buddhism before hinduism

[mirco]

did buddhism preceed hinduism and was the gita first composed after buddhism ?

[Avinash]

As per scriptures, Gita was spoken by Lord Krsna who came before Buddha. This means that Gita was composed before Buddhism.

[mirco]

I posted the same message about if buddhism preceeded hinduism in another forum and a buddhist replied with this:

 

'The word Hinduism was coined by the Muslim scholar Alberuni in the 11th century C.E. and while its appropriateness to describe the dominant system of religious belief in the India of his time (and of ours) is unquestionable, its use to describe the oldest religious beliefs in India (some scholars even applying the term to describe the pre-Aryan civilization represented by the Harappan culture), is clearly suspect. In this respect the practice of the earlier scholars to use the term "brahmanism" to designate the system which prevailed amongst the Aryan invaders before the Buddha's time, and to confine the word "Hinduism" to designate the system which was synthesised in the Bhagavadgîta, a work compiled centuries after the Buddha, which became the foundation of almost the whole of later Hinduism, could be commended. This terminology will be used here as far as possible, except that the word "Hinduism" will sometimes have to be used to designate the combined systems of Brahmanism and Hinduism proper, the actual context hopefully making clear what usage is meant.

 

The question of chronology has usually been considered a difficult one. Many students of Hinduism after proclaiming the impossibility of ascribing dates to early Brahmanical works, then not only proceed to do so, but give them very ancient ones with little or no justification. This is true not only of Hindu traditionalists, but also of many Western orientalists, who in the words of Nirud C. Chauduri "have succumbed to Hindu chronological fantasies" [Hinduism (1979), p.33]. It may be mentioned that the antiquity claimed for the Hindu texts contrasts strongly with the lateness of all extant epigraphcial, iconographical and archelogical evidence. In contrast to this morass of uncertainty the dates of the Buddha (563 - 483 BCE) have been established with little or no error. In fact the Buddha is perhaps the first truly historical figure to emerge in India, just as the Buddhist remains are the earliest religious archeological evidence unearthed. And the earliest Buddhist literature contain abundant information on the rival systems of belief prevalent in the India of that time. These references cover both the main Brahmanical religion based on the Vedas, and the emerging dissentient views proclaimed by the new sramana philosopher-teachers of the time (the "gymnosophists" of the later Greek observers of the Indian scene).'

 

I do not know what to think of all this or if i shall think anything about it

[Avinash]

...which was synthesised in the Bhagavadgîta, a work compiled centuries after the Buddha...

 

Some say that Gita was composed before Buddha and some say that it was composed after Buddha. How will you verify who is right?

[Guest guest]

why worry?

 

why not live per gita and go close to krishna, know Him?

 

jai sri krishna!

 

[Avinash]

It personally does not worry me whether Buddha came first or Gita. I wrote that post because it was mentioned by the person who started this thread posted a message of a Buddhist from another forum. That message says that Gita was composed after Buddha. So, I just wanted to mention that there are people of both views.

[Tirisilex]

My answer to this question is does it matter which came first?

 

The first "religions" seem to all be Shamanic based. Does this mean all other religions are bogus and we should turn to Shamanic ways?

 

In my opinion it seems that Yoga is a systematic science that was developed by early Shamanic type people. It developed into a more advanced spiritual system.

 

Buddhists may say that Buddhism came first. Christians may say Jehovah's word was first. Jainists may say their beliefs were first. It honestly does not matter which was first. What matters more is if the religion you follow satisfies your spiritual hunger.

[Guest guest]

siddhartha was born into a "hindu" kingdom,

as far as labeling according to Bhagavad gita,

one need only look at places like Angor Wat,

and other "hindu" temples adorned with characters

from the gita, which became transformed into buddhist

temples after the arrival of siddhartha.

 

so Krishna and the mahabharta was well known at the time of siddhartas birth, although Krishna bhakti may have

become dominant later then buddhism, that doesn't

change when it was spoken or the time line, or the fact

of temple carvings suggesting Krishna bhakti was in fact

popular before siddharta.

[Guest guest]

he says

 

aham Adir hi devAnAm.

 

so, krishna was known since long time,

and krishna bhakti also was know atleat since 5000 years.

 

in bhagavatam vyasdev describes pastimes of krishna, and predicts bhddha. buddha came as predicted.

 

jai sri prabhupada!

 

[Guest guest]

the easiest place to see this is in S.E. Asia,

they have a culture that is a mix of three religious traditions, hinduism, buddhism, and islam.

 

first came hinduism to those lands, and today still

the culture of most of those lands have the Ramayana,

or Ramakien, and the Mahabharata as the source of their oldest traditional arts.

 

Their dance, the famous shadow puppets, music, etc,

have as their central theme Rama,Krishna,Arjuna,etc.

 

By this we can understand that since Buddhism came to these lands shortly after Siddhartha preaching, hindu religion has been almost unknown, among some of the aristocracy it survived and ultimately only Bali remains

hindu.

 

But the culture survived, the art survived, even though they may be buddhist or muslim the hindu epics are still

the source of their ancient cultural heritage.

 

so this proves that Krishna was popular before Siddhartha,

even in S.E. Asia, what to speak of india.

[Guest guest]

"Satisfies your spiritual hunger"? A religion ment to satisfy some sort of hunger sounds like superstition to me. True religion is the opposite to hunger.

[Guest guest]

Did Buddhism come before Hinduism?

In a word NO!

 

Most Hindu's agree they follow a system derived from the original teachings of the Vedas, including the Upanishads. Now the Mantra portions of the Vedas are way older than Buddhism, who himself was born into a Hindu family. The Upanishads span a length of time from before the Buddha, during and after. The Gita is seen as a commentary on the Upanishads...so it could have come from any time around the Vedic age. Some scholars did think that the Gita was first composed from around 500BC to 300BC, however this view has been challenged by other scholars who state that though the words "Bhagavad Gita" appeared around this period, it was due to the popularity the Gita was starting to gain at this was the first time it was extracted from the Mahabharata as a separte book. Before this period it was in the Mahabharata and nobody had thought of taking out Krishnas dialogue with Arjuna. As more and more Sages found that particular portion of the Mahabharata was a wonderful summary of the doctrines of Sanatana Dharma, there was more demand to extract and release it as a book by itself.

 

In case you seem to think Buddhism was older than Hinduism, let me remind you that another Indian religion namely Jainism was also established before Buddhism too. Even the founder of Jainism was a Hindu before he founded his own path Jainism.

 

Some of you people really need to stop pushing that false "Aryan Invasion theory" as it makes you look backwards-thinking. The Arya simply means "Noble" and Aryas were Noble people, and here's a shock for you that even the Buddist monks would agree on...The Buddha also called his religion "Arya Dharma" not Buddhism. He told his followers that they should become Arya (noble). Now you can't change your race, so if Arya was a race how can you become it?

[Guest guest]

"Satisfies your spiritual hunger"?

 

I think Hinduism provides some good answers to those with a few questions or those with many, who could be said to be spiritually hungry.

[Guest guest]

buddhism may have well preceeded hinduism, but it does not proceed sanathana dharma. overall, buddhism is very much a form of spiritual psychology, whereas sanathana dharma is God-focused. it will obviously be easier to put dates on scriptures and the life of one man, but no so easy to put dates on scriptures that are regarded as much older. if the argument is in regards to which is older, then let's not be petty about whether or not an exact year can be found, but rather be satisfied we know the era.

 

the dates do not contrast with claims, as the post on the buddhist board suggests. we have dwaraka as an example, as well as astrological basis for estimating the dates during the mahabharata...