sansaric

being, that also is subdued by the law of Karma, and thus can not be

the object of refuge. Refuge can only be taken in the Teaching that

takes one out of the cyclic existence, in the Awakened one that gives

the teaching, and in the noble Community that supports the teaching.

Everything existing - even the highest being, the Brahma - is anatman

(Pali 'anatta'), lacks an intrinsic Self, and is impermanent. These, I

guess, are the main points that speparate the Bauddhadharma

("anatmanic") from other Indian philosophic views ("atmanic"). This is

my humble view and my limited understanding of Buddhism and Hinduism.

Respectfully,

Anton Bjerke

ODDISILAB skrev:

Yes Yes indeed. Dr.

SKB is on mark. The Buddha

indeed had high regard for the Vedas.

As per record the

Buddha never said even anything remotely to suggest that he was

expounding anything Non-Hindu or away from Hindu

(thought) or any thing alike or unlike.

During his time

there were 2 paths -

(i) penance

- inspiration personified by Digambars. Saranath is

the 11th incarnation place of 11th lord jaina mahavira and there was

his asrama and students/followers

(ii) hi-fi

scholarship - inspiration picked up from the Saiva Sidhantims.

Both required a life

style non-burdened with family (much as alike the Nobel Laureats of

c.19 to 21st).

The Buddha

espoused a middle path ~

(iii) realistic

thought & life style. A new coinage, innovation and not an

Invention. He did not force any to switch.

The Buddha's bodily

remains were burnt ? If Yes, How non Hindu ?

Worshipping rodents

and dogs and skull is also Hindu as much is Brahmo samaja (albeit there are reasons - we need not get into that here).

How come a 'middle path' be extra Hindu, when it is innovated and

articulated by a 100% native Hindu of original stock (the

Buddha)?

The Jaina

Mahaprabhus (apostels) say 'do not harm the snake'. The Buddha meant

'do not worship it', Rest of the Hindus did anything between killing,

trapping for joy- & -play, or worship. Non were non Hindus.

But come c. 2nd B.C., and again

c.7th A.D., Nagas and Siddhantims (both are non icon

worshippers) respectively had wrought havoc to Buddhist

heritage. WHY ?

Socio -Economic- Political factors

transpiring out of size and prosperity of faith-sect - Niyogas ?

Was the Buddha ever declared as

Non-Hindu or as an Out-Cast by any one ?

Please belt out Hard facts

.....(specially to the contrary - if you know).

Hence, Regards to all.

Dr. db.

-----

Original Message -----

Sunil Bhattacharjya

To:

Sent:

Friday, November 21, 2008 11:05 PM

Subject:

Re: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

Dear Khandavalliji,

I just want to add that Lord Buddha was trained in Sankhya by his guru

Alara Kalama. Sankhya says that existence of God cannot be proved and

for this very reason Sankhya and the teachings of Buddha are Godless

but not atheistic. Lord Buddha believed that there is ''Cause'' for

this world in a Cause-Effect relationship, which is a Sankhya

approach. After six years of Tapashya he found that there is ultimately

no separateness in this world and that is how he could explain that

finally there will not remain separate freed souls but all in a

non-separate state.

Further Lord Buddha had high regard for the Vedas as he said that one

should understand the true meaning of the Vedas.

Regards,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

November 23, 2008

Dear Shri Bjerke,''Brahmaa'' is ''Mahattattva'' of Sankhya and should not be confused with the term ''Brahman'' of the Vedas.Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Sat, 11/22/08, Anton Bjerke <anton_bjerke wrote:Anton Bjerke <anton_bjerkeRe: The Buddha and Hindu Way of Life Date: Saturday, November 22, 2008, 4:48 PM