Hindu Media WikiBuddhism related Answers Hinduism and Buddhism
Questions and Answers
9 Answers
Welcome to HMW!
This site is for discussion about Hinduism.
You must have an account here to participate. Its free to use this site.
Suggested for you
Books based on Hinduism
Explore 101 Books You Must Read
Cultural History from the Vayu Purana
Click here to Buy From Indic Brands
"Indic Brands" is a curated marketplace of remarkable brands that value and celebrate our cherished cultural heritage.
Related Posts
We do NOT offer personalized advice based on Astrology.
Did Brahmins destroy Buddhism?
Fascinating group the Brahmins are. A tiny minority tied to temples in which they didn’t permit most and living in ghettos disconnected from other populace is suddenly credited with incredible things — manipulating all of history, building oppressive social systems, destroying major religions, destroying major civilizations, usurping all the religious ideas of others, enslaving people. The list of achievements Indians ascribe to a group of 2–3% people with no empires of their own, no lands, no wealth is simply fascinating.
Brahmins cannot claim credit for all. Decline of Buddhism comes from a combination of factors. Part of it is from Hindu saints such as Adi Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva, who brought new ideas into Hinduism and bridged the gap between Buddhist traditions and Hinduism. Philosophical seekers found as much truth in Vedanta as they did in Buddhist canon. Ordinary followers were more attracted to the devotional aspect of the Hinduism spread by the folks above along with people like Haridas.
Buddhism struggled against this force, but still survived.
But, a bigger part of the decline is attributed to the Islamic invasion that destroyed key Buddhist centers such as the Nalanda.
While both Hinduism and Buddhism faced the invasion, the impact was different:
In short, Buddhism’s primary decline is due to the Islamic invasion that Hinduism survived. And before its decline, its growth was arrested for which the Brahmin saints can be credited with.
What are faults with Buddhist philosophy?
The major flaw in Buddhist philosophy is its emphasis on renunciation, monasticism and transcendence of worldly life.
Buddhism was the philosophy of the elite of ancient India (the Brahmins and Kshatriyas) and was supported by the generous donations of the wealthy householders (gahapatis).
The majority of common folk neither have an interest in, or an ability to comprehend the complexities and subtleties of Buddhist philosophy and some theoreticians like Nāgārjuna are incomprehensible even to the learned and highly intelligent readers.
The philosophical corner stone of Buddhist philosophy anātta - non-self theory - is confusing and contradicts our default and common sense perception, and is inapplicable and unusable for the average person.
Buddhism also has an extremely elaborate and complex Cosmology and Buddhology with celestial Buddhas, their consorts, their heavens and tales of their incarnations and pastimes while at the same time denying Theology which Buddhology mimics in every aspect.
So Buddhism has nothing much to offer the common folk except the five precepts (pañca-śīla) and the eight precepts (aṣṭha-śīla) and the opportunity to accumulate merit by offering alms to monks (dāna) contributing to the upkeep of vihāras and stūpas and a basic teaching on Karma, rebirth and duḥkha (suffering) to guide them.
The vast majority of the common folk want to live long and healthy lives, to prosper, to marry and to create families, have children and generally to aspire to all the three goals of material life — Dharma- professional and social duties, Artha - prosperity and Kama - pleasure) - Nirvaṇa or mokṣa is an hypothetical goal which most people do not aspire to.
So with its emphasis on renunciation and negation of prosperity and enjoyment, Buddhist philosophy has very little to offer the householders. And this is the reason why Buddhist philosophy has always coexisted in a symbiotic relationship with the more worldly religions of the countries to which it has expanded - Shinto in Japan, Daoism and Confucianism in China and of course Hinduism in India and throughout South East Asia - incorporating elements of animism and tradition customs and usages to satisfy the material needs of the common folk.
Is the early Mahayana Buddhism a form of Brahmanism? It used Sanskrit instead of Pali language.
In my unlearned opinion most of Buddhism is modified “Brahmanism” for export :-)
Of Buddha’s 10 foremost disciples 6 were brahmins.
Shantideva was an 8th-century CE Indian Brahmin philosopher, Buddhist monk, poet and scholar at the university at Nalanda. He was an adherent of the Madhyamika philosophy of Nagarjuna.
The foundational Mahāyāna teachers were all Brahmins - Asanga, Vasubandha and Nagarjuna et al.
Nāgārjuna (c. 150 – c. 250 CE) is widely considered one of the most important Buddhist philosophers - he was a South Indian Brahmin. Along with his disciple Āryadeva another Brahmin, he is considered the founder of the Madhyamika school of Mahāyāna Buddhism.
Asanga was the founder of the Yogacara, or Consciousness-Only, School of Mahāyāna Buddhism. The oldest of three sons, all called Vasubandhu, born in Purusapura (Peshwar) who were members of the Kausika family of Hindu Brahmins.
Buddhaghosha - the most important 5th century Theravada scholar was a Brahmin and an accomplished Vedic scholar.
The list goes on - so the question for those zealous schismatics is how can Buddhism be radically different from Brahmanism when the great founder acharyas were all highly erudite Brahmins schooled in Vedas and Vedānta, Sanskrit, Logic, debate and all the other Vedic sciences.
Buddhism and Hinduism in general are inseparable - they have cross-pollinated each other for 2000 years and are intricately linked. Both consist of dozens of different sects and creeds - some of which are identical to each other and some of which are radically different - but at the foundational level they are linked through Brahmanism.
Buddhism is “Brahmanism” for Export.
Lalitavistara(306.13–19) says:Why, monks, did the bodhisattva examine [his future] family? Bodhisattvas are not born into inferior (hina) families, neither into candala families, nor bamboo-worker families, cartwright families, nor pukkasa families. Instead, they are born into only two families: brahmana families and ksatriya families.
There are 29 Buddhas of Theravada. 16 are Ksatriyas and 13 Bramhins. Buddhism was an elite religion. These days myth is going on as if Buddhism is social revolution
The metaphysics of Buddhism were worked out by people like Shantideva, Atisa, Nagarjuna, Bodhi-Dharma and all the other many theoreticians. This is the reason why there are so many different schools of Buddhism, like Theravāda, Mahāyāna, Yogācāra, Madhyāmika etc.
The majority of Buddha’s disciples and the founders of the Buddhist Church were Brahmins - this is a fact which no Buddhist scholar denies. Please do your own research. And since they were all highly learned Brahmins steeped in their Vedic culture - what are the chances that their teachings, conducted, practice, language etc. would by influenced by that conditioning?
read the texts - they all state quite clearly who they were. They came from the Brahmin community - they may have abandoned their caste but they brought their cultural baggage with them.
What Buddha preached is no different to what the Sages of the Upanishads preached.
Did Hinduism take the doctrines of rebirth and karma from Buddhism since there is no mention of them in the Veda Samhita?
There is a tendency among some politically motivated Neo-Buddhists to claim that Buddhism and Hinduism (originally known as Brahmanism at the time of the Buddha) to be completely separate religions with Hindus having plagiarised everything good from Buddhism.
I think it is important to remember that Jainism, Brahmanism and Buddhism along with many other sects and movements like the Sramana (Wanderers) and Charvaka (atheists) all lived in the same country and interacted with each other both in terms of exchange of goods and services as well as intellectually. The majority of the senior disciples of the Buddha were from either the Brahmin or Kshatriya community. So one can compare the movements to political parties in a modern democracy - all of them share basic ideologies and policies and borrow and modify each others policies according to circumstances. This is called cultural-exchange and ideological cross-pollination.
All three traditions:– Jains, Buddhists, Brahmins - accepted Rebirth (punar-bhava - or “repeated becoming”) and Karma as their basic foundational doctrines. So coming to the question - did the Buddhists or the Brahmins formulate it first because they are not mentioned in the Veda Samhita?
Indeed, as far as I know there is nothing clearly said about Rebirth & Karma in the Rig Veda but Kiron-ji or Ram Abloh will be able to clarify this.
But the twin doctrines are clearly mentioned in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad which is from the Sukla Yajur Veda.
The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad was in all likelihood composed in the earlier part of 1st millennium BCE, around 700 BCE, give or take a century or so, according to Patrick Olivelle. And therefore pre-Buddhist.
Here is the verbatim quote on REBIRTH - clearly stating that rebirth can take place among gods - even like Prajapati and Brahma, ancestors or any other sentient being.
And here is the teaching on KARMA
So doing the simple math we can establish without a doubt that REBIRTH and KARMA were commonly held doctrines of the Brahmins at the very least 200 years before the birth of Shakya Muni (who’s family were themselves Brahmanists).
Does Vajrayana Buddhism have a Hindu influence?
What part of which Buddhism does not have Hinduism influence?
This should be the question and the answer is None.
Vajrayana has a stamp of Tantric school of Hinduism. Mahayana in general is near to Puranic Hinduism and Thedavada just focuses on areas which were already taught in Upnishads which precede Buddha by many centuries.
Buddha did not go against any Hindu teaching. His teaching is same as Advaita Vedanta of Upnishads which are part of Vedas.
He just emphasized spiritual over rituals and clarified what he called “Akalika Dhamma" (Timeless Doctrine) in Pali language. According to the Buddhist scholar T. W. Rhys Davids:
-K N Jayatilleke (2013). Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge. Routledge (pp. 369–37)
Not all Hindus worship him. Only those believing in Puranas treat him as Avatar.
Vedantins just consider him an enlightened sage .
Irrespective, he is respected by all Hindus.
Addendum:
Why did Hinduism not spread like Christianity and Islam?
It didn’t want to.
Christianity and Islam are actually the odd ones out here. They are the only religions in history, at least of any significant size (excluding small cults that never much impacted history), that claimed to be the “one true religion” which everyone else must be converted to. Thus their followers put great efforts into this, including criminalizing the practice of other religions (within just a few decades of Christianity converting the Roman Emperor) and conducting major military invasions across various continents for the express purpose of spreading their religions. No non-Abrahamic religion has ever done anything like that, certainly not on anything close to such a scale (I would mostly give Judaism a pass except that their own scriptures claim they genocidally exterminated the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, Amalekites, and Midianites for explicitly religious reasons - but at least they stopped such practices over two thousand years ago, and it still never approached the sheer scale of Christianity and Islam’s widespread conquests).
Most other religions throughout history have been content to coexist with others. Hinduism’s ancient scriptures contain some implicit and even explicit statements that other religions have spiritual validity too. But it’s not as though this is some special property of Hinduism. It is simply the case that no other religion besides Christianity and Islam has ever attempted to spread itself the way those two have. The nearest exception is Buddhism, which did send out a lot of missionaries to spread itself (quite successfully), but mostly just in a spirit of sharing teachings that they’d found valuable rather than methodically attempting to convert everyone due to specific doctrinal reasons.
Also, I wonder if you realize how much Hinduism did spread, mainly through trade and adoption by local kings:
What is the view of Buddha on caste system?
Nowadays it is increasing common with the Navayānis especially, to drive a wedge between Hinduism and Buddhism by contrasting Buddha’s alleged rejection of the caste system with the oppressive and discriminatory social practices of Hinduism.
Buddha never “rejected” the caste system because it was the social arrangement of his day - he merely emphasised that it should be a merit-based system and not birth-based.
Buddha’s libertarian and anti-establishment views on caste are echoed repeatedly and frequently in the Hindu literature as well. The difference being - Buddha’s views were adopted in toto by his followers and non-discrimination was practiced in admitting members of all castes to the Sangha. But within the Hindu collective, conservatism and liberalism continued to contest with each other - due no doubt to the multiplicity of gurus and their divergent views. There was only one primary Buddha Sangha but hundreds of Hindu Sanghas.
Some examples:–
Mahābhārata.
Who is a true brāhmaṇa?
Mahābhārata
Discourse on Brāhmanas from Vana Parva section 205
Compare with the Buddha’s discourse on Brāhmanas from the Dhammapada chapter 26.
Dhammapada 26. The Chapter about Brahmins
Why is the future Buddha Maitreya predicted to be born in a pious Hindu Brahmin family? I thought they were different and independent religions. Why will he not be born in a Buddhist family?
To answer the first question, well, why not ask the Buddha-to-be Maitreya himself?
In the Pali Buddhist text, Amatarasadhārā, Maitreya, presently in Tuṣita heaven (a heavenly abode from whence descend Buddhas and Bodhisattvas) is pondering over his next birth as the Buddha. He's deciding his birth place and time, his mom and dad (and their caste), etc.
He, for some unknown reason, decides that Buddhas are not born in any continent except jambudvīpa (India), so he chooses Ketumatī (vārāṇasī) as his birth place. (One could ask why Buddhas are not so fond of other nations!).
Next, when choosing his parents, he ponders:
Having pondered, Maitreya decides it's gotta be a brahmin family and he specifically chooses one for himself:
So, his mom and dad are both brahmins, Subrahmā and Brahmavatī, by name. The mother especially is said to be very chaste.
In the next passages, Maitreya dies and is reborn in the womb of Brahmavatī, who after 10 months of pregnancy, gives birth to him while standing below a tree.
So, to answer your question:
Why is the future Buddha Maitreya predicted to be born in a pious Hindu Brahmin family?
It's not specifically about faith or religion. It's about caste and racial “purity”. Brahmins can be Buddhists and śūdras can be Buddhists but Buddhas are not born to Sūdras, even if they're Buddhists by faith. Clearly, it's more about caste “purity” and much less about religious philosphies.
That Buddhas are always born in high-caste brahmin or kṣatriya families could be ascertained not only from examples of Buddhas themselves [1] but also from several other Buddhist scriptures:
And in the 25th chronicle of Buddha Vaṃsa:
[1] All Buddhas and their castes:
Hare Kṛṣṇa!
The division between Buddhism and Hinduism I would suggest is a colonial construct.
Throughout the whole of Asia, the Dharma religions have lived intermingled together and have constantly been exchanging ideas and techniques. They could be distinguished only by their clergy who wore slightly different robes, but the common people made no distinction - they would visit each others temples and attend each other ceremonies. Kings would patronise the clergy of all sects.
In Buddhism the monastery is central, in Hinduism the household is central. Buddhism does not have a lot to offer the householders except teachings and meditative techniques. For their worldly affairs such as birth, marriage, success in life, warding off evil etc. the common people would still use the Brahmins or lay elders who would perform a ceremony based on the Hindu tradition.
“conversion” is an Abrahamic thing.
In order to become a Buddhist all one does is say 3 times; “I take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma (teaching) and the Sangha” (community of believers or monks) without actually changing ones social circumstances, one just adds an icon of the Buddha to one’s family altar and starts practicing the 5 precepts.
All of these are also taught in Hindu Dharma - so how does the socio-spiritual status of one who “converts” to LAY Buddhism change. The only real difference is if one becomes a monk which is what the essential teaching of the Buddha is all about.
Buddhist laymen and women worship the same gods as the Hindus and involve their blessings, visit each other’s temples, perform the same types of rituals, eat the same type of food, listen to the same type of music, watch the Mahabharata and Ramayana plays and dramas together - in other words nothing changes other than one’s personal devotion and perhaps the intensity of one’s personal practice of the five precepts and a more dedicated meditation practice.
And so since there was no clear cut and remarkable differentiation - with the destruction of the great monasteries and temples and the slaughter of the monastics - the people just reverted to the common denominator which was what is called today “Hinduism” but in those days was just “Sanātana Dharma”.
In Hindu India all religions flourished - from the earliest foreigners - the Greeks, Zoroastrians, the Jews, Christians, Muslims all migrated to India and found the welcome mat out.
India has always been a multi-cultural and diverse society and of course like every country in the world there have been internal conflicts, skirmishes and wars but Hindus have never waged a “religious” war with the intent of converting others - since conversation was never a Hindu “thing”.
Some people nowadays will point to the sporadic Hindu-Buddhist conflicts and claim that Hindus forced Buddhism out of India.
I personally think there is very little truth to this, because the decline of Buddhism was not primarily due to out of the ordinary persecution by Pushyamitra Shunga in the 2nd century BCE Historical evidence about the persecution of Buddhism in ancient India is missing or unsubstantiated; colonial era writers and Marxist historians have used mythical folk stories to construct a part of ancient Buddhist “history” and class struggle and persecution.
On the whole Hindus, Buddhists and Jains have lived together in peace for the best part of 2 millennia and have welcomed people of other faiths and creeds.
Is Hinduism a religion of peace? Why? Is it possible for Hindus to live peacefully with other religions?
Hinduism never describes itself as a “Religion of Peace” - it is just a way of life that believes totally in the the concept of LIVE AND LET LIVE. In other words Hindus don’t care about what other people worship or how they do it, as long as no one else is disturbed thereby.
We do our thing and welcome others do do their thing and hopefully we can not only tolerate, but support and nurture each other at the same time.
In Hindu India all religions flourished - from the earliest foreigners - the Greeks, Zoroastrians, the Jews, Christians, Muslims all migrated to India and found the welcome mat out.
India has always been a multi-cultural and diverse society and of course like every country in the world there have been internal conflicts, skirmishes and wars but Hindus have never waged a “religious” war with the intent of converting others - since conversation was never a Hindu “thing”.
Some people nowadays will point to the sporadic Hindu-Buddhist conflicts and claim that Hindus forced Buddhism out of India.
I personally think there is very little truth to this, because the decline of Buddhism was not primarily due to out of the ordinary persecution by Pushyamitra Shunga in the 2nd century BCE Historical evidence about the persecution of Buddhism in ancient India is missing or unsubstantiated; colonial era writers and Marxist historians have used mythical folk stories to construct a part of ancient Buddhist “history” and class struggle and persecution.
On the whole Hindus, Buddhists and Jains have lived together in peace for the best part of 2 millennia and have welcomed people of other faiths and creeds.
Did only Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya Upanishads predate Buddhism, as claimed by some scholars?
Ram Abloh
Hindu, studied Veda (incl. Upanishads), Vedanta, Gita2y
I don’t know who these “scholars” are and how only Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya have been chosen.
All the Vedic Upanishads pre-date Buddha and hence Buddhism.
Mahidasa Aitareya is referenced in Chandogya Up. 3.16.7 “एतद्धस्म वै तद्विद्वानाह महिदास ऐतरेयः”. Hence, the entire corpus of Vedic texts revealed by him are more ancient than Chandogya Up. — these are Aitareya Brahmana and Aitareya Aranyaka (from which 3 chapters are extracted as “Upanishad”).
Ishavasya Up. is the 40th chapter of the Vajasaneyi Samhita, hence it is of equal or greater antiquity as compared with Brhadaranyaka Up.
Likewise, all the Upanishads which are organic parts of a Samhita, Brahmana or Aranyaka text, are ancient and pre-Buddha. These are:
Please see this answer for detailed reasoning why these Upanishads are more ancient than Buddha:
Were Upanishads later embedded to the Vedas?
Ram Abloh
Hindu, studied Veda (incl. Upanishads), Vedanta, Gita7y
The Upanishads that have a tradition of being an integral part of a particular Veda are only few in number, as some answers have said.
I had written an answer listing the major Upanishads and their location in the Vedas:
ईश केन कठा प्रश्न मुण्ड माण्डूक्य तैत्तिरी ।
ऐतरेयं च छान्दोग्यं बृहदारण्यकं दशम् ॥
“Isha kena kaThA prashna muNDa mANDUkya taittirI;
aitareyam ca chAndogyam bRhadAraNyakam dasham.”
These are the 10 Upanishads that actually form integral parts of Vedic texts (i.e. samhitA, brAhmaNam or AraNyakam):
Other than these, two more are considered ancient and authoritative:
So you see, most of these Upanishads are prose texts that naturally form part of the other Vedic prose texts, the brAhmaNas and AraNyakas. These prose texts have always been considered as the first commentaries on the Veda samhitAs (i.e. the metrical verses). The prose texts form an integral part of the definition of a Veda.
The word “upaniShat” itself means a secret or hidden meaning. This would not make sense unless there is something else that the Upanishad is referring to. In other words, what is the Upanishad an inner meaning of? The answer is: Veda samhitA mantras. The existence of the Upanishad implies the pre-existence of the Veda samhitA, of which the Upanishad is said to be the hidden meaning. So the Upanishad is an integral part of the Veda to fully understand the meaning of the Veda.
It cannot be said that the Upanishad came later than the Veda samhitA. The assumption is that the “original” came before the “commentary” as is usually seen in the world. However, if you look at the Krishna Yajur Veda, the Taittiriya samhitA is already a mixture of verse and prose. So the “original” and the “commentary” go hand-in-hand like a convenient guide book. So the discussions recorded in the Upanishads were most probably happening at the same time that the rishis were composing the mantras that went into the Veda samhitAs. This is why Taittiriya Upanishad says, “eShA vedopaniShat (एषा वेदोपनिषत्)” — “This is the secret meaning of the Veda”.
The arrangement into separate parts is only for convenience of study and application.
To give a modern analogy, the Veda samhitA is like the chemistry textbook, with the theoretical expositions and the chemical equations. The commentaries (brAhmaNam, AraNyakam, upaniShat) are like notes and special instructions given by the professor only in the chemistry lab when doing experiments. Without reading the textbook, a student cannot go and do experiments in the lab. But, without the special instructions in the lab to do the experiments, the student will not understand the theories in the textbook. Both of them go hand-in-hand.
Similarly, Veda samhitA and Upanishad go hand-in-hand.
What are the evidences for and against Bhagavad Gita and many Upanishads being written/told after Buddha's period?
This question previously had details. They are now in a comment.
Ram Abloh
Hindu, studied Veda (incl. Upanishads), Vedanta, Gita7y
One major clue to look for in the Upanishads is the way the system of yajna is incorporated. Among Buddha’s main effects was to denigrate yajna.
All the major classical Vedic Upanishads highly revere the concept and institution of yajna. All the key philosophical teachings and symbolism are expressed in the language of yajna.
For example:
This shows that the majority of the Upanishad teachings were prevalent before the time of Buddha. Even in the case of Mundaka Upanishad which is sharply critical of the yajna (“plavA hyete adRDhA yaj~narUpAh”), the context is very important. The Upanishad only criticizes the mere physical ritual, but not the philosophy behind it. The same text later says that the Vedas and the yajnas all originated from this great Atman (“tasmAdRcah sAma yajUmShi dIkShA yaj~nAshca sarve kratavo dakShiNAshca”), and in the end it says that this secret knowledge should only be taught to a wise person learned in the Veda and performing the yajnas according to prescription (“kriyAvantah shrotriyA brahmaniShThA svayam juhvata ekarShim shraddhayantah”).
The second sign that Upanishads are pre-Buddhist is the fact that none of them ever doubt the ultimate reality of the Atman. It is the basis of all Vedic philosophy. On the other hand, Buddhist philosophy has been shaky on that concept, and has gone to the extreme of “anAtma” (i.e. no Atman).
A third clue is that the Upanishads do not strongly advocate sannyAsa i.e. renunciation and seclusion from worldly affairs. Most of the students and teachers in the Upanishads are either married with family (“householders” gRhastha), or kings, or unmarried students. Every one of them is engaged in the world and is only trying to find the ultimate knowledge. Brhadaranyaka is probably the earliest text to talk about giving up the desire for children, wealth and fame (“putraiShaNA, vittaiShaNA, lokaiShaNA”) but the overall tone is not strongly monastic. On the other hand, Buddhism never had any serious influence on laypeople. If you had to become a serious Buddhist, you had to become a monk and join the monastery. The laypeople still worshiped Buddha along with the other gods. So Buddhism was all about seclusion from the world.
Bhagavad Gita is a very unique text in Hindu sacred literature. We can clearly see a significant echo of Katha Upanishad in the Gita, sometimes as directly as identical verses. The core Vedic philosophy of the Atman is resonant. The Gita is unique in its further development of ideas that were in germ form in the Upanishads. For example, selfless action without expectation of results (“karma yoga”) is already mentioned in Isha Upanishad (“tena tyaktena bhu~njIthAh”). Bhakti is hinted at in Katha and Mundaka when they say that the Atman is only attained by people who are chosen by him (“yamevaiSha vRNute tena labhyah”). This is elaborated further in the Gita. There is no tinge of the Buddhistic renunciation and seclusion from the world. In fact, by showing the impermanence of the material world and the permanence of the spirit, Krishna wants Arjuna to actively perform his duty for the good of the world. The institution of yajna is still highly important, and the Gita has reinterpreted it in some very progressive ways. There is no evidence of incorporation or criticism of specifically Buddhist doctrines.
Subsequent literature, though, shows that Buddhism had done some damage. Brahma Sutra has some strong arguments to fortify Vedic philosophy against heretical systems such as Buddhism. The Vishnu Purana mentions Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu specifically aimed at misleading wicked people away from the Vedic path. And clearly teachers such as Adi Shankara made it one of their missions to minimize the influence of Buddhism.
TEMPLE RELATED ISSUES -
Was the Jagannath temple in Puri previously a Buddhist temple?
Seven Reasons why Jagannath Temple cannot be Buddhist Temple.
1). Temple Architecture is in Nagara- Style while Buddhist Stupas do not use Nagara style architecture.
2). In Hinayana Buddhism there is no concept of Temples and Diety. This is enough to prove that Puri Jagannath cannot be Buddhist place.
3). No, Historical accounts(Epistemology) confirms that it was a Buddhist Temple.
4). Post Ashoka’s Kalinga War, Kalinga(Odia) remained a predominantly Hindu(Polytheistic and Vaishnava) religion until Gajapatis. So, It’s next to impossible to prove it as Buddhist Shrine.
5). Konark Temple and Puri Jagannath Temple share some close resemblance from architectural stand point. They also share similarities from Theological standpoint while Buddhism is purely Atheistic religion(with No supreme God being constituted in Buddhism)
6). Majority rulers of Orissa State(from Ancient times) were Hindus and predominently Polytheists.
List of rulers of Odisha - Wikipedia
The land of Odisha or former Kalinga has undergone several changes in terms of its boundaries since ancient ages. It was also known by different names like Odra Desha , Kalinga , Hirakhanda, Mahakantara or Utkala in different eras. Unlike other ancient kingdoms in India, Odisha for most part of the History remained a stable and major power till medieval era due to widespread martial culture and prosperity brought by successive native ruling dynasties. The year 1568 is considered a turning point in the history of Odisha. In 1568, Kalapahad invaded the state. This, aided by internal conflicts, led to a steady downfall of the state from which it did not recover. Kalinga kingdom (c. 1100–261 BCE) [ edit ] According to political scientist Sudama Misra, the Kalinga janapada originally comprised the area covered by the Puri and Ganjam districts. [ 1 ] Kalinga dynasty (I) (c. 1100–700 BCE) [ edit ] According to Mahabharata and some Puranas , the prince 'Kalinga' founded the Kalinga kingdom , in the current day region of coastal Odisha , including the North Sircars. [ 2 ] [ 3 ] The Mahabharata also mentions one 'Srutayudha' as the king of the Kalinga kingdom, who joined the Kaurava camp. [ 4 ] In the Buddhist text, Mahagovinda Suttanta, Kalinga and its ruler, 'Sattabhu', have been mentioned. [ 5 ] Known rulers are- King Kalinga, (founder of Kalinga kingdom ) King Odra, (founder of Odra kingdom ) Srutayudha Srutayush Manimat Chitrangada Subahu Virasena Sudatta Nalikira Yavanaraj Dantavakkha or Dantavakhra (c. 9th century BCE) Avakinnayo Karakandu (c. late 9th to early 8th century BCE) Vasupala (c. 8th century BCE) Kalinga dynasty (II) (c. 700–350 BCE) [ edit ] This dynasty is mentioned in Chullakalinga Jataka and Kalingabodhi Jataka . The last ruler of the first Kalinga dynasty is said to have broken away from the Danda kingdom along with the kings of Asmaka and Vidarbha as its feudal states, and established rule of second Kalinga dynasty. Known rulers are Other or late Kalinga rulers according to Dāṭhavaṃsa are [ clarification needed ] This was probably another dynasty or late rulers of Second Kalinga dynasty, which is mentioned in Dāṭhavaṃsa . Known rulers are Brahmadatta (c. 6th – 5th century BCE) Sattabhu Kasiraja Sunanda Guhasiva Suryavamsha of Kalinga (c. 350–261 BCE) [ edit ] Known rulers are- Brahmaadittiya (c. 4th century BCE) His son, prince 'Soorudasaruna-Adeettiya' (sudarshanāditya) was exiled and as per Maldivian history , established the first kingdom the Kingdom of Dheeva Maari and laid the foundation of the Adeetta dynasty. [ 6 ] After Kalinga War (261 BCE), Kalinga kingdom became a part of Mauryan Empire , after which Kalinga kingdom was succeeded by Mahameghavahana Empire between 230–190 BCE which ruled till 350 CE. [ 8 ] Kalinga under Magadha Empire (c. 345–225 BCE) [ edit ] Under Nanda Empire (c. 345–322 BCE) [ edit ] Kalinga was believed to be briefly annexed by Mahapadma Nanda. Mahapadma Nanda (380–340 BCE) Pandhuka Panghupati Bhutapa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rulers_of_Odisha
7). Orissa was perhaps the only land in India(after Assam or NE) that remained virgin land from Mughal invaders. Orissa people were predominantly lived in Forests lands and thus they had more affiliation to Nature worship than Buddhism. Buddhism was a Religion of Elite(Kings) and some other class (until Ambedkar popularized in India). So clearly, Buddhism has no major influence in Odisha.
Further, Hindu kings in 99% of the cases never persecuted Buddhists rather they lived synthetically. Thousands and Laksh of examples are there unless you are biased with Marxist Historians fabricated History. A Buddhist is basically an estranged Hindu who is not satisfied with tenets of Vedas and pissed of with Brahminical Superiority over political core)
Were many Buddhist temples converted into Hindu temples in India?
Rami Sivan
Student of ReligionsUpvoted by Kamal Pallav
, lives in IndiaUpdated 6y
There is very little credible evidence that this has happened - if so I would like to see it.
I don’t know about North India but in South India all Hindu temples are built strictly according to the dictates of the Āgama Śāstra and have very specific requirements in terms of location, orientation, measurements, dimensions, sculptures, peripheral shrines etc.
And each temple is consecrated with elaborate rituals specific to the deity enshrined in the temple. So there is absolutely no possibility of a Buddhist temple, which has none of these requirements being turned into a Hindu temple.
Even Tirupati which some neo-Buddhists allege was once a Buddhist temple is built entirely according to the Dravidian Hindu temple architecture and we actually know who the sponsor was as his details are inscribed on the walls of the temple, so the claim is false.
There is absolutely no provision in any of the Shilpa literature of India for the renovation and transforming of a temple of one deity into that of another. Temples are purpose built, and a Shiva temple can never be used as a Vishnu temple or vice versa. People who claim this are totally ignorant of the very nature of the temple architecture and rituals associated with temple building.
P.S. One may note in passing that the biggest Hindu temple on earth Angkor Wat has been converted into a Buddhist temple.
Were many Buddhist temples converted into Hindu temples in India?
Kartik
2y
Buddhist temple were not like Hindu temples, especially in the past. Buddhist built what is called Viharas. Place where all the monks can assemble and meditate together.
Hence they had larger accommodation for various monks within and larger main hall for meditation.
While Hindu temple is a house of god. The main scantum is very tiny that cannot accommodate large crowd. It can only have floating crowd, I.e people have to see the god and leave within few min.
So if there is conversion, it would show up. We don't need to assume there were lot.
Second point was, Buddhist viharas were mostly outside the city or in isolation separating Monks and family men. While Hindu temples were typically in the center point of the city. The Hindu Gods themselves had marriage function and lot many celebrations. So the population always surrounded Hindu temples.
Monkhood was key for Buddhism. lot many Buddhist vihars crumbled to ruins when the Monkhood failed to have large intakers. The local people out of innocence could have converted the place into their known temple after centuries.
Conversion:
No doubt there were some conversion for sure. For example below cave temple is a large monk accommodations style - typically buddhist. But it host a Vishnu statue in it now, and no way it meets Hindu temple style needs.
We could see similar example of Hindu temple converted to Buddhist temple. This was typical temple with narrow/tiny scantum, not a Hall and accommodation to host many Monks. The statue was dragged out to the hall way and buddhist converted this temple as theirs.
So to answer you it is “some, Not many!”
Below is the temple the judgement speaks about.
So as I said, occasionally Buddhist vihars are converted by locals out of innocence. That could have been purely because the original Buddhist place was abandoned for over stressing monk-hood.
Without the locals, this place could have got lost to time. cause Buddhism is dead among the locals anyway!
What makes the Vedas authoritative?
Rami Sivan
Student of Religions3y
A textual source becomes “authoritative” because of community consensus.
This principle applies to ALL religions and ALL cultures.
For Jews the Tanakh is authoritative, for Christians the New Testament, for Muslims the Quran, for Zoroastrians the Zend Avesta.
For Hindus the Vedas are not authoritative in regard to matters concerning the material word but only regarding metaphysics and axiology (Dharma).
The outstanding difference in Hindu epistemology is the principle that the “authoritative text” cannot contradict empiricism and reason. So if any verse in the Veda contradicts science - it is to be rejected.
I do not think the other religions have this freedom and imperative of cherry-picking which we have.
Is it true that Nalanda University was destroyed by the Indian Brahmins?
Rami Sivan
Hindu Priest, Yoga-Vedanta teacher, registered nurse.10mo
No. This was propaganda on the part of the Tibetans writers.
Do you really think that PROPAGANDA is a modern invention? And that the ancients only spoke the truth? There has always been rivalry between different sects in India and every part of the world and they have all maligned and denigrated their opposition and published lies about them.
In Europe the Jews were accused of sacrificing Christian children and using their blood to make the unleavened bread used during passover. And this monstrous lie was believed for centuries.
This is the description of what allegedly happened.
Now it is important to remember that Nalanda was the project of Raja Kumara Gupta who was a Vaishnavite Hindu. When several of the famous Chinese monks like Xuangzang visited and studied at Nalanda is was during the reign of Raja Harshavardhana (590–647 CE) another Hindu Shaivite who was a great patron of Nalanda. And every branch of Hindu science and knowledge were taught there along with the Buddhist lore. The language of instruction was Sanskrit and the great library contained hundreds and thousands of Sanskrit works - both Hindu and Buddhist.
Hindus regard books as embodiments of Saraswati so the idea that 2 Tirthika (Hindu) mendicants would get so angry that they would go off and spend 12 years propitiating the Sun and then come back to perform a yajña and then throw the embers into the library to burn it down is absolutely absurd!! Why destroy the library and not the culprits themselves?
Who remains so angry for 12 years because of being doused with washing-water?
So the only conclusion is this is anti-Hindu propaganda by the Tibetans who were very good at this type of thing - depicting their Boddhisattvas and deities standing on or dispatching Hindu gods.
https://www.kamakotimandali.com/2021/04/30/buddhist-depiction-of-hindu-deities/
This one depicts the Tibetan deity Vighnantaka standing over a defeated and vanquished Ganesha (Vighnaraja)
So when reading any medieval Tibetan Buddhist texts about Brahmins and Hinduism one needs to be extremely skeptical.
On the other hand Muslim conquerors of India have not been known for their appreciation of pagan books and gleefully engaged in destroying monasteries, temples and images. Why would a Muslim iconoclast destroy temples, ashrams and monasteries but leave a library intact especially such a massive one.
So apply Ocam’s razor and the conclusion is Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khalji did the dastardly act and not 2 irate and vengeful Brahmin sadhus. All historians agree that Khalji's invasions of the India between A.D. 1197 and 1206 led to mass flight and massacres of monks, and utterly destroyed the traditional Buddhist institutions of higher learning in Northern India. In Bengal, Khalji's reign was responsible for the displacement of Buddhism which was centred on those monasteries and universities of higher learning.
Buddha and Tirthankaras never started a ‘separate religion’ and were just Indian gurus, giving Deeksha to all those who wanted to follow them, but not asking for any religious conversion?
Are Vajrayana and Mahayana Buddhism copied from Hinduism? Because their metaphysics and theories have no basis in Lord Buddha's core doctrine?
Supayan Chakma Gautam
A non-religious Buddhist Updated 2y
Mahayana Buddhism is nothing but a result of interaction between Buddhism and Hinduism. Hinduism in Mahayana Buddhism:
Why I can't practice Theravada and Mahayana, both types of Buddhism?
Bhikkhu Vimala
Former PhD Candidate of Buddhist Psychology Updated Jul 20
No one can do it!
Both ideologies are so far apart, so different and conflicting in both study and practice that one cannot remedy the discrepancy.
Theravada is a way of life which focus on human-centered practices in three steps: Generosity - Morality - Meditation. Clear and simple. However it requires lots of mental control and mental disciplines, thus it’s difficult but you harvest sure benefits.
Mahayana is a cumbersome system of deity-centered
[1]
, feel-good[2]
[3]
conflicting theories[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
with only praying and chanting[8]
to mysterious boddhisattvas[9]
and buddhas[10]
(with the only two exceptions of a. a cross- bred- btw- Taoism- and- Mahayana Zen which centralized on meditation, but it’s died 60 years ago in China and b. a long long lost Vijñanavāda Buddhism). It’s easy, you don’t need to practice anything beside praying and chanting. But easy come, easy go. And your ego is definitely inflated since according to their belief, it doesn’t take much to become a buddha!
There have been attempts to merge these two huge systems (with Mahayana is much more cumbersome), and because they are huge, one can hardly master one system even if one dedicates one’s lifetime to study one school only, let alone two.
There is one school that called themselves Buddhism in Vietnam (but otherwise denied as Buddhism in the world) whose late founder combined the two systems in the 1950s named “Khat Si” meaning mendicant. He had used to be a Mahayana monk until his glorious idea of merging came up. The twist here is he set up his own rules of only 250 articles, instead of following the Monastic code practiced by Theravada (with 273 articles), Mahayana and Tibetan Buddhism. He gave his followers pretty freedom in dressing choices between Theravada robe or Chinese Mahayana clothes, and study both sides’ scriptures to one’s liking.
He himself vanished into the thin air literally shortly after all this. His believers, among several other conspiracy theories, hold that he was an out-of-earth being, and after the accomplishment, he went back to the heaven where he belonged (?).
Minh Dang Quang, the founder of “Khat Si”
Because of this break away from Buddhism’s traditions, Khat Si is not accepted as a Buddhism school in the world.
Result of such leeway in practice and study? Its monks don’t really study anything at all. They all become free construction workers as this school attracts some wealthy donors in the south of Vietnam and they want to show off by building very large temples; They use their own monks and nuns as the sole source of free labor.
This is this school’s temple in Saigon.
I asked a few monks of this school why they bothered becoming monks and toiling away, because being lay and working hard, at least they were compensated financially, and they didn't know how to respond; Some monks who converted to Theravada or Mahayana hate their origin so much a mere reminder of this send them to rage.
Such is a sad tale of the innovative idea to combine Theravada and Mahayana.
Maybe you can do better practicing both of them? Be my guest!
Why is Mahayana a distorted sect of Buddhism as seen in Theravada?
Supayan Chakma Gautam
A non-religious Buddhist Updated 2y
Buddha didn’t teach the Mahayana way. Many of what Mahayanist practice were not taught by Buddha. As follows:
Buddha never taught that one should suspend one’s own enlightenment to help others (Mahayana Buddhism)
Buddha never taught that enlightenment can happen by chanting (Nichiren Buddhism)
Buddha never taught idol worshiping is related to liberation (Mahayana and Vajrayana)
Buddha never taught that another Buddha can rescue beings and send them to a heavenly place (Pure Land Buddhism)
Note that Vajrayana, Pureland, Nichiren these are sub schools of Mahayana.
Now let’s point out some of the core aspects of Mahayana practice, how these are different from Buddha’s teachings:
The Bodhisatta vow goes
Now if you first don’t achieve Nibbana (enlightenment) how can you teach others the righteous dhamma helping them liberated?
Buddha himself didn’t intend to liberate all beings (as it depends on one’s capability of comprehending the dhamma), how can you intend to liberate all beings? Isn’t it an impossible task to take which actually hinders to achieve Nibbana forever?
Mahayana fundamentally says
So why not you all renounce home and seek for Buddhahood just like Siddhattha did?
Now you would say in the past many have already become monk. Well, so how many became fully enlightened Buddha? Validating it how many preached the Dhamma with the same potential of the historical Buddha? (Answer both: None)
Paradoxical error of Mahayana vow
Buddha attained Buddhahood and gifted his teaching to help the beings liberated. Now one refuses(!) to be liberated, pretending to the sake of helping others. Suppose he also got Buddhahood (samma sambuddha-hood). But if others also refuse to be liberated for pretending to help others liberated? It seems one gets enlightenment for helping others but it ridiculously ends up being liberated only oneself. Isn’t it an ignorance toward Buddhas teaching?
Buddha’s last advice
Buddha’s teaching is already available to save the beings. You just need to follow it for your own salvation. And if you really seek for helping others liberating then the vow should’ve been “just preach it!” Which is exactly what the Theravadins do.
As soon as the Mahayana reformers named its father sect of practice as Hinayana, a derogatory term meaning “inferior vehicle” in order to promote themselves over it, showed a great “disrespect” and “misconception” towards Buddha's teaching. That anyone following Buddha’s teaching to become a fully enlightened savaka-buddha is inferior. Theravada isn't indeed just a way of enlightened “savaka-buddhas” (Arahants). It says about three types of Buddhahood- pacceka-buddha, samma-sambuddha and savaka-buddha. Three different streams falling into the one and the same certain destination- Nibbana.
Buddhism emphasizes to live in the present and to make the best of it. If anyone is living in the hope for an uncertain future, it only means that they ain't in fact giving up the desire world. The vow of Mahayana is nothing but a cultural misconception which very hypocritically cheats people restraining from seeking for Nibbana, the ultimate goal of enlightening, end of all sufferings.
What different views do Theravada and Mahayana Buddhists have about Buddha?
Supayan Chakma Gautam
A non-religious Buddhist Updated 1y
Is there any rivalry between Buddhism and Hinduism?
Maria Wirth
living in India for 45 years. check my blog mariawirth.com5y
Buddha was a Hindu and he didn’t promote “Buddhism”. Emperor Ashoka, who was born a few centuries later, promoted Buddhism. He wanted his subjects to follow what Buddha had taught and what was compiled in some councils, also long after Buddha’s death.
The story goes that Ashoka felt so much repentance and pity after a cruel war that he converted to Buddhism. This story may not be true. Another version says that, as he had killed his brother to get to the throne, he was excommunicated by a Brahmin council and as a reaction he declared himself a Buddhist.
Whatever may be the reason, fact is, to push a new faith onto people, it needs force (which he used, especially against Jains and Brahmins) plus the claim that the new faith is better than the previous one. Christianity and Islam repeated this a few centuries later with for humanity grave consequences. Luckily Buddhism didn’t have such negative outcome, as Buddha was a Hindu whose teaching didn’t divide humanity into those who are saved and those who are damned, depending if they believed in him or not. Moreover, most Indians reverted back to Hinduism after a few centuries, and others were killed in the brutal Muslim invasion, yet Buddhism survived in other countries in Asia.
Today we can observe that Buddhists usually insist that theirs is a different religion, whereas Hindus don’t see much difference and even consider Buddha as one of their avatars. Buddhists promote only Buddha, whereas Hindus have so many sages to choose from.
Buddhists try to find and are taught “differences” to justify their claim that Buddhism is a separate religion.
From my own experience:
Long ago, in 1985, I had a chance to meet the Dalai Lama together with two German friends. When the Dalai Lama noticed that I was more into Hinduism than Buddhism, he asked me a question: “Do you think that the concept of Atma in Hinduism makes a difference to Buddhism?”
“No”, I replied. “The Upanishads clearly state that Atma is Brahma(n).” Means, there is no separate entity in this universe, all is the one Consciousness, Brahman.
A few weeks later I met the head of the Sakya sect of Tibetan Buddhism and I asked the Lama: “What is the difference between Hinduism and Buddhism?”
His immediate reply was “The concept of Atma”.
That’s what monks probably are taught.
It means there is a slight rivalry, in some cases even a massive rivalry. For example I read once very negative comments on Hinduism by a Sri Lankan Buddhist monk. He was then asked, “But isn’t Hinduism the mother of Buddhism?” His reply was: “Even a bad mother can have a good son”. I remember it because it shocked me.
So there is rivalry, but only from the Buddhists’ side, because they need to justify why they are not one of the many branches in Hinduism, but a separate religion altogether. If they wanted, Hinduism will happily integrate them as one more branch.
Why was Buddhism successful in challenging Brahmin power?
Rami Sivan
Student of Religions5y
Brahmin power is a fiction - India was always ruled by kings not priests. Buddha himself was a scion of a royal family as were many other sages and enlightened beings.
Buddhism was never a political movement - it was about achieving freedom from suffering not about power and prestige.
Buddha like many of his contemporaries among the Hindus and the Jain challenged many of the philosophical positions of each other but socially lived in cooperation and harmony.
Why is Hinduism (Brahminism) incompatible with democracy?
Rami Sivan
Student of Religions5y
This is a false assumption because all Hindus live perfectly well and happily in democracies other than in England, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba, Jordan, Morocco, Libya, Turkmenistan and Iraq.
All the major world religions started off as theocracies with a governance wing as well as a religious wing and all religions except Islam now have a division between Church and State.
Brahminism was married to Kshatrism - the Brahmins ruled the spiritual world while the Kshatriyas ruled the mundane world - the two arms of the state worked in harmony and cooperation. Hinduism was never a theocracy in the sense that legislation derived from God since there were no “Divine Laws,” and it is common sense that society changes and progresses, and laws too will need to change and develop.
The King was always regarded ideally as an incarnation of Vishnu - like in modern Thailand - but this did not prevent them from being deposed when they failed to protect the people and the economy.
So Hinduism is completely compatible with democracy - and we live happily under the laws as legislated by the parliament elected by the people and we are loyal citizens of the lands to which we have migrated. God(s) Bless India, America and Australia and New Zealand and all the European democracies. Power to the people!
Can it be easy for Buddhists to forget that the first followers were the lower castes and undesirables in Indian society, lest we get too full of ourselves, and it was the low people in society that Buddha appealed to?
Ram Abloh
comparatively studied religions6y
It is the biggest falsehood perpetrated by various vested interests (such as Indian leftists, Ambedkarites, Hinduphobic western academia, etc), that Buddhism’s first followers were the “lower castes and undesirables”.
For a big part of Buddhism’s early history, the only converts were the most elite people from the uppermost castes of the time.
Buddha was able to preach and travel far and wide only because his best friends were Kshatriyas, just like him. His closest friend, king Bimbisara of Magadha, hugely patronized Buddha in his kingdom and promoted him by giving royal support and resources for travel and preaching.
When Buddha became a wandering preacher, he would take turns staying at the palaces of each of his four king friends — king Bimbisara of Magadha, king Udayana of Vatsa, king Prasenajit of Kosala, and king Brhadratha of Kashi.
Each of these kings were rulers of big empires in Buddha’s time. Although Buddha himself came from a tiny republic (Shakya) that was based on democracy, he moved away from such republics and spent most of his preaching days among monarchies, and under the patronage of the elite kings.
Buddha’s first followers were these four kings, who encouraged their subjects to follow his teachings. His closest disciple and life-long companion, Ananda, was a Brahmin. Most of his prominent disciples were Brahmins and Kshatriyas.
It is well-known that Ashoka sponsored missionaries to spread Buddhism in various countries.
So spread of Buddhism happened in a top-down model, and not a bottom-up model. It was not a grassroots movement.
Buddha was against inclusion of women in his monastic order. He refused to ordain women as nuns in parallel to men monks, because according to him, women were intellectually inferior, and would only cause disturbance and ruin the discipline of the male monks. So much for the touted “gender equality” revolt of Buddha.
When Buddha was on the last stage towards his mahAparinirvANa (death for liberation), his disciples and Shakya kinsmen asked him for some final advice. Among other things, he told his kinsmen to adhere to age-old traditions, customs and social framework. He never once said anything about disrupting the social fabric. He never once said that the so-called “lower castes” are being oppressed. He never once said that the “lower castes” must rise in revolt against “upper castes”.
There is nothing in Buddha’s teachings that promote upheaval of the social status quo of his time.
Additional reading:
When did the Buddha break away from Hinduism?
Was the Buddha a Hindu? Are Buddhists Hindus?
Did Buddha ever say he was the reincarnation of Hindu gods or the avatar of Vishnu?
Ram Abloh
comparatively studied religionsMay 31
Not directly in so many words. But indirectly, Buddha claimed that he was Rāma in a previous birth.
The Jātaka Tales are a collection of stories where Buddha describes what he claims as his previous births. In the Dasarathajātaka, there is a slightly different version of Rāma’s story as compared to Vālmīki.
In this version, Dasaratha is the king of Vārāṇasī. Rāma, Lakkhaṇa and Sītā are the children of Dasaratha from his first wife. When she dies, a younger wife becomes the queen, and Bharata is born to her. The younger queen gets a boon from Dasaratha and uses it to force him to make Bharata the next king. But he refuses, and then fearing for the safety of Rāma and Lakkhaṇa, he sends them to the forest, and Sītā their sister accompanies them.
However, at the end, when Buddha identifies the people in his present life with characters from Rāma’s life, he identifies himself with Rāma, and his wife i.e. Rāhula’s mother, with Sītā. So, instead of being brother and sister, they are husband and wife. This shows the mixing up of the original story by Vālmīki.
Original texts:
Suttapiṭaka: Khuddakanikāya: Jātaka1: Ekādasanipāta: Sattama (7th) Dasarathajātaka —
This has 13 verses (gāthās) on Rāma’s story.
1st verse —
एथ लक्खण सीता च उभो ओतरथोदकं । एवायं भरतो आह राजा दसरथो मतो ॥
13th verse —
दस वस्ससहस्सानि सट्ठि वस्ससतानि च । कम्बुगीवो महाबाहु रामो रज्जमकारयीति ॥
Aṭṭhakathā: (Suttapiṭaka): (Khuddakanikāya): Jātaka: Aṭṭhakathā 4: Ekādasakanipāta:
“एथ लक्खण सीता चा”ति इदं सत्था जेतवने विहरन्तो एकं मतपितिकं कुटुम्बिकं आरब्भ कथेसि ।
……
अतीते बाराणसियं दसरथमहाराजा नाम अगतिगमनं पहाय धम्मेन रज्जं कारेसि । तस्स सोळसन्नं इत्थिसहस्सानं जेट्ठिका अग्गमहेसी द्वे पुत्ते एकञ्च धीतरं विजायि । जेट्ठपुत्तो रामपण्डितो नाम अहोसि, दुतियो लक्खणकुमारो नाम, धीता सीता देवी नाम ।
…..
तदा दसरथमहाराजा सुद्धोदनमहाराजा अहोसि, माता महामायादेवी, सीता राहुलमाता, भरतो आनन्दो, लक्खणो सारिपुत्तो, परिसा बुद्धपरिसा, रामपण्डितो पन अहमेव अहोसिन्ति ।
See translation of Dasarathajātaka into Sanskrit:
What is it about Buddhism that Hindus do not agree with, and why?
Rami Sivan
Student of Religions5y
We don’t much disagree with Buddhism or its teachings which are by and large similar to ours. Hinduism and Buddhism are extensively cross-pollinated systems having arisen from the same fertile intellectual matrix.
The major differences centre around the abstract Self vs Non-self debate which is so arcane as to be irrelevant to daily life as lived by 99.9% of humans struggling with dukha (dis-ease, suffering, default low-level neurosis). The problem of suffering (dukha) being the pivotal focus of ALL schools of Indian Philosophy.
The proposition by both camps is that whatever we consider to be Self or a buttress to notions of self - i.e. name, form, sex, gender, race, class, nationality, qualification, relationships, interests, ideas, beliefs, thoughts etc. are all FALSE cognitive constructs and are of the nature of Spiritual nescience (avidyā) and the cause of all suffering.
This much we all whole-heartedly agree in unanimity.
The next question is where the putative disagreement lies - once all of the ego-generated self-clinging (asmitā/ahaṅkāra) is stripped away what remains? Is there a thing or is there nothing? In Vedanta it is known as the iti-neti paradox (affirmation vs denial.)
There are many different views and conjecture on the nature of the Ultimate Reality in the many schools of Hinduism and Buddhism but these arguments and debates are practically futile because both agree that the Ultimate Reality is beyond the ability of the mind to comprehend. Hence the Buddha avoided discussion on them and discouraged metaphysical speculation.
How do Buddhism and the Vedas differ in responding to matters pertaining to the self?
Rami Sivan
Hindu Priest, Yoga-Vedanta teacher, registered nurse.3y
Originally Answered: How does Buddhism and the Vedas differ in responding to matters pertaining to the self?
Both traditions address the problem of the “Self” and engage in a profound psychological analysis but come to different conclusions which are not contradictory from the ultimate perspective.
It is also important to remember there are a variety of schools and opinions with both traditions.
Simply put - both traditions accept that the Ultimate reality is unknowable and inexpressible and imponderable. Our cognitive faculties are not adequate to the task.
So we all accept that there is a provisional concept of self (vyavarārika) as long as we are embodied and passing through transmigratory phases and fully self-identified with the body-mind complex.
But what happens as we go deeper and deeper into the matter and peel away the layers of conceptual thought?
There are two approaches - via-negitiva (neti neti) or via-positiva (iti-iti)
The Buddhist scholars preferred the first approach - and so denied the ultimate existence (paramārthika) of the Self (anātman).
Advaita Vedanta generally agrees with this position.
Visiṣṭhādvaita and Dvaita schools of Vedanta prefer the second path and affirm the abidance of Self in differing degrees in Moksha.
But whatever the metaphysical speculation it must be remembered they are all approximations for a Truth we have limited powers of comprehension and articulation.
So best not to get all dogmatic and confrontational about it and focus on the four immeasurables that both Hinduism and Buddhism accept as axiomatic.
Does Buddhism deny the Atman, and did the Buddha Gautama reject it?
Rami Sivan
Student of Religions4y
Ātman (atta in Pali) can refer to self with a small “s” as in myself or Self with a capital “S” meaning you as a mode or module of consciousness.
Buddha said that whatever you can conceive of as self (ātman) is unsubstantial, in other words when you create an identify for yourself it is ephemeral and has no actual reality - all your forms of self-identity are just personas or masks that you adopt and are not really you.
Then further more in Ananda Sutta he says both those who claim there is an eternal Self (ever abiding soul) (ātmavādis = eternalists) and those that claim there is no Self (anātmvādis = annihilationists) are both wrong. The truth is in the middle way.
As long as we use pronouns ”I” and ‘my”, are embodied and have names and titles and nurture relationships and projects we are ātmavādis. The person who has realised anātmavāda becomes catatonic.
So when someone says:– “I searched everywhere within my being but could not find an ātma” - the rejoinder is:– “who was doing the looking?”
So the statement – “I am not the self” is an oxymoron.
Since Buddhist philosophy can be nullified by Adi Shankara’s Advaitha Vedanta, why do people still follow Buddhism when it’s cousin Advaitha Vedanta is similar and is more correct?
Ram Abloh
comparatively studied religions6y
It is a falsely propagated notion that Advaita is similar to Buddhist philosophy.
I can think of at least 3 fundamental differences:
Adi Shankara debated with the Buddhist scholars of his day, which was at least a 1000 years after Buddha’s time. By Shankara’s time, Buddhist philosophy had undergone extensive changes. So we cannot be entirely sure what were the points of disagreement and debate. But the gist of it is that Adi Shankara successfully proved the logical fallacy of not having a universal ultimate “observer” reality, and also strengthened the Vedic emphasis on deep subjective experience of this ultimate reality. As a result of his efforts, the majority opinion about Buddhism’s conclusions weakened.
However, these very same aspects of Buddhism might appeal to some people.
Historically speaking, it was far easier for Buddhism to float around as an independent religion, cut away from its Hindu foundation, than for Hinduism itself to spread. Buddhism grew due to royal patronage, whereas Hinduism grew organically at the grassroots level in traditionally culturally Hindu lands. So Buddhism found more support outside India. A similar situation is also found with Judaism vis-a-vis Christianity. Judaism being the parent religion, was strongly rooted in traditional Jewish lands, whereas Christianity expanded rapidly outside Israel.
How did Buddha refute the theory of Karma and rebirth as propounded in Hindu scriptures like Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas etc.?
Rami Sivan
Student of Religions2y
Buddha never did refute them.
Buddha took all the prevalent belief systems for granted - the whole package in toto - rebirth, Karma, merit, demerit, heavens, hells, gods, demigods, demons, forest spirits, dragons, goblins - even the prevailing caste hierarchy etc.
What he did challenge was the idea that liberation could be attained through rituals or through the grace of Gods, or through good deeds. But these challenges were also being articulated by many of the sages of the Upanishads. - so nothing new here.
He denounced blind beliefs, superstitions and ritual acts and the learning of the Vedas by rote without understanding the meaning, and being exceptionally learned without application. So he was a rebel but within the confines of the broader traditions.
While Advaita Vedanta believes in "atman", Buddhism denies any such thing. When two highly esteemed schools of thought differ on some point, how should a seeker interpret that point?
Rami Sivan
Student of Religions4y
It’s not all that complex - just two slightly different views of the same complex topic of IDENTITY.
All systems of Indian Philosophy seek to deconstruct identity which is viewed as the source and the pivot of duḥkha or existential dis-ease.
Who am I?
We start the deconstruction with our names and sex/gender. Are we these? no we are not - names are just lables and sex is our biological condition and gender is how we see ourselves through the social construct of gender roles.
We then state our relationships through which we construct identity - are we these? No we are not - they are merely coincidental biological, social functions and performances. They are not who we are
Then we may construct our identities through interests, hobbies, sport etc. Are we these? No we are not. They are also our performance related activities they are not who we are.
Then we can construct our identities as members of religious groups, caste/class, race etc. Are we these? No we are not, these are again belief and function related and do not describe who we really are.
We can now look within and we identify with our thoughts, knowledge, beliefs, hopes, aspirations, idealism etc. Are these who we are? No they are not - they are merely content of consciousness and do not identify who we really are.
So when we contemplate on all the ways in which we create identity, primarily through social constructions we find them all to be confected and false, thus far Hindu and Buddhist philosophies are in perfect agreement.
Then who after all am I?
Buddhism would say you are a bunch of skandhas or psychological factors and there is no intrinsic of abiding “Self” but simply a flow of consciousness.
Advaita says there IS a core abiding Self or Ātman which is provisional and supported by delusion/illusion – avidyā/māyā but in the state of Mokṣa or liberation, the Self-delusion dissolves and the only Ātman is the universal consciousness known as Brahman - it is likened to the rivers merging into the ocean of consciousness - hence the name of the system “Non-dualism”
Visiṣṭhādvaita claims that Selves (jīvātmas) are multiple innumerable individual points or modes or particles of consciousness and in mokṣa commingle in a single mass - like billions light-particles or photons mingling but not merging create a single mass of light. In other words, the individual selves, matter of the universe and God - form one single thing. Hence the name of the system is “non-dualism” qualified by “particles” — Qualified non-dualism.
Dvaita claims that jivātmas are separate and individual and remain separate from God and from matter - hence the name of the system “duality” which actually should be called “triality”.
This is the minor system of Hindu philosophy which is the closest to the monotheistic ones of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Did the Buddha honor Hinduism or reject Hinduism?
Rami Sivan
Student of ReligionsUpdated 6y
At the time of the Buddha there was no “Hinduism” there were many schools of philosophy called Darśanas (Perspectives of Reality) including materialists (cārvākas) and there were the Vaidika ceremonial practices and also the customs, practices and traditions of the various castes. The predominant “religion” of the time is referred to as “Brahmanism” by scholars. The Buddha never uses the words “Hinduism” or “Buddhism” in his teaching - he uses the word Dharma or Sanātana Dharma.
Buddha studied under gurus of the Sankhya tradition but found their teachings and practices to be unsuitable and went off on his own to meditate. After a prolonged period of austerity he obtained “enlightenment” i.e. gained insight into the nature of bondage and liberation. Most of his early disciples were Brahmins.
The Buddha repeatedly mentioned and acknowledged the Hindu Devas (especially the 33 Devas) throughout his discourses. He also mentions the Vedas but only three Vedas - the Atharva seems not to have been known. He also mentions the varnāśrama Dharma but puts Kṣatriyas first ahead of Brahmins (perhaps because he himself was a kṣatriya!) , but what he rejected was the teaching that either the Vedic rituals or the Devas could liberate us from samsāra and duḥkha or that caste was relevant to the overcoming of suffering.
He emphasized that we need to liberate ourselves and that neither rituals nor the grace of the devas could do that for us. In this respect his teachings were very much in conformity with many of the Upanishadic sages.
So the Buddha could not have rejected “Hinduism” - he spoke in the broad context of the cultural milieu of the time while accepting many of the given facets of the culture that later coalesced into modern “Hinduism.”
Both Hinduism and Buddhism were terms and divisions of colonialism. Both traditions refer to themselves as “Sanātana Dharma”.
For a snapshot of Buddha’s teachings I give some quotes from the Dhamma-pada - he doesn’t seem to be rejecting anything - just redefining.
The the idea that Buddhists do not believe in God or gods is a western fabrication. Here is an example of a Buddhist prayer.
This is an excerpt from the Mahā Jayamangala Gātha
Is Buddhism based on Hinduism?
Rami Sivan
Student of ReligionsUpvoted by TL Brown
, M.Div Religious Studies, Phillips Theological Seminary (2001)6y
At the time of Prince Siddhārtha Gautama of the Śakya clan of Sūrya Vamśi Kṣatriyas there was no such thing as “Hinduism”. There was simply Dharma, or Veda-dharma or varṇāśrama Dharma (European scholars refer to it as Brahmanism). Buddha would have been raised as a Kṣatriya prince, been initiated with the sacred thread and learned the gāyatrī mantra, the performance of Sandhya and some basic Veda etc. His marriage would have been conducted in accordance with Vedic rituals and his son would also most likely have received the Vedic sacraments.
At that time there were 6 major schools of Vedic philosophy all arguing and contending with each other and with the Chārvāka - materialists, and others that have disappeared from the pages of history. The most organised religion of the time and the major contender with Brahmanism was Jainism. So the aspirant Gautama entered into a playing field with many other contenders.
They are lived together, discussed together argued (as Indians do) supported the Vedas, refuted the Vedas - rejected the Vedas and so on. Since they all lived in the same cultural milieu they all shared some common philosophical ideas and concepts of Dharma which was the main point of common reference. There was a prolific cross-pollination of ideas.
So from this common fecund intellectual pool comprised of Brahmanism and its competitors and antagonists three streams arose in order of their consolidation (1) Jainism (2) Buddhism and (3) what was later come to be known as Hinduism which unlike the previous two never developed a formal organizational structure.
Interestingly enough all three religions referred to themselves as Sanātana Dharma or severally as Jina-dharma, Buddha-dharma, and Vaidika-dharma — “Buddhism” and “Hinduism” were appellations given by Western scholars.
How did Hinduism come before Buddhism? Did the Buddha know about Hinduism and if so, why didn't he mention it?
Rami Sivan
Student of Religions1y
Firstly you need to define what you means by “Hinduism”.
At the time of the Buddha there were many different and competing schools of philosophy - many of them would be recognisable as the 6 classical schools of what became known as “Hindu” philosophy.
The Buddha frequently mentions Vedas, followers of the Vedas i.e. Brahmins and their metaphysical views and differences. It must be remembered the majority of Buddha’s close disciples and followers were Brahmins as were the early Buddhist theoreticians and philosophers.
In the Brahmajāla Sutta he mentions 62 views which he considers as erroneous and many of the core metaphysical views of various schools of Hindu thought are recognised there.
In one of his Mahayana biographies - Lalita Vistāra - it clearly and unambiguously states that the Buddha studied the various schools of “Hindu” philosophy as part of his general education.
Why is Buddha not a Hindu even though he believes that Brahma created the universe?
Rami Sivan
Student of Religions2y
Because 2500 years ago the term HINDU did not exist. It is an administrative category that was coined by the British as HINDOO. The earlier colonialists - the Portuguese used the term GENTOO to describe the non-Abrahamic inhabitants of India.
Belief in Brahma is not a qualification for being considered a “Hindu”. So Buddha was not a “Hindu” but he was born into a family of “Brahmanists” or followers the Vedic religion according to his biographers.
For example in the Lalita Vistāra chapter 5 we have the following:-
And in chapter 12 it gives the Buddha’s academic qualifications (NB - note his philosophical qualification):-
What are the similarities between Buddhism and Hinduism?
Rami Sivan
Student of Religions7y
Firstly neither Buddhism nor Hinduism is homogenous — both have several major sects with a different take on common doctrines. The Theravadan school of Buddhism has more in common with the reform schools of Hinduism like the various monastic orders. The Mahayana and the Vajrayana have a lot more in common with orthodox sacerdotal Hinduism.
The Buddha is shared by both.
Buddhists regard the Buddha as an enlightened being with many previous incarnations. Hindus regard him as an incarnation of Lord Vishnu. In Thailand Vishnu riding on Garuda is depicted on many temple doorways.
Broadly speaking Buddhists and Hindus share the major doctrines of Karma and Reincarnation.
They share a moral code grounded in non-violence (ahiṁsa) compassion (karuna), friendliness (maitri), generosity (dānam).
Both have monastic orders which share more or less the same disciplines and both wear saffron robes.
Both use icons in their worship, both perform pūjā — making offerings of flowers, incense, candles/lamps, fruit, food etc. during worship. Vajrayana and Hindu Tantrics share many of the same rituals including making offerings into the sacred fire and many of the more esoteric rituals as well. They also share the same Tantric deities.
Both have a cult of ancestor veneration and worship.
All South Asian Buddhists share the Hindu epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata.
And there are many more similarities which no doubt othe experts on Quora can expand upon.
Should the definition of Hinduism be expanded so that Buddhism could be seen as a sect of Hinduism or do you think things like the Authority of The Vedas and the belief in Atman and Brahman should remain non negotiable for what a Hindu is?
Rami Sivan
Student of Religions4y
Buddhism has developed into a separate religion like Christianity has diverged from Judaism. No one today claims any form of Christianity to be a sect of Judaism - no matter how interfused the original situation was. So no, Buddhism is not a “sect of Hinduism” although they still share many commonalties.
The second point raised is interesting. The non-negotiability of the Authority of the Vedas.
The word VEDA means “knowledge” and it seems the non-negotiability was never in the words of the text, but rather in the ideal of EPISTEME.
In order to be considered orthodox a system of philosophy (darśana) had to affirm their allegiance to “Veda” even though their actual philosophy and arguments had very little to do with the actual texts of the Veda. The refusal of the Buddhists to even symbolically or tacitly to pay respect to the Veda is what makes them nāstika or non-Vedic.
For example the three schools of Nyāya (Logic) and Vaiśeṣika (study of matter), Yoga - have nothing to do with any Vedic text per se and never quote any Vedic statement in order to support their theories - their “Vedic” credentials are a mere nod and a wink.
The major school of Sankhya has some vague Vedic statements that kind of support their theories but again they do not quote any Vedic texts to support their hypotheses.
The only two major schools that are indeed based on, and validate themselves on the basis of the Veda (or rather only the Upaṇiṣads) are the Mīmāmsa (school of Vedic hermeneutics) and Vedānta (known as Uttara Mīmāṁsa). And in them the most authoritative or non-negotiable teachings are indeed those on Brahman and ātman. Although there are 8 schools of Vedānta with varying differences on the nature of these two concepts and their interrelationship.
How does Buddhism differ from Hinduism?
Rami Sivan
Student of ReligionsUpvoted by Rishi Handa
, PhD Study of Religions, School of Oriental & African Studies, University of London (2016)Updated 7y
Buddhism is Hinduism for export!
Both religions call themselves “Sanātana Dharma” - Hinduism and Buddhism are terms coined by others.
Firstly one must remember that both philosophical systems existed and flourished and developed in a common social and intellectual milieu. They studied each others’ texts, debated together, argued together and exchanged ideas. Throughout South-East Asia during the great Khmer empire both religions flourished side by side — the metaphysical differences were a matter for scholars, the common people had no idea that they were different religions.
Secondly the differences are actually very esoteric. For example the biggest contention is about Īśvara and Ātman.
Īśvara is the personal (saguna) aspect of Brahman — the undifferentiated (nirguna) Ground of Being. The Buddhists deny any personal deity. Contrary to popular opinion the Buddha never denied the existence of the Hindu gods, he mentions them, and after his enlightenment he was reluctant to preach until Brahma came and persuaded him to do so. In Thailand the monks preach the Dharma from behind screens with the face of Brahma on them. And Brahma is the most common image around!
What the Buddha preached was that the gods had no hand in the Liberation (nirvāṇa) of humankind and we all have to strive for it ourselves, relying only on our personal effort.
The issue of the ātman (Self) is complex. Hindus claim that we are all modes of consciousness (jīvātmans) that have taken birth in human bodies due to Karma. There are three Hindu schools of thought on this matter;
The Buddhists hold with the ‘non-self’ doctrine (anātman). The Buddha said: “I have searched everywhere (body and mind) and I have failed to discover a Self!” The Hindu polemicists would rejoin:– “well then! Who was it that was doing the searching???”
The anātma doctrine denies only the substantial existence of the ātman as a unique entity not the existential experience of a Self. So in this wise it is in agreement with Advaita Vedānta (often called by detractors as pracchana bauddha-vāda — crypto-buddhism).
Advaita Vedanta has many similarities with Madhyamika Buddhist school of thought.
Other differences revolve around the nature of consciousness, what is it that actually incarnates? If there is no Self then how does karma transfer from one life to the next? But as I said, these metaphysical issues so loved by the scholars are irrelevant to the devotees in the temples, ashrams and monasteries.
The biggest difference to the laypeople of the Buddhist region is Buddhism is a monastic based religion and has very little to offer to householders except the precepts. There are no Buddhist rituals for weddings, funerals, birth, passages of life etc. So wherever Buddhism has gone these lay rituals were either carried over and modified from Hinduism or adopted from the indigenous people - like Shintoism in Japan
The Buddhist king of Thailand is still regarded as an incarnation of Vishnu, and entitled RAMA. The Ramayana is depicted on the walls of the royal palace. All the Buddhist countries have their own version of the Ramayana. The Royal temple is Hindu with statues of the trinity: Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. All the ceremonies and protocols as well as the recent cremation of the king are done by the royal Thai Brahmins according to Hindu rituals.
The Tibetans adopted Vedic rituals like the Yajña (fire oblations) and perform them with great panache! Most of their ceremonies are Hinduesque . Even the Shinto religion has many of the Vedic Hindu deities and the fire-ceremony (called GOMA) is popular and beautifully executed (more aesthetic one may say than in India!)
Were there only 3 Vedas at the time of Gautama Buddha? Is Atharva Veda a later compilation? Is that how it is mentioned in Te Vijja Sutta? Has a final conclusion been reached on this?
Ram Abloh
Hindu, studied Veda (incl. Upanishads), Vedanta, GitaApr 4
The Atharvaveda Saṁhitā is very ancient.
Anyone who has a deep first-hand knowledge of Sanskrit who has studied the Ṛgveda Saṁhitā and Atharvaveda Saṁhitā knows that they are very close in their language, the latter being only a little later.
(As an aside: Unfortunately, Quora is full of people who have ZERO first-hand knowledge of Sanskrit or Pāḷī, who have NEVER studied any of the original texts in the original language, but who are LOUD and flashy in their answers which have no substance or depth and are simply copy-pasted from elsewhere, and they gain a lot of followers, and hence MISLEAD them as well. This is democracy, where everyone has the right to pontificate on a subject even if they are not qualified. Those who have deep knowledge and try to add depth and detail in their answers are just passed by because most people do not have the patience or knowledge to digest the subtle points.)
Tevijjā (Pāḷī) means Trayīvidyā (Skt.). In the Vedic tradition, the term Trayīvidyā is used to refer to the three categories or classes of Vedic literature — metrical, prose and musical.
The metrical literature is represented by the term Ṛk which includes the metrical hymns of the Ṛgveda Saṁhitā and Atharvaveda Saṁhitā. There is no difference in the metres (chandas) used in the two.
The prose literature is represented by the term Yajus which includes all the prose texts.
The musical form of the Ṛk verses is represented by the term Sāman.
Atharvaveda is explicitly named in the most ancient Chāndogya and Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣads. The Ṛṣi Atharva to whom the mantras of the Atharvaveda are attributed, is abundantly mentioned in the Ṛgveda Saṁhitā. Two of his descendants have two hymns attributed to them in the Ṛgveda Saṁhitā.
Arthaśāstra of Cāṇakya refers to the Vedas as trayī (त्रयी), and it is definitely much later than the entire Vedic corpus. So, the term does not exclude Atharvaveda.
Tevijjasutta is an excellent demonstration of the extremely defective and deficient line of reasoning of Buddha, and his gross misunderstanding of the Vedic philosophy.
He explicitly compares the entire lineage of Vedic Ṛṣis and their descendants to a queue of blind men pretending to lead one another.
It is the classic example of the strawman fallacy where an erroneous and ridiculous position is attributed to the opponent and is easily dismissed as worthless. Meanwhile, he arrives at the same conclusion as the Vedas in terms of the highest truth, but doesn’t realize it, or even if he realizes it he wants to distance himself from the Vedic tradition.
We must keep in mind that Buddha is randomly talking to different people and speaking impromptu. Hence, his words are scattered all over the place.
Why are Vedas sometimes referred to as “three Vedas” instead of four? Why is Atharva Veda excluded from this list?
Ram Abloh
Hindu, studied Veda (incl. Upanishads), Vedanta, Gita5y
They are just different ways of referring to the same Vedas.
When the term “three Vedas” are used, it refers to the three styles of mantra — Rk (metrical hymns), Saman (musical compositions) and Yajus (prose passages).
When the term “four Vedas” are used, it refers to the four types of content —
I will mention another way of looking at this, through the modern lens of progression through time. In this method, we analyze the linguistic style of each Veda, and infer that the Vedas were the results of natural collection of hymns and prose at successive periods in time. We can see through linguistic analysis that Rig Veda has the most archaic language, Atharva Veda a little later, Yajur Veda later still, and Sama Veda next.
Why did Lord Buddha reject the Vedas?
Rami Sivan
Student of ReligionsUpdated 6y
Buddha has given a whole sermon on the subject of the Three Vedas it is the Tevijja Sutta from the Digha Nikaya.
It is quite a long and repetitive Sutta but the summary is:–
A bunch of Brahmins who are Vedic scholars come to the Buddha to discuss his views on the Union with Brahman (Sayujya Moksha).
The Buddha using the Socratic method asks them a number of rhetorical questions about the efficacy of repeatedly chanting the Vedas to achieve union with Brahman while still being filled with moral faults. He asks them if they or their teachers or their teachers’ teachers any of the Rishis of the Vedas have actually encountered Brahman and vouched for it. They all reply in the negative - so he says they are all like the blind leading the blind and if they are following a utilitarian path which cannot be proven or validated.
He then concludes that the way to Union with Brahman is by regarding all beings with a mind set free, and filled with profound love. One attains Union with Brahman by cultivating compassion, sympathy, equanimity, and a heart filled with boundless empathy, equanimity etc.
This same teaching is found in the later Hindu literature:–
What are the views of Hindu priests on Jainism?
Ram Abloh
Hindu, studied Veda (incl. Upanishads), Vedanta, GitaUpdated 6y
Jainism is an ancient religious tradition that began around the time that Buddhism began, but is probably much older than Buddhism. But at least we know that the Jaina acharyas did not approve of the Vedas, so the Vedas were in existence before the start of Jainism.
Culturally and in terms of religious rituals, Jainism is almost identical to Hinduism.
I haven’t had an opportunity to study Jaina philosophy in depth. But at cursory glance, it seems Jainism doesn’t propose existence of an Ishvara, i.e a God or the existence of jiva i.e. individual soul. Also, there is a theory called syAdvAda, which is a conditional probability that many different realities are true. A lot of the other aspects of Jaina philosophy such as epistemology have a lot in common with Hindu and Buddhist philosophy as they all shared and contributed to areas such as nyAya, vaisheShika, and sAnkhya.
I would say the most distinguishing feature of Jainism is its extreme attachment to non-violence (ahimsA). Jain monks and nuns carry a brush made from peacock feathers to clear away the ground of any living creatures such as insects before they take each step. They cover their nose and mouth with a strip of white cloth to prevent breathing in insects or microbes(?!). They do not eat root vegetables because the vegetables are killed when they’re pulled out of the ground.
(Picture of a mayUra-picchi carried by Jain monks and nuns)
In my personal opinion, such extreme non-violence is highly impracticable. We cannot even do agriculture if we strictly followed Jainism. Thousands of insects are killed when the ground is tilled to sow seeds. So I see some hypocrisy in the non-violence because somebody else has to do the violence in agriculture to provide food for the non-violent Jains.
There is also some controversy over the Jain monks’ use of peacock feather brushes. As the demand for peacock feathers increased, peacocks were hunted only to get their feathers. Although a non-violent way is to pick up only the feathers that are naturally shed, that method does not yield enough feathers to supply the demand. So there is some hypocrisy in the non-violence of Jainism. Why do monks who are supposed to give up everything for the sake of non-violence, need peacock feathers only? Can’t they clean the ground with brushes made from other soft material obtained non-violently?
Why Jains oppose ban on use of peacock feathers?
Also, Jain monks and nuns have a weird practice of ritual suicide called sallekhanA. This is a practice whereby a monk or nun stops eating and starves to death. Now this also I find to be hypocritical. Non-violence must also include oneself, and by starving they are basically committing violence on their own bodies. There are millions of microbes living inside the human gut, and these microbes are nourished on the food that we eat. So by starving we are actually killing those microbes.
Also, Jainism is not an adequate philosophy for building a civilization or a nation. If its core tenet is non-violence, then we cannot punish criminals, we cannot defend or attack in wars. There are lots of activities in a sophisticated society that involve small unavoidable violence or injury to smaller living organisms.
In anticipation of criticism in the comments, I will say that maybe the rules for non-violence are not so extreme for laypersons. Maybe the extreme rules of non-violence are only for the monks and nuns. In this case, Jain laypersons are following the same code of conduct as Hindu laypersons. Hinduism is a very practical system which emphasizes contextual conduct. It means that be non-violent where it is most appropriate, and be violent where it is most appropriate. We cannot be a non-violent extremist nor a violent extremist :)
If viewed as a separate and isolated system, Jainism, just like Buddhism, does not have a complete framework adequately detailed out for all aspects of life, in all situations. For example, law and order, military science & training, economics, politics, government, civil engineering, agriculture, etc. Whereas Hinduism is more of a comprehensive system consisting of philosophy, religion, and everyday living. Hinduism has dharmashAstras (law & order), dhanurveda (military science), arthashAstra (economics), nItishAstra (politics and government), sthApatya (civil engineering/architecture), Ayurveda (medicine), etc.
This is the reason that there were no kingdoms in ancient India that were solely based on Jainism or Buddhism. Even if either of them were state religions, they would have to work within the broader “mother matrix” of Hindu civilization and culture. However, the contribution of Jains to mathematics in medieval times has been equal to that of Hindus, if not more.
I have had the acquaintance of a few Jain friends at various stages of life. We never felt different in any way at all. One friend in particular was very curious about Hindu philosophy and always found an opportunity to discuss with me because he felt that he didn’t get satisfactory answers to all his questions from Jaina philosophy. For example, he said there was nothing as inspiring as the Bhagavad Gita in Jain scriptures.
Which religion is older, Hinduism or Jainism? How can you prove it?
Rami Sivan
Student of Religions1y
They are not really comparable.
Hinduism is not a monolithic homogenous religious system - it is a cooperative of many different competing philosophies, religions, lineages, sects and cults. It has no founder and no organised structure. It is a geographical concept rather than a religion per se, although for administrative convenience it is considered as a “religion”.
Jainism also known as Jain Dharma traces its spiritual ideas and history through the succession of twenty-four tirthankaras over millennia.
Jainism was mentioned by the Buddha in his polemic discourses and there have been philosophical disputes involving the various Buddhist, and Hindu philosophical schools with the Jains.
So while Jainism as a recognisable religion is certain older than the concept of the Hindu collective, today Jains usually sit comfortably with Hindus - intermarry and employ Hindu priests for their sacraments.
When did Jainism split from Hinduism?
Ram Abloh
Hindu, studied Veda (incl. Upanishads), Vedanta, GitaUpvoted by Kamal Pallav
, lives in India6y
Despite claims that Jainism was founded thousands of years before the Vedic tradition, there is no evidence of this. As even the earliest Jain scriptures criticize or condemn the Vedas, the logical condition is that the Vedas must have existed before the first Jain teacher. Vedas do not mention any systems of philosophy because these didn’t exist back then.
(Note: If you say that older Jain scriptures are lost now, I can say the same thing about older Vedas being lost now).
The first mention of Jina is the person Vardhamana Mahavira (also known as nigaNTha nAtaputta (Skt. nirgrantha jñAtRputra) in his native region), who was a contemporary of Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha.
In fact, they were both preaching in the same regions of India, and often lived in the same cities at the same time.
There is an episode in one of the Buddhist Pitakas where a follower of Mahavira comes to the Buddha with a question, asking — “My guru says that you are an “akriyAvAdi” i.e. a preacher of inaction or pure non-violence. Is this true?”
To this, Buddha says that he does not teach akriyAvAda, i.e absolute inaction.
So at least we can glean from this that neither Mahavira nor Buddha were the passive pacifists that they are made out to be in today’s discourse.
In any case, Jainism came into being around the same time as Buddhism. In fact, that period was known to have produced many such “heretical” sects (e,g, Makkali Gosala (Maskari Goshala)). Only Jainism and Buddhism gained enough followers to survive to the present day.
Why did Lord Buddha reject the Vedas?
Kiron Krishnan
Studied and having quite unpopular opinions on Buddha.4y
But did he?
Coming to Buddha, yes - Buddha was against the idea that Vedas were revealed to Brahmā and successfully passed through Brahmins, and that Brahmins are born from the mouth of Brahmā, a belief which was in mainstream during his time. He was also against the elaborate rituals and the mīmāṃsaka views of Brahmanic śrauta priesthood in general. He was also against superior status to Brahmins and himself favoured Kṣatriyas over Brahmins because of weird reasons.
But never has Buddha opposed Ṛṣis. Not even Mahāvīra opposed them. (In fact, Jains even protested against being labelled Nāstika, and tried to validate themselves with Vedas) Although it is debatable whether Buddha knew about the meaning of mantras, he certainly didn’t just dismiss the sages off, however always circumvented whenever there was an opportunity to explain what are the content of mantras. Buddha himself took pride in making chief Devas honour him (Indra and Brahmā especially) and learn from him. Also, he called himself “isīnām isisattama” (“ṛṣīṇām ṛṣisattama”, the “best sage of sages”).
In an important discourse to Ambaṭṭha, Buddha stresses that the extravagant Brahmins of his time, like Ambaṭṭha are not Ṛṣis and not similar to them, signifying they had no real knowledge. Buddha doesn’t go against Vedic Brahmanism in this regard, for even before Buddha, Yāska and even Brāhmaṇas have noted the passing over of sages. Buddha also criticizes the Brahmins who live in luxury. Which is also not against Vedic Brahmanism, as Brahmanism itself is based on the point that one shan’t be hedonistic. (“one should avoid those acts that cause pleasure of oneself alone”)
In Ambaṭṭha sutta, he says :-
7. 'Now what think you, Ambattha? Suppose a king, either seated on the neck of his elephant or on the back of his horse, or standing on the footrug of his chariot, should discuss some resolution of state with his chiefs or princes. And suppose as he left the spot and stepped on one side, a workman (Sûdra) or the slave of a workman should come up and, standing there, should discuss the matter, saying: "Thus and thus said Pasenadi the king." Although he should speak as the king might have spoken, or discuss as the king might have done, would he thereby be the king, or even as one of his officers?'
'Certainly not, Gotama.'
8. 'But just so, Ambattha, those ancient poets (Rishis) of the Brahmans, the authors of the verses, the utterers of the verses, whose ancient form of words so chanted, uttered, or composed, the Brahmans of to-day chant over again and rehearse, intoning or reciting exactly as has been intoned or recited--to wit, Atthaka, Vâmaka, Vâmadeva, Vessâmitta, Yamataggi, Angirasa, Bhâradvaga, Vâsettha, Kassapa, and Bhagu{1}--though you can say: "I, as a pupil, know by heart their verses," that you should on that account be a Rishi, or have attained to the state of a Rishi--such a condition of things has no existence!'
9. 'Now what think you, Ambattha? What have you heard when Brahmans, old and well stricken in years, teachers of yours or their teachers, were talking together--did those ancient Rishis, whose verses you so chant over and repeat, parade about well groomed, perfumed, trimmed as to their hair and beard, adorned with garlands and gems, clad in white garments, in the full possession and enjoyment of the five pleasures of sense, as you, and your teacher too, do now?'
'Not that, Gotama.'
'Or did they live, as their food, on boiled rice of the best sorts, from which all the black specks had been sought out and removed, and flavoured with sauces and curries of various kinds, as you, and your teacher too, do now?'
'Not that, Gotama.'
'Or were they waited upon by women with fringes and furbelows round their loins, as you, and your teacher too, do now?'
'Or did they go about driving chariots, drawn by mares with plaited manes and tails, using long wands and goads the while, as you, and your teacher too, do now?'
'Not that, Gotama.'
'Or did they have themselves guarded in fortified towns, with moats dug out round them and crossbars let down before the gates, by men girt with long swords, as you, and your teacher too, do now?'
'Not that, Gotama.'
10. 'So then, Ambattha, neither are you a Rishi, nor your teacher, nor do you live under the conditions under which the Rishis lived. But whatever it may be, Ambattha, concerning which you are in doubt or perplexity about me, ask me as to that. I will make it clear by explanation.'
Source: Ambattha Sutta
So Buddha wasn’t criticizing sages for the problems he notes in these Brahmins, but blames Brahmins for not following the path of ancient sages. The path of ancient ṛṣis as painted by Buddha is a respectful and something that borders a śramaṇa concept. This is also keeping in line with the near-contemporary Brahmanism as Taittirīya Āraṇyaka already has remarked that first of the ṛṣis were lineage of munis called Vātaraśanas (to which lineage belong the famed composers of Keśī sūkta) who are śramaṇas and ūrdhvamanthins (in the context refers only to having controlled intercourse). The dialogue between Agastya who is on the verge of complete asceticism and his wife Lopāmudrā might add to the picture. Buddha himself would note, as in Brahmanism, that one who has controlled intercourse is doing as good as a celibate would.
In Brāhmaṇadhammika sutta, Buddha speaks quite respectfully of ancient sages - the first Brahmins and their lifestyle, and later goes on to tell how later priests introduced verses and rituals to waste away the wealth.
Seers, before, were austere & restrained in mind.
Abandoning the five strings of sensuality, they practiced for their own benefit.
They had no cattle, no gold,
No wealth. They had study as their wealth.
They protected the Brahmā treasure.
They did not despise what was prepared for them:
food set at doors, prepared out of conviction for those who seek.
Prosperous lands & kingdoms honored brahmans with multi-colored clothes, bedding, & dwellings.
Brahmans protecting their principles, protected by law, were not to be violated,
not to be beaten.
No one could block them from the doors of any home.
For 48 years* (young brahmans) followed the holy life.
Brahmans of old practiced the search for knowledge & conduct.
Brahmans went to no other (caste), nor did they buy their wives.
Living together from mutual love, having come together, they found joy together.
Aside from the time after menstruation, brahmans didn’t engage in copulation.
They praised: the holy life, virtue, being straightforward, mild, austere,
composed, harmless, enduring.
The foremost brahman among them, firm in perseverance, didn’t engage in copulation even in a dream.
Those imitating his practice
praised the holy life, virtue, & endurance.
Source: 2:7 Brahman Principles
48 years refers to (12 x 4) years for complete brahmacarya to learn four Vedas. Modern Buddhist translators, having no clue of the Brahmanic rule are perplexed here. Also, some fancifully translate the brahmā treasure as something else, when it should be clear that it is knowledge behind Vedic verses.
Further, Buddha describes how the priests grew greedy of Okkāka’s wealth (of Ikṣvāku, his celebrated ancestor) and invented new sacrifices to waste it away and get the wealth transferred to themselves. As per Buddha, that is how killing in yajñas started. Buddha interestingly uses the cow sentiment to make his Brahmin audience feel bad about their present condition, and he remarks :-
The cows — meek like sheep, giving milk by the bucket — hadn’t, with their hooves or horns or anything else, done anyone any harm.
But the king, grabbing them by the horns,
killed them with a knife.
Then the devas, the Fathers, Indra, and rakkhasas cried out,
“An injustice!”
when the knife fell on the cows.
Source: 2:7 Brahman Principles
So, as you see, Buddha is himself trying to use the life of sages, the empathy towards cows and appeal towards opinion of Devas, (esp. Indra) Pitṛs to explain his myth.
In Vāseṭṭha sutta, he defines real Brahmin as a Brahmin by action, by knowledge. Through completion of “threefold” knowledge of course. Modern Buddhist translators take extreme care to state Buddha has “redefined” three knowledges elsewhere as knowledge of births etc., but Buddha doesn’t imply that here, in my view.
Consummate in the three knowledges,
further-becoming ended, at peace:
Know, Vāseṭṭha: That’s Brahmā, that’s Sakka, (Indra, Śakra)
for those who directly know.”
Elsewhere, Buddha even expects his ideal, model Brahmins to be Vedāntagū, a term that could mean those who have reached the end of Vedic studies, or those who go by Vedānta. Buddha had little issues with many tenets of sāṃkhya and had little issue with Vedānta. Probably, the initial Vedāntin Brahmins were admirers of Buddha, something which Buddha also reciprocated.
Buddha even acted Upanishad when he symbolized Agnihotra fires. Although for establishing his point, he also states that Sāvittī (Sāvitrī mantra) is the foremost of chandas, and Agnihotra the foremost of yajñas.
Some say Buddha denied self. Yes, he did deny the idea of self in any eternal self. But is that against Upaniṣads or the contemporary classical Brahmanism? He overturns even this idea during his last moments, as detailed in Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa sūtra. He states to go by doctrine of non-self until one is free from all delusions and finally get into the pure “Self” which is Tathāgata itself. Modern Buddhists have tried with extraordinary difficulty to not reconcile this teaching of Buddha with the quite equivalent teaching of Uddalaka to Śvetaketu in Upaniṣad. (where the teacher/father asks the child to cut open fruit and the seed within and finally the boy finds “nothing”, but the father says that is “wholeness” and “that essence is you” - tat tvam asi) So have Indian Vedāntins tried to overlook this teaching of Buddha, particularly because that makes him hard to be opposed. But any unbiased reader would find no difference in the meaning and intention. What has been popularized by Advaita Vedānta as “neti neti” based on Upanishadic teaching is simply the same as Buddha’s teaching. No wonder why Rāmānuja called Śaṅkara a “crypto Buddhist”.
So where is Buddha different?
Buddha did not deem Vedas or knowledge of Vedas as sufficient for “enlightenment”, because maybe he believed they had lost intelligibility and the modern scholars were blind led by the blind. (Not because mantras and sages are flawed) He wanted to rather popularize his method of attaining enlightenment. The second thing brought by Buddha is the heavy emphasis on karma and rebirth, which really shook the Brahmanism as well. (Although sūtras, nearly contemporary, are still unscathed in core - so are traditional Brahmanic rituals even today) The third thing was heavy emphasis on asceticism as opposed to householder. Although this is little related to Vedas, it was clearly against the outlook of Vedic Brahmanism. Although Buddha was not the inventor of hard-core asceticism, he was one of the fierce proponents of asceticism and celibacy, phobia of women and food, and of course the classical phobia and disdain towards the world. Though this does sit well with some pre-Buddhist Upanishads and also certain schools of Brahmanic philosophy (like Sāṃkhyā for instance), in excess, the asceticism was against the ethical view of Vedic Brahmanism.
Baudhāyana, Āpastamba and many other contemporaries took to eagerly defending the householder āśrama. Baudhāyana goes to the extent of openly telling that one who is a gṛhastha is sarvāśramī, and defends that he is productive and the rest of the beings (monks, dogs, tame animals, guests, travellers and likes) thrive in his production. Buddha tries to defend his glorification of asceticism in various suttas especially, in 1:4 To Kasi Bhāradvāja and Sn 1:12 The Sage.
This provoked further disinterest among sūtrakāras in even an encouraging attitude towards asceticism, and people started reacting vehemently against pure asceticism (as we also see in the sudden peak in justifying violence among Brahmins). Āpastamba opines that although one may say that asceticism is indeed powerful, (as Yoga claims) one who takes up sannyāsa without going through other āśramas becomes fallen. Āpastamba further argues that the rites enjoined by Vedas, done by a householder, fully without any intention of pleasure or selfish gains, is itself as meritorious as what is told as that of saṃnyāsa. Baudhāyana, who is conservative, even goes to the extent of saying that a wise man need not regard the system of āśramas, for it was devised by a wicked Kapila. (not perhaps Sāṃkhya’s Kapila, but a pun implying “ape”. He elsewhere, perhaps satirically, compares forest life with animal life) Following Baudhāyana and likes, Nambudiris are said to have ostracized Śaṅkara for taking up asceticism against the social order.
When it was the age of Manu, things had cooled a bit down, and Manu was ready to consider the possibility of asceticism being readmitted, although even there, it is not prescribed before one has repaid the debts he incurs by his birth and life. Saṃnyāsopaniṣads, reflecting a Brahmanic but radically ascetic tradition, on the other hand, glorify an ascetic, and ensure that an ascetic purifies Pitṛs to his twenty first generation.
In short,
> Buddha never dismissed Vedic sages or their mantras or the Devas. He simply cared less, and also thought that modern Brahmins have lost their knowledge of Vedas and are therefore not competent to teach or experience what Ṛṣis did.
> Buddha, as were the Upaniṣads before and during his time, believed and propagated the theory of karma and rebirth, which are again unrelated to Vedas, but in conformity with Upaniṣads.
> Buddha and Vedānta (the Advaita) agree the most, Buddha personally respected Vedāntins or similar thoughts. Vedānta is confident about Vedas as it uses only Upaniṣads for Vedas, and not the mantras in our sense.
> Buddha was against rituals, as were all śramaṇa schools and also Brahmanic śramaṇas as we see in Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad or Gītā.
> The main point of difference was that Buddha emphasized in asceticism and glorified it, whereas Vedic Brahmanism didn't consider complete asceticism to be a virtue. Contemporary Brahmanism strictly warned against saṃnyāsa.
What did Buddha think of the caste system?
Kiron Krishnan
Studied and having quite unpopular opinions on Buddha.6y
Take a deep breath, and let’s analyze actual Buddha and core Buddhist works, (Tipiṭakas) rather than works of irrelevant and biased people. I have taken translations not my own, but from passionate scholars, who have tried their best to translate the verses politically correct. It is not ironical that still, the verses translated do reek of Buddha’s psyche.
“In the past, brahmins coupled only with brahmin women, not with non-brahmin women. But now brahmins couple with both brahmin women and non-brahmin women . Dogs, how ever, still couple only with female dogs, not with other female animals. This is the first ancient brahmin practice that is now seen among dogs but not among brahmins.”
Aṅguttaranikāya (tipiṭaka) 3.221, trans. Bikkhu Bodhi.
"And how, Doṇa, is a brahmin similar to a deva? Here, a brahmin is well born of both his maternal and paternal sides, of pure descent, unassailable and impeccable with respect to birth as far back as the seventh paternal generation. He lives the spiritual life of virginal celibacy for forty-eight years, studying the hymns. He then seeks a teacher's fee for his teacher solely in accordance with the Dhamma, not contrary to the Dhamma.
And what, Dona, is the Dhamma in that case? Not by agriculture, not by trade, not by raising cattle, not by archery, not by service to the king, not by a particular craft, but solely by wandering for alms [226] without scorning the alms bowl. Having offered the teacher's fee to his teacher, he seeks a wife solely in accordance with the Dhamma, not contrary to the Dhamma. And what, Dona, is the Dhamma in that case? Not by buying and selling, [he takes] only a brahmin woman given to him by the pouring of water. He couples only with a brahmin woman, not with a khattiya woman, a vessa woman , a sudda woman , or a candala woman, nor with a woman from a family of hunters, bamboo workers, chariot makers, or flower scavengers…”
Aṅguttara, 3.226 trans. Bhikku Bodhi
[1]
In the following verses, he calls such fallen Brahmins who don’t observe moral and racial purity as “caṇḍālas of Brahmins”. Aah, so non racist.
Could anyone locate such a verse saying this explicitly from any pre Buddhist scripture in India?
One often quoted (cherry picked) text is Assalāyana sutta where Buddha accuses Brahmins of claiming themselves to be high in caste, and counters a teen reverent Brahmin boy Assalāyana with his always amazing sentences. An anti Brahmanic India of twentieth century and forth saw much of the verses as against Brahmin supremacy. But, what does Buddha believe Brahmins should have did better? His tactics to convert Brahmins is though, always amazing.
(Assalāyana) : Is that son born of the brahmin prince and warrior maiden, according to the father known a `brahmin' or according to the mother known a `warrior? Good Gotama, that son born of the Brahmin prince and the warrior maiden, according to the father should be known a `brahmin' and according to the mother a `warrior.
(Buddha) : Assalàyana, to a mare and donkey a mule is born, according to the mother should it be known a'horse' or according to the father should it be known a `donkey'?
(Assalāyana) : Good Gotama, it's from a thoroughbred that a pony is born. Now I see the difference, in the earlier examples I did not see any difference.
Wow. This logic had deep entry into contemporary societies.
It would be interesting to link why non Brahmanic communities in India took to strict endogamy, while Brahmins were ready to marry any other community, or even accept them into varna system for a social good.
It is so funny to read the Sutta in Majjhima Nikāya. The Buddhists pester a poor teen boy whom they speak of as learned in three Vedas, for a debate with Buddha, of a claim which Buddha himself makes. Even after Assalāyana says several times that Gotama who speaks Dhamma can’t be countered, the Buddhists still force him, and he comes to Buddha with a group of Brahmins and shares a humble and polite talk. Assalāyana says, for the sake of debate that Brahmins say they are pure castes, others aren’t. (Same thing repeated, burdened on the Brahmins by Buddha everywhere) To which Buddha provides his ready made examples to show how Brahmins are impure. His statements start with this (2.149) :
Now, Assalayana, the brahmin women are seen having their periods, becoming pregnant, giving birth, and giving suck. And yet those who are born from the wombs of the brahmin women say thus: 'Brahmins are the highest caste...brahmins alone are the sons of Brahma, the offspring of Brahma, born of his mouth, born of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs of Brahma.
This one beginning statement is enough to see what kind of purity Buddha had in his mind. Though he becomes more vocal of “social equality” in the forthcoming sentences, to establish that purification ceremonies must be for all, and not just Brahmins. But his this attitude was only when against what he thought himself as the claims of Brahmins. Similar to how contemporary Brahmin scholars themselves “bashed” Samaṇas in their works. Buddha wasn’t any different from them. But surely, Buddha attributes one thing to Brahmins as their claim, them being “fairer”. This stuff is absent in all Brahmanic scriptures. Rather, it also cuts the way to understand Buddha’s psyche of what he thought inside as superior.
At certain times, Buddha would speak more openly of Kshatriyas to be superior to Brahmins. It is not a secret that Buddhism was mouthpiece of Kshatriyan supremacy which wanted to enter not just its stronghold of ruling, but also economy and religion.
In the Ambattha sutta, a young kid doesn’t apparently “venerate Buddha” to the extent what Buddha wanted. On asking, Ambattha is shown to reply that Brahmins usually show such kind of respects only to another Brahmin, but not to lowly people, “dark fellows” (that is a Buddhan fantasy) and so on. To which Buddha replies Ambattha is ill bred. A triggered kid, says that Shakyas are the menial ones who don’t even honour any Brahmin or pay respect to them. Buddha becomes more triggered, as Shakya is his own clan.
A triggered Buddha says :
And what family do you then, Ambattha, belong to?'
'I am a Kanhâyana.'
'Yes, but if one were to follow up your ancient name and lineage, Ambattha, on the father's and the mother's side, it would appear that the Sâkyas were once your masters, and that you are the offspring of one of their slave girls. But the Sâkyas trace their line back to Okkâka the king ….
…
Now Okkâka had a slave girl called Disâ. She gave birth to a black baby. And no sooner was it born than the little black thing said, "Wash me, mother. Bathe me, mother. Set me free, mother, of this dirt. So shall I be of use to you."
'Now just as now, Ambattha, people call devils "devils," so then they (Śākyas) called devils "black fellows" (kanhe). And they said: "This fellow spoke as soon as he was born. 'Tis a black thing (kanha) that is born, a devil has been born!" And that is the origin, Ambattha, of the Kanhayanas. He was the ancestor of the Kanhâyanas. And thus is it, Ambattha, that if one were to follow up your ancient name and lineage, on the father's and on the mother's side, it would appear that the Sâkyas were once your masters, and that you are the offspring of one of their slave girls.'
That was a bold attack by Buddha on this young person. And he was asked to counter this legend. Which he couldn’t. A tactical Buddha asked three times Ambattha the same question, wanting the latter to accept his legend. But a shocked and embarrassed Ambattha couldn’t speak anything. As a last moment, Buddha terrorizes the kid, by saying that his head will break into three pieces if he can’t answer Buddha’s question when asked three times. This makes Ambattha accept Buddha’s premise. The Brahmins in the stage were shocked to see this. They said that samaṇa gotama is not a man to be trusted anymore. (probably because he uses this tactics to make legends and make his opponents accept it) While Brahmins are thinking “what the hell is Gotama speaking”, Buddha becomes aware of losing of his own status among Brahmins, and a possible failure for his conversion works. He soon thinks “Brahmins might be disparaging Ambattha for his bad descent” and goes on to say that Kanha became a seer, versed in mantras.
And finally makes the conclusion :
Then the Blessed One said to Ambattha: 'What think you, Ambattha? Suppose a young Kshatriya should have connection with a Brahman maiden, and from their intercourse a son should be born. Now would the son thus come to the Brahman maiden through the Kshatriya youth receive a seat and water (as tokens of respect) from the Brahmans?'
'Yes, he would, Gotama.'
'But would the Brahmans allow him to partake of the feast offered to the dead, or of the food boiled in milk{2}, or of the offerings to the gods, or of food sent as a present?'
'Yes, they would, Gotama.'
'But would the Brahmans teach him their verses or not?'
'They would, Gotama.'
'But would he be shut off, or not, from their women?'
'He would not be shut off.'
'But would the Kshatriyas allow him to receive the consecration ceremony of a Kshatriya?'
'Certainly not, Gotama.'
'Why not that?'
'Because he is not of pure descent on the mother's side.'
25. 'Then what think you, Ambattha? Suppose a Brahman youth should have connection with a Kshatriya maiden, and from their intercourse a son should be born. Now would the son thus come to the Kshatriya maiden through the Brahman youth receive a seat and water (as tokens of respect) from the Brahmans?'
'Yes, he would, Gotama.'
'But would the Brahmans allow him to partake of the feast offered to the dead, or of food boiled in milk, or of an offering to the gods, or of food sent as a present?'
'Yes, they would, Gotama.'
'But would the Brahmans teach him their verses or not?'
'They would, Gotama.'
But would he be shut off, or not, from their women?'
'He would not, Gotama.'
'But would the Kshatriyas allow him to receive the consecration ceremony of a Kshatriya?'
'Certainly not, Gotama.'
'Why not that?'
'Because he is not of pure descent on the father's side.'
Then, Ambattha, whether one compares women with women, or men with men, the Kshatriyas are higher and the Brahmans inferior.
'And what think you, Ambattha? Suppose the Brahmans, for some offence{1} or other, were to outlaw a Brahman by shaving him and pouring ashes over his head{2}, were to banish him from the land or from the township. Would he be offered a seat or water among the Brahmans?'
'Certainly not, Gotama.'
'Or would the Brahmans allow him to partake of the food offered to the dead, or of the food boiled in milk, or of the offerings to the gods, or of food sent as a present?'
'Certainly not, Gotama.'
'Or would the Brahmans teach him their verses or not?'
'Certainly not, Gotama.'
'And would he be shut off, or not, from their women?'
'He would be shut off.'
'But what think you, Ambattha? If the Kshatriyas had in the same way outlawed a Kshatriya, and banished him from the land or the township, would he, among the Brahmans, be offered water and a seat?'
'Yes, he would, Gotama.'
'And would he be allowed to partake of the food offered to the dead, or of the food boiled in milk, or of the offerings to the gods, or of food sent as a present?'
'He would, Gotama.'
'And would the Brahmans teach him their verses?'
'They would, Gotama?'
'And would he be shut off, or not, from their women?'
'He would not, Gotama.'
'But thereby, Ambattha, the Kshatriya would have fallen into the deepest degradation, shaven as to his head, cut dead with the ash-basket, banished from land and township. So that, even when a Kshatriya has fallen into the deepest degradation. still it holds good that the Kshatriyas are higher, and the Brahmans inferior.
This is the summary of what Buddha really thought. But could he go on with this to preach among Brahmins who were “lenient in terms of lineage” and more concerned with the righteousness?
Suddenly Buddha switches to a diplomatic verse, brainwashing Ambattha, saying yes to a quote from Sanaṃ kumāra (Skt sanatkumāra) that :
"The Kshatriya is the best of those among this folk
who put their trust in lineage.
But he who is perfect in wisdom and righteousness,
he is the best among gods and men."'
And then adds that righteousness is what matters, not birth. (departing from even this verse, but again, only against Brahmins whom he claims) And then he shows Ambattha the thirty two “signs” of good man, not through wisdom or anything, but in his body. Even his private parts. And Gotama also showers his own arguments that modern Brahmins are all bad, to which the kid is not even able to speak anything but “no not that”.
In the end, Ambattha narrates his experience to his teacher, to which the Brahmin teacher actually “blames Ambattha” for being ignorant of Vedas and conduct so as to argue with the venerable Gotama. And he rushes to Gotama, notices the signs on his body of great man, and praises him, and concludes with the lines (probably employed so as to make conversion of Brahmins easier) :
And then the Brahman Pokkharasâdi, as one who had seen the Truth, had mastered it, understood it, dived deep down into it, who had passed beyond doubt and put away perplexity and gained full confidence, who had become dependent on no other man for his knowledge of the teaching of the Master, addressed the Blessed One, and said:
'Most excellent, oh Gotama (are the words of thy mouth), most excellent! Just as if a man were to set up that which has been thrown down, or were to reveal that which has been hidden away, or were to point out the right road to him who has gone astray, or were to bring a light into the darkness so that those who had eyes could see external forms,--just even so, Lord, has the truth been made known to me, in many a figure, by the venerable Gotama. And I, oh Gotama, with my sons, and my wife, and my people, and my companions, betake myself to the venerable Gotama as my guide, to the truth, and to the Order. May the venerable Gotama accept me as a disciple, as one who from this day forth, as long as life endures, has taken him as his guide. And just as the venerable Gotama visits the families of others, his disciples, at Ukkattha, so let him visit mine. Whosoever there may be there, of Brahmans or their wives, who shall pay reverence to the venerable Gotama, or stand up in his presence, or offer him a seat or water, or take delight in him, to him that will be, for long, a cause of weal and bliss.'
Again, in Vaseṭṭha sutta, Buddha would paradoxically echo what Manu would repeat later : not by birth is Brahmin born, he is born by karma. (na jāccā brāhmaṇo hotṭ..) This time, Buddha says that whoever does the right profession, becomes a Brahmin, not by birth but by action. This is actually supporting the varṇa system. (Though never ever does Buddha tell that Brahmin can be anyone who possesses these karmas, but implicitly hints those who do this karma apparently after being one by their birth) Which is also what the Manu would tell, in Brahmanic language :
“Śūdras are born by birth, but dvijas are from culture (saṃskāra)”
In short, Buddha didn’t ever question the actual varṇa system or even the jāti system of masses. (rather, might have fueled a more racial interpretation of the same in many regions) Rather, he was quite supportive of racial purity, apprehensive of inter caste marriages, and also varṇa system. But he didn’t want to upset the masses about their caste status after conversion to monks, so he wanted his monkhood to be less dependent on castes.
The impact of this attitude of creating alpha male Aryan monks, all united beyond castes, to see themselves as superior to others, only caused worse caste classifications in the places where Buddhists ended - whether in South India (just check how many classes are already mentioned in Sangham works) or Sri Lanka, or Tibet, Burma, or even the untouchables of Japan. Brahmanism was ultimately based on saṃskāras, morals and rites - barring the patrilineal Brahmins, all other communities had the right to question, rise in the religion, and use the Brahmins for their worship. In even the strictest of authentic Brahmanic works, there are only two untouchables - Brahmin (who in his duty cannot be even touched by another Brahmin) and a Caṇḍāla. (who in his duty shall not be touched by anyone else) It is funny to see that Brahmanic laws ask people to bath if they touch a Brahmin! But Buddhist monks who saw themselves to be noble Aryans, classified whole society into various groups, and enforced endogamy as a virtue. People usually attribute endogamy to Gupta age (c. 400 CE) but we should see that this is actually a Buddhist creation rather than Brahmanical. (even contemporary Mahābhārata has several cases of exogamy) For the worse, untouchability among all communities might also have been a product of Buddhism impacting the moral standards of Aryans in an early age.
Brahmins have been largely subservient and tolerating to the drastically different ideas they were exposed to. Though there could have been strict conservatives, they would let go of their hold within a short span of time. Though Buddhism and contemporary racial businesses flourishing under Kshatriyan establishments boasting of their pure lineage did create a deep change (for the worse) in Brahmanism, Brahmanism still remains the religion which can modify itself to its roots and still be conservative. Against all odds.
A good read on the topic : Buddhism and Caste System
Footnotes
Why are Vedas sometimes referred to as “three Vedas” instead of four? Why is Atharva Veda excluded from this list?
Ram Abloh
Hindu, studied Veda (incl. Upanishads), Vedanta, Gita5y
They are just different ways of referring to the same Vedas.
When the term “three Vedas” are used, it refers to the three styles of mantra — Rk (metrical hymns), Saman (musical compositions) and Yajus (prose passages).
When the term “four Vedas” are used, it refers to the four types of content —
I will mention another way of looking at this, through the modern lens of progression through time. In this method, we analyze the linguistic style of each Veda, and infer that the Vedas were the results of natural collection of hymns and prose at successive periods in time. We can see through linguistic analysis that Rig Veda has the most archaic language, Atharva Veda a little later, Yajur Veda later still, and Sama Veda next.
Were there only 3 Vedas at the time of Gautama Buddha? Is Atharva Veda a later compilation? Is that how it is mentioned in Te Vijja Sutta? Has a final conclusion been reached on this?
Devala Rees
Educational Researcher at Hindu American FoundationApr 4
No, the Atharva Veda predates Gautama Buddha.
This is a common misconception. It is not only the most ancient sources that refer to “the three Vedas” (as Tevijja Sutta does). Hindu sources often refer to “the three Vedas” or “the triple Veda”, “the three-fold Veda” etc., including many sources that are uncontroversially far younger than Atharva Veda, such as all throughout the Puranas and so on.
What is going on here is not a reference to the Rigveda, Yajurveda, and Samaveda as discrete collections, excluding Atharva. Rather, it is a reference to the three types of Vaidik Suktas. These are richas, which are in poetic meter; samans, which are sung musically; and yajush, which is prose. Atharva Veda features a mix of prose and poetic verse and is covered under those two types in the threefold classification.
How many recensions of the Vedas (of all four) are there, and which ones are they? Which recensions are lost to us?
Ram Abloh
Hindu, studied Veda (incl. Upanishads), Vedanta, Gita5y
Well, according to tradition, at one point in ancient times, there were:
The source of this is Patanjali’s Mahabhashya. In the paspashAhnikam, for the commentary for the fifth vArtika “sarve deshAntare” “सर्वे देशान्तरे”, the commentary is as follows:
“…….. एकशतमध्वर्युशाखाः सहस्रवर्त्मा सामवेद एकविंशतिधा बाह्वृच्यं नवधाथर्वणो वेदः …….”
“…….. ekashatam adhvaryushAkhAh sahasravartmA sAmaveda ekavimshatidhA bahvRcyam navadhAtharvaNo vedah……….”
Of the numbers listed above, today we only have:
In the case of Sama Veda, what is meant by “1000” is the number of “gAna paddhati”s or singing traditions. Of the 1000, only 3 distinct traditions remain today. Of the three, I find the rANAyanIya, which is mostly preserved in Karnataka and Maharashtra, most melodious. There is a special branch of the rANAyanIya called “govardhanIya” which is preserved only in Kashi.
How and when did the 4th Veda, the Atharva Veda come about, when Krishna says, "I am the 3 Vedas" and the Brahmananda Valli of Taittiriya Upanishad talks of only the first 3 Vedas?
Kiron Krishnan
A traditional Brahmin, upāsaka of Devas through Agni5y
The question must be actually, “how did the concept of three Vedas come about”.
Vedas are defined in the Brahmanic religion as mantrabrāhmaṇayoḥ - the union of mantras and Brāhmaṇas. If you ought to define Vedas as only of the inspired vision of sages, that would comprise mostly the mantra portion in chandas. If you ought to define Vedas as the knowledge of rituals and religion, then Yajurveda would be the main thing with its Yajus and Brāhmaṇas. (As Yāska observes)
In either case, you get the definition according to the Brahmanism, as the combination of Brāhmaṇas and mantras, which are already the saṃhitās you have. Four in number. Some also tend to include along with the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa of śukla Yajurveda the Brāhmaṇas of other Vedas (like Kauṣītaki, Jaiminīya, Aitareya, Gopatha, Tāṇḍya etc.) into the definition of Vedas.
All of these are used in some context in the religion, so let us look if Atharvaveda deserves to be a Veda, as the question doubts it.
Atharvaveda is composed by sages who are named. There is also the Brahmanic prose intertwined in a section of Atharvaveda. The language is Vedic Sanskrit and most of it predates the Brahmanic prose era, making it linguistically older than even Brāhmaṇas.
Of course, the name “Atharvaveda” or the collections we have would date much later. But the verses and the content are truly Vedic. None can magically create those verses overnight for some mischief you could have imagined. There is also a Brahmana, the Gopatha Brāhmaṇa for Atharvaveda. The verses and concepts that make the saṃskāras and cultural religion of Aryans are indebted not to mantras of Yajurvedic collection but the collection of verses of Atharvaveda.
If you meant the literary “kind” of Vedic content, there are three - the poetic verses (Ṛk), the melodious lyrics (Sāman) and the utterances of worship (Yajus). The categories often overlap one another practically, (as verses might be modified into lyrics which can be sung, verses might be modified into utterances tailored for a yajña) but you get a general picture. Atharvaveda also contains ṛks and yajus. Only that these ṛks and yajus are about specific contexts in day-to-day life and the social culture.
The Atharvaveda represents the Aṅgirases whose power of devotion and will is known in the Bṛhaspati motif. Aṅgirases are known and recognized as early as in Rigveda, and are the key agents by which Brahmaṇaspati/Indra win the cows from Vala’s cave of ignorance. Intimately connected to the power of reflection and action, Atharvaveda verses are called Atharvaṇāṅgirasaḥ for the same purpose. Atharvans are already mentioned and praised in Vedic verses which form a part of Rigveda and Yajurveda. One-sixth of Atharvaveda is material belonging to Rigveda. Does Atharvaveda still seem to be a newly born thing to you?
As Atharvaveda associates with the Aṅgirases, it outlines the Brahmā - the sage-formulator, whose verses are composed and arranged for a purpose of action. It is hence also called the Brahmaveda. Technically, the Atharvaveda, even when beyond the scope of the large-scale vaitānika yajñas, was admitted in the yajñavedis through the Brahmā priest who is the “director” of the rituals. Though Brahmā was usually from Atharvaveda, there came to be a relaxation allowing other Veda followers to be Brahmā too. Brahmā is considered to be the “ultimate dominion of the Vāk”. Brahmā was also the purohita who would guide you and be there for you throughout your life. As a result, it was always advised to have an eminent Atharvavedin as one’s purohita - until the Gṛhyasūtras compiled the Atharvan verses and made it easier for other Veda śākhā followers to be versed in the relevant content.
Atharvaveda comprises of what the casual reader might conclude as “spells” or “incantations” or “prayers” or “magic” or “philosophical speculation” or sometimes even “lovely poetry”. Atharvaveda is never ever to be taken in its “literal” meaning, because it is again about the “purpose”, the “reflection”, through the Brahmā. Atharvaveda relies much on your intuition and the instinct - hence it always has a deliberately mystic nature.
Why did the Brahmins declare the Vedas to be infallible and not to be questioned?
Rami Sivan
Student of Religions3y
Actually the “Brahmins” whoever they are, have never declared the Vedas to be “infallible”.
Let’s start by understanding the adjective used:-
infallible /ɪnˈfalɪb(ə)l/ adjective — incapable of making mistakes or being wrong.
According to Hindu epistemology there are three sources of Valid Knowledge (pramā)
The Vedas contain thousands of statements, and not all of them are true or can be proven or are even rational. So the rule of exegesis is that we can only accept those statements which do NOT contradict evidence and reason. If a statement conflicts with perceived reality - that statement is to be rejected.
All the three greatest Vedāntācāryas are unanimous on this principle of rejecting what does not conform to evidence and reason.
Śaṅkarācārya
Rāmānuja agrees
Madhvācārya concurs
What are your views on Manusmriti?
Kiron Krishnan
A traditional Brahmin, upāsaka of Devas through Agni4y
It is a smṛti of its times, had its own limitations, but I would never support burning it or imposing it on population today without any revision.
Though it is just one of the various smṛtis and dharmasūtras followed. Dharmasūtras which are part of Vedic schools are considered to hold more authority and surprisingly more liberal, like Āpastamba for instance - smṛtis were consulted only to confirm the sūtras and still required a smārta judge for interpretation and a philosopher king to implement.
Despite its limits of its times, hating Manusmṛti or Brahmanism by lovers of certain other “scriptures” is silly. As long as you find a scripture accepting its own limits of imposing dharma and advising people to regulate dharma based on the situations, the outrage against it stands unjustified.
A book that has the audacity to say this, I would give it its due respect.
According to the “Laws of Manu, ” why are the Brahmins accorded the most rights and privileges?
Rami Sivan
Student of Religions6y
Writing was only developed in India in about 300 - 200 BCE. The entire sacred literature - i.e. Vedas had been transmitted orally for thousands of years before then. The primary function of the Brahmins was to learn the Vedas by heart and to transmit them to their disciples in an unbroken and perfect succession. So they were like walking libraries containing the entire culture in their heads.
In order to be the custodians and living vehicles of the Vedas they had heavy responsibilities and duties imposed on them
As national cultural treasures they were to be protected and given special privileges.
If they neglected the study of the Vedas they were to be deprived of their privileges and treated as commoners.
How will Hindus argue against Buddhist claim of destruction of Buddhism by the hands of Hindus in India with Buddhism being egalitarian and Hinduism being casteist?
DHARMIC JIGYASU
Lived in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, IndiaUpdated 4y
This is nothing but Blatant Propaganda started by Neo-Buddhists during 19 century.
There are many common allegations and we will have to look at each one .Here are my views ,Please check
Claim - Pushyamitra Shunga, a Brahmin general, assassinated the last Mauryan king and usurped power. He killed many Buddhists and destroyed Buddhist stupas.
Brahmins hijacked Buddhist temples. Hindu king Shasanka cut of the historical Bodhi tree from bodhgaya. During Buddha's time brahmanism was the most rival of Buddhists.
Response- The alleged Persecution of Buddhism by Hindu Kings in Buddhist texts appear to be politically motivated by Buddhists(with addition made by Westerners for political purposes) and cannot be trusted ,It is highly probable they would have done it when the Hindu Kings stopped giving them Royal Patronage, The Kings and Common Public were not interested in following Buddhism, So The Buddhist demonized them in their Texts.I will demonstrate this with rational argument
Writing was developed in India after 3rd century BC (The Vedas were passed in oral manner before.)and Printing Press was invented in 16 century Ad . Before that -The Religious Texts were available in different manuscripts on Palm Leaves like
the palm leaves deteriorate over time, so there is now way to go back in any ancient archives, because the palm leaves are re-written 100 years, if not deteriorated before then . So we cannot be certain ,what did original author wrote .It is very easy for anybody to insert a new verse and write anything acc. to his desires.
Let us take a look at famous Buddhist Claim -84000 Buddhist stupas were destroyed by King Pushyamita Sunga.
Response -quoting from our source text - Lalita Vistara for illustration of exaggeration.
On the birth of the Buddha the celebrations were unimaginable - our text says:-
The daily feeding and distributing of gifts to 3200,000 Brahmins for 7 days in the tiny city of Kapilavastu??? Do you think it was possible to have such big population in a single city.
So any claims of mass and wholesale destruction of Buddhist monuments and sites must be readjusted to reflect reality.
There were indeed sporadic incidents of persecution of Buddhist over the 2500 year history - but they were the exceptional crimes of some wicked Kings and not the norm. All the accounts of how many people or monks were killed and how many Buddhist stupas or shrines were destroyed are highly exaggerated . My view is they are simply false.
The common people are not interested in philosophy (darśana) or a rational analysis of duḥkha or applying the effort (tapasya) for personal change, self-realisation (ātma-bodha) and attainment of freedom from suffering (mokṣa) — they are interested only in consumer religion — the fulfilment of their hopes, expectations and desires in this world ,Buddha was not interested in Householder stuff - his whole focus was on renouncing the world and achieving Nirvāṇa. The dominant estate in Buddhism is the monastics (the Sangha) whereas in Hinduism the dominant estate is that of the Householders.
The Hindu Puranas responded to the drive of Spiritual Materialism and gave ways and methods of devotion to deities for the gratification of the consumer needs of the common people. Along with Bhakti (devotion) and with the ultimate goal of engendering disenchantment with Spiritual Materialism they also prescribed the way of surrender to the divine and disengagement (vairāgya).
Claim - Buddhist temples were destroyed and Hindu temples were built over them and some were just converted to Hindu temples. Many Buddhist temples that were destroyed by King Sudhavannan of Ujjaini.Hindus appropriated Buddhist Temples .Eg - Jagganath Puri temple used to be a Buddhist temple .
Response - It is built exactly according to the Hindu temple plans and has nothing Buddhist about it. The separate Mandap in front of the temple is the dance pavilion (nāṭ maṇḍap). No Buddhist temple has an arrangement for a dancing stage. The temple is surrounded by a compound wall which is not a feature of Buddhist temples.
One would also need to compare and contrast the ground plan and structure with the canons of Buddhist temple building - and since Buddhism is a non-theistic monastic religion in which temples are discredited - I doubt there are any such Buddhist texts which deal with the details of temple building.
There is no comparison as the philosophy behind the temple structure is different.
The Hindu Agama temple represents the human body and the deity enshrined is a reflection (bimba) of the ātman. So each and every part of the temple has analogue to the human body and the body is symbolic of the Universe which is the “body” of Ishvara. Hinduism being pan-en-theistic.
The Buddhist temple on the other hand has no such symbolism and is just a structure which houses an image of the Buddha or Bodhisattva for the purpose of veneration and celebration. A Buddhist temple is built like a Royal palace - Prasād where the Buddha is a Royal personage.
Claim - Buddhism revolted against Brahminical Caste System. There were a number slaves, low caste people that achieved enlightenment through Buddhism which Hinduism barred.
Response - In the Hindu Puranas too, a number of animals achieved Mokṣa as well as women and even chandalas. There was even a butcher that achieved enlightenment his name was Dharma-vyādha and he used to teach brahmins. The greatest of all teachers and arranger of the Vedas - Vyāsa was born of a fisherwoman and the wisest of all counsellors - Vidura was a Sudra.
I would also like to ask that How did Buddha revolted against Caste System by endorsing it.
The majority of the early Buddhist philosophers were all Brahmanas as were many of the Theravada Bodhisattvas.The Bodhisattva himself rejected the idea that future Buddhas are born into lower castes.
Lalitavistara (306.13–19) says: Why, monks, did the bodhisattva examine [his future] family? Bodhisattvas are not born into inferior families, neither into candala families, nor bamboo-worker families, cartwright families, nor pukkasa families. Instead, they are born into only two families: brahmana families and ksatriya families.
Claim - Hindus introduced Untouchability to counter Buddhism .Even Dr BR Ambedkar said that
Response - If u carefully look at available evidence that Untouchability was introduced in Sub-continent mainly becoz of Buddhism ,Wherever Buddhism went ,it introduced Untouchability whether China,Japan,Korea,Tibet ,Ladakh,Sri Lanka and other Buddhist countries .This becomes crystal clear, there is no point of debate here. Do you know that Balinese Hinduism, an old branch, has no untouchability, but post-Buddhist Japan had it?
Untouchability comes from diet, normative ahimsa of Buddha + "right livelihood." So some had "wrong."Remarkably large number of researchers who are studying this subject are coming to this very surprising conclusion. The timeline also matches. Doesn’t change anything, though.
CLAIM - It is true that there have been numerous Brahmins and Kshathriyas who entered the order. But there have been an equally large number of Vaishyas and Shudras as well. It is not a question about whether Lord Buddha admired any Brahmin or Kshatriya individually. It is about whether He approved the values and ethics of the Brahmins and Kshatriyas? Brahmin and Kshatriya Dharmas?
Response - Hinduism also never barred anyone.Vaishyas and Shudras shifted to Agamas and Tantras which emerge apart from Vedic system
Claim - about this concept of Buddhas being born only in higher castes… yes Gauthama Buddha has mentioned it. But does it necessarily mean that He was biased towards the Brahmins and Kshatriyas? Or does it mean that he actually held the belief that those castes were higher? No.
What if you want to change the structure of a certain organization? How would you do it? How would it be easiest? By joining that organization at the bottom level or at the top level?
So he joined the org. at the top level and revolted against it by leaving it all behind. Isn’t this example enough that eventhough all Buddhas get birth in the highest castes they never ‘stay’ in them? That they do not value any of it? What is better way to make others understand the futility of caste system (and mostly the upper castrs) than getting birth at the top and leaving it all behind?
Response - even in the Hindu Dharma all sanyāsis also renounce connection with caste and members of every community can take sanyāsa in Hinduism as well. It is forbidden to ask a sanyāsi what caste he was born in. So this is common to all Dharma religions.
Buddha did not reject the “caste-system” per se because hierarchy is the basis of every civilised society. Every society in the ancient world was divided in Nobles, Priests, Farmers and Workers - what the Buddha denounced according to my understanding is the idea that birth determines occupation and that Brahmins are so by birth. This is reiterated in the Upanishads and the Mahabharata as well - it is not a unique idea. See Vajra-suchika Upanishad for a refutation of the caste-by-birth theory.
The Buddha also denounced discrimination and oppression based on caste, but I do notice that he forbad the ordination of slaves according to the Vinaya.
Buddhism has actually strengthened Untouchability in a manner never seen before. Becoz of Lord Buddha command of Ahimsa,those people who ate Meat were shunned n boycotted from Buddhist societies.
Let us take a look at Caste in Most famous Buddhist country Tibet
There were three main social groups in Buddhist Tibet prior to 1959, namely ordinary laypeople (mi ser in Tibetan), lay nobility (sger pa), and monks. The ordinary layperson could be further classified as a peasant farmer (shing-pa) or nomadic pastoralist (trokpa). Ladakh, with significant historical presence of Buddhists, a caste system existed in a manner similar to caste structure in Tibet. The upper castes belonged to sger gzhis, and were called sgar pa. The priestly caste belonged to monastery, and was called chos-gzhis. Miser was the serf caste.Serfs, the majority of the people, farmed and paid taxes. An individual’s social status and lifelong occupation was destined by birth, closed, and depending on the family one was born into, the individual inherited a tenure document known as khral-rten. Buddhist castes had sub-castes, such as nang gzan, khral pa and dud chung. Buddhist also had castes that were shunned by their community and ostracized, such as hereditary fishermen, butchers and undertakers. The untouchables in Buddhist regions, as in Tibet, were known as Ragyappa, who lived in isolated ghettos, and their occupation was to remove corpses (human or animal) and dispose of sewage.
KEY POINT -
There is an over EMPHASIS on renunciation inherent in the philosophy of the Buddha. Almost all his followers - thousands in fact - met him and “joined the sangha” - they became monks.The Vinaya are rules about monks and running monasteries. There are no rites of passage taught by the Buddha.
There are hundreds of schools of Buddhism because the core philosophy was hard for the common people to either understand or follow so especially in the Mahayana - so the teachings were mingled with the local religions and customs to provide for the Masses.
The Islamic invasion of India destroyed Buddhism because it was concentrated in the monasteries. Hinduism and Jainism survived because they were “householder” based.
I am discombobulated by hard-core Buddhist ideologues claiming there is no-self while giving their names, and other biographical details and have professions, families, relationships ideas etc. How can one claim to be a non-entity while at the same time having identity? If you cannot find a self then who is doing the looking?
There are no Buddhist marriage ceremonies, naming ceremonies, baby blessing ceremonies or house warming ceremonies. No ceremonies for achieving prosperity and material happiness - except in the Mhāyāna tradition which has reverted to all the Hindu ceremonial practices with gay abandon - exceeding even the most ardent Hindu ritualists in their pomp and ceremony.
Claim - Buddhism is the religion for the masses. The Dharma is simply the method of deliverance (not a philosophy).
Response - There are no Buddhist wedding ceremonies or funerals, there are no baby-blessing ceremonies naming ceremonies or house warming ceremonies. In Thailand the Thais visit the Hindu temples to pray for stuff. The Buddhist masses are not interested in Nirvana or the teaching on anicca - they want to study, find jobs get married, have children and live happy, prosperous and secure lives. What were Buddha’s views on the housholder life? In the Pali Canon, most of the Buddha’s discourses were addressed to the monastic Sangha. It seems to me that the Buddha felt that in order to eliminate greed, hatred and delusion, an individual would need to spend a great deal of time in meditation and concentration during every waking moment “….whether standing or walking seated or lying down.” It is difficult to do this as a “householder”
The biggest Buddhist country in the world is China - I have not met many Chinese who want to renounce the world and seek Nirvana. The second largest is Thailand - same observation.
Where are the sūttas describing the rites of passage of the lay people?
So ,we get buddhism does not entertain the worldly affairs such as weddings,parties and funerals .that is since it is a deep theory of discipline among the laymen and such occasions are followed by the cultural habbits..
Buddhism is only for those who want Nirvana, 90% of people want to have things, and families and to enjoy life and to prosper – hence Buddhism is also practiced along with indigenous religious practices - like Confucianism and Daoism in China and Shinto in Japan.
Claim - I would disagree with your interpretation of Buddhist philosophy. This is completely inaccurate and misleading others.
One has to learn Buddhist philosophy only by applying it to your life and not by being an academic or a scholar.
Buddha's teaching is very simple and any layman can understand when interpreted as Buddha has taught. That is why in Buddha's time not only elite people but poor, uneducated people like Suneetha who was a janitor and Sopaka who was dying in hunger could realise the truth about life and became enlightened.
Response - I did not interpret the Buddha’s teachings I made the observation that renunciation, monks and monasteries are the focus of Buddhism.
There are no passage of life ceremonies in Buddhism. Even in Thailand - the largest Theravada country the Royal Brahmins conduct all the rituals associated with the Palace and the rites of passage of the princes.
The Royal temple is a Hindu temple to the Trimurti.
Of course there is teaching on dukha and meditation and all that peaceful stuff and cultivation of the four Brahma-vihāras, but as a religion it does not fulfil the needs of the masses.There is nothing original in the teaching of the Buddha which is not found in the Upanishads. The uniqueness of the Buddha was in his expression and transmission and universalism.
The majority of Buddhists are actually following Mahāyāna and not Hīnayāna, and the Mahāyāna is more inclusive of householders and their needs. Some Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna “monks” are more priests since they marry, have jobs and families and teach like the ancient Hindu gurukula system. The Mahāyāna has incorporated the entire gamut of Hindu ritual - from elaborate pūjas to yajñas with a plethora of ceremonies, dances, festivals etc.
Most lay-folk and disinterested in philosophy and psychology and more interested in accomplishing material goals.Even Hinduism has exactly the same teachings - but we also have a full range of spiritual and religious options for householders which Buddhism does not have.
Human beings are not satisfied by philosophy - they want to DO STUFF. To give a couple wanting to get married a lecture on Dharma is not enough - they want a colourful ceremony, to invite guests, to have dancing, drinking and celebrating with their families and relatives – Buddhism does not provide this Hinduism does. Likewise for all the other passage of life events - nothing in Buddhism to mark these occasions - only to invite some monks to get their blessings and to give them some dāna.
Hindus will never take the blessings of monks on these occasions since they represent the renunciation of worldly life. Monks are like dead-men-walking - they represent everything that is opposite to householder life.Buddhism simply lacks in this department
CLAIM - historically, at its peak in India, Buddhism was quite popular among the masses. The merchant class was eager to adopt it. In Bengal, it was quite prevalent among the so called lower classes. Especially in East Bengal.
Response - At its peak, Buddhism spread under King Ashoka only along the coastlines of India - especially eastern parts. Not much. There's no history of Merchants adopting Buddhism. You will find words like attracted or spread. Big difference.
Amongst Kolkata residing Hindu Bengalis, there is a culture of having cakes on Christmas and New Year - Christian or not. They are attracted to Christian culture, doesn't mean they adopt Christianity.
This is some sophisticated Jagonry of mental gymnastics using high sounding words. What u said is an oxymoron,. This is coming from Marxist interpretation of Historty ,How can a Monastic Religion be popular among masses. Buddha was not interested in Householder stuff - his whole focus was on renouncing the world and achieving Nirvāṇa. The dominant estate in Buddhism is the monastics (the Sangha) whereas in Hinduism the dominant estate is that of the Householders.
We have evidence to prove that every corner of the world from deep forest with limited outside contact of world to the mega city everywhere people worshiped the divine. Greek,Romans,Mayans,Aztecs ,Incas,Egyptians, Korean,Chinese,Australian Aborigines almost all ancient Civilizations worshipped the divine. there is no evidence of Buddhism or any such related Religions anywhere in World History.
To mask the Hindu-Muslim Conflicts ,The Indian Marxists have raised this bogey of Hindu-Buddhist conflict which has now been exposed by Rami Sivan(Main Credit for this answer)
This can be inferred even today,Hinduism is more famous and appealing than Buddhism. The Indian Communists have lied repeatedly that People left Hinduism when they adopted Buddhism but if that was so ,than it should have happened to every other place where Buddhism spread but clearly it doesnot,Bonpo Religion in tibet, Confuciaism,taoism in China ,shintoism in japan, Native Pagan traditions and tengrism,Shamanism,Animism in South East Buddhist Nations remained intact until recent takeover in last centuries.
The reason why Buddhism was wiped out by the Muslim invasion of India is because they target the “head” of Buddhism - the monasteries and the monks.
Hinduism survived because it was householder based and there was no “head” or centralisation. To destroy Hinduism would have meant the destruction of every household.
So historically the overemphasis on monasticism was a major flaw.
CLAIM - The peak of Buddhism in India happened much later after Ashoke. It was during Harshavardhan’s rule and during the Pala period. In East Bengal, Vajrajana Buddhism was quite prevalent. From there it spread to Tibet (Atish Dipankar was born in East Bengal) The syncretism of Vajrajana Buddhism and local animistic practices have rise to some of the tantric practices in Bengal. Similar elements are also found in Tibetan Buddhism. Buddhism was quite a bit prevalent in Bengal until the arrival of Islam. Lower classes practiced Buddhism mixed with local customs and religious practices. In fact as late as Aurangzeb’s time there were Buddhist kings in Chattagram. Shah Shuja’s family took refuge under a Buddhist king who was ruling from Coxbajar.
Silk Road was the route to spread Buddhism from second century BCE to third century CE. Monks would typically travel with the merchant caravans and spread it. Merchant class generally supported it and was respectful as Monasteries got established and they acted as pit stops in the Silk Road for rest and for food. Also the peaceful nature was conducive for trade.
Response - This is a MARXIST Lies of Cowebs
Tantra has nothing to do with the teachings of the Buddha ,all Buddhist Tantra is adopted and adapted from Hindu Tantra - deities, mantras, puja, homa, mudras, mandalas are all Hindu practices - even in their fine details. The concept of Bodhisattvas and Deity Worship is very alien from Early Buddhism philosophy which was ridiculed by Buddha himself. Tantra pre-existed Buddhism - all Mahayana, Vajrayana and Tantra-yana cults are derived from Hindu Tantra. The concept of prapatti/śaraṇāgati is in the Veda itself which the Buddha studied.There is detailed Iconography behind Tantra n Deity Worship in Hinduism which is completely absent in Buddhism .
In Tibet and Central Asia Buddhism was influenced by Shamanism, Bonpo and Hindu Tantra and again it copied n evolved in what is known as Lamaism - in which system Lamas were allowed to get married and lead householder lives which is exact opposite of what Buddha taught. Buddhism is a monastic based religion,meant primarily for monks.Buddhism per se, as it was taught initially, is too dry. If you had to become a serious Buddhist, you had to become a monk and join the monastery . Buddha was not interested in Householder stuff - his whole focus was on renouncing the world and achieving Nirvāṇa. The dominant estate in Buddhism is the monastics (the Sangha) whereas in Hinduism the dominant estate is that of the Householders .
Hindus can easily claim - Buddhists stole temples, chaityas, stupas, idolatry and puja and all their ceremonies from us. Where did Buddha say to construct temples and idols and to worship them? Why do Buddhist worship his relics? Why do the Mahayanists perform Vedic ceremonies including elaborate yajñas? All of Vajrayana Tantra comes directly from Hinduism.
But Hindus dont indulge in this mental gymnastics- we call this CROSS-POLLINATION
Claim - The view that Buddhist emphasis is on renunciation, monasticism and transcendence of worldly life seems yto ignore the Mahayana and Tantric Buddhist traditions in which householders can also be practitioners and gain realization. The Buddhist view is to integrate everything into a path that blends wisdom and compassion. The emphasis you see is only true of a segment of Theravada Buddhism.
Response - Mahayana and Tantric Buddhist traditions like Vajrayana are copied directly from Hinduism . The concept of Bodhisattvas and Deity Worship is very alien from Early Buddhism philosophy which was ridiculed by Buddha himself. Tantra pre-existed Buddhism - all Mahayana, Vajrayana and Tantra-yana cults are derived from Hindu Tantra. The concept of prapatti/śaraṇāgati is in the Veda itself which the Buddha studied.
The Person who copies can only copy knowledge not intelligence.Buddhism while copying Hindu Tantra forget that Tantra has nothing to do with the teachings of the Buddha.
There is detailed Iconography behind Tantra n Deity Worship in Hinduism which is completely absent in Buddhism . It is covered in detail here
Hindu Iconography
Eg -Mahayana Buddhism through which Buddhism spread far & wide embraced deity worship and packaged Bodhisattvas as deities for appealing to the common people similar to Hindu Deities in Hinduism. The Bodhisattvas were moulded in the form of deities of host civilization .For ex, Avalokiteshvara was given a Chinese makeover as Guanyin making it a deity more appealing to Chinese sensitivities. Bodhisattva sprit i.e to spread the Buddha Dharma until everyone becomes a Bodhisattva was purely a missionary tool. Mahayana Buddhism also formulated its own doctrine of grace and salvation through intercession of Boddhisattvas just like Deities in Hinduism. But noticeable thing is Buddha never mentioned about Bodhisattvas.
While copying all these .Buddhism forgot the Metaphysics n Dynamics behind these concepts ,Take for eg - Lord Vishnu .In Buddhism ,Vishnu is known as Upulvan . To confirm that Buddhism copied it from Hinduism ,one has to look at Iconography behind them in both Religions, Vishnu has detailed Iconography in Hinduism where it is absent in Buddhism.
Each Hindu Devata has its form, symbols, vahana, yantra, mantra, ritual, meditation and cosmic meaning, reflects all levels of existence.The Devatas (Gods and Goddesses) in Hinduism are representatives of Saguna Brahman which is related to Vedic Nirguna Brahman..
Another Solid eg to confirm is this - In Tibet and Central Asia Buddhism was influenced by Shamanism, Bonpo and Hindu Tantra and again it copied n evolved in what is known as Lamaism - in which system Lamas were allowed to get married and lead householder lives which is exact opposite of what Buddha taught. Buddhism is a monastic based religion,meant primarily for monks.Buddhism per se, as it was taught initially, is too dry. If you had to become a serious Buddhist, you had to become a monk and join the monastery . Buddha was not interested in Householder stuff - his whole focus was on renouncing the world and achieving Nirvāṇa. The dominant estate in Buddhism is the monastics (the Sangha) whereas in Hinduism the dominant estate is that of the Householders . Do you think a poor laborer would have the inclination for all this?
MY FINAL SUMMARY -
From today's Buddhist views ,it appears that Buddhists are thinking that Buddhism is the best Religion but Buddhism has nothing special .It has been made famous by West, U will notice that Along with Buddhism there were many other religions
Bon Religion in tibet
Confuciaism,taoism in China
shintoism in japan
Native Pagan traditions and tengrism,Shamanism,Animism in South East Buddhist Nations
Similarly Hinduism in India
but Buddhism was globalized by christians becoz it is easier for digestion.
to prove Buddhism wrong ,simple common sense is enough
main problem is denial of existence of atman thereby (Brahman) divine.We have ample evidence to prove that every corner of the world from deep forest with limited outside contact of world to the mega city everywhere people worshiped the divine.
-Greek,Romans,Mayans,Aztecs,Incas,Egyptians,Korean,Chinese,Australian Aborigines almost all ancient Civilizations worshipped the divine. this indicates about existence of the divine thereby atman, whereas there is no evidence of Buddhism or any such related Religions anywhere in World History.
Buddha was not interested in Householder stuff - his whole focus was on renouncing the world and achieving Nirvāṇa. The dominant estate in Buddhism is the monastics (the Sangha) whereas in Hinduism the dominant estate is that of the Householders.Buddhism is a life-negating philosophy that seeks to escape an existence dominated by suffering by ignoring one responsiblities and duties.Buddhism is actually a plagiarised Religion which has copied Ideas from various other Religions like Bonpo,Confuciaism ,Taoism,Shintoism,Shaminism,Animinism and Hinduism etc .It is a Nihilistic Ideology which has nothing to offer to a worldly man.
Was Gautama Buddha a Hindu? If so then how is Buddhism different from Hinduism? Did Gautama Buddha profess a new religion (Buddhism) or was he refining the then Hinduism?
DHARMIC JIGYASU
Lived in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India5y
Originally Answered: Was Gautama Buddha a Hindu? If so than how is Buddhism different from Hinduism? Did Gautama Buddha profess a new religion (Buddhism) or was he refining the then Hinduism?
Gautama Buddha mainly walked in the region of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar in India. One thing we need to understand is that Buddha’s path turned into Buddhism, a
religion, only after his time. During his time, it was just another among many spiritual movements in the country.He wanted to bring spiritual seeking in a widespread way in the land because, when he came, what was once a very spiritual nation had become very ritualistic, so hetried to transform the situation. Later on, the more enterprising disciples which were mainly Brahmins , made it into a package called Buddhism, but Gautama himself never said anything that could be turned into a religion.Buddha’s way and the traditional yogic systems are not any different. Gautama himself, during those eight years of his seeking, went from Yogi to Yogi. So, in India,people saw him as one more Yogi.
This is why Buddhism did not grow in India as it did outside the country.
Outside this culture, people had never heard such wisdom. It was so fresh and new because people had never applied themselves in that direction. So, entire nations
turned to Buddha’s way. But in India, they had many options – this was just one among many.Jainism was also there which was equally powerful as Buddhism.
By then, Buddhism in India had absorbed much of the yogic and tantric cultures and had become a blend of these things, because Buddhism per se, as it was taught initially, is too dry. It was for the monks, not for the general population. So, along the way, a few enlightened beings made a nice blend of yogic and tantric cultures, weaving it into the Buddhist way of life.Many of the later teachers went to Tibet not so much by choice, but more because when the Islamic invasions happened in northern India, the first thing that was attacked were the spiritual places. So, people moved into the Himalayas and went further into the Tibetan plateau.
It is the biggest falsehood perpetrated by various vested interests (such as Indian leftists, Ambedkarites, Hinduphobic western academia, etc), that Buddhism’s first followers were the “lower castes and undesirables”.
For a big part of Buddhism’s early history, the only converts were the most elite people from the uppermost castes of the time.
Buddha was able to preach and travel far and wide only because his best friends were Kshatriyas, just like him. His closest friend, king Bimbisara of Magadha, hugely patronized Buddha in his kingdom and promoted him by giving royal support and resources for travel and preaching.
When Buddha became a wandering preacher, he would take turns staying at the palaces of each of his four king friends — king Bimbisara of Magadha, king Udayana of Vatsa, king Prasenajit of Kosala, and king Brhadratha of Kashi.
Each of these kings were rulers of big empires in Buddha’s time. Although Buddha himself came from a tiny republic (Shakya) that was based on democracy, he moved away from such republics and spent most of his preaching days among monarchies, and under the patronage of the elite kings.
Buddha’s first followers were these four kings, who encouraged their subjects to follow his teachings. His closest disciple and life-long companion, Ananda, was a Brahmin. Most of his prominent disciples were Brahmins and Kshatriyas.
It is well-known that Ashoka sponsored missionaries to spread Buddhism in various countries.
So spread of Buddhism happened in a top-down model, and not a bottom-up model. It was not a grassroots movement.
Buddha was against inclusion of women in his monastic order. He refused to ordain women as nuns in parallel to men monks, because according to him, women were intellectually inferior, and would only cause disturbance and ruin the discipline of the male monks. So much for the touted “gender equality” revolt of Buddha.
When Buddha was on the last stage towards his mahAparinirvANa (death for liberation), his disciples and Shakya kinsmen asked him for some final advice. Among other things, he told his kinsmen to adhere to age-old traditions, customs and social framework. He never once said anything about disrupting the social fabric. He never once said that the so-called “lower castes” are being oppressed. He never once said that the “lower castes” must rise in revolt against “upper castes”.
There is nothing in Buddha’s teachings that promote upheaval of the social status quo of his time.
Buddha Teachings were nothing new.They were revival of the teachings of Upanishadic sages. At the time of the Buddha there was no “Hinduism” there were many schools of philosophy called Darśanas (Perspectives of Reality) including materialists (cārvākas) and there were the Vaidika ceremonial practices and also the customs, practices and traditions of the various Jatis. The predominant “religion” of the time is referred to as “Brahmanism” by scholars. The Buddha never uses the words “Hinduism” or “Buddhism” in his teaching -he uses the word Dharma or Sanātana Dharma.Buddha studied under gurus of the Sankhya tradition but found their teachings and practices to be unsuitable and went off on his own to meditate. After a prolonged period of austerity he obtained “enlightenment” i.e. gained insight into the nature of bondage and liberation. Most of his early disciples were Brahmins.The Buddha repeatedly mentioned and acknowledged the Hindu Devas (especially the 33 Devas) throughout his discourses. He also mentions the Vedas but only three Vedas - the Atharva seems not to have been known. He also mentions the varnāśrama Dharma but what he rejected was the teaching that either the Vedic rituals or the Devas could liberate us from samsāra and duḥkha or that jatis was relevant to the overcoming of suffering.
He emphasized that we need to liberate ourselves and that neither rituals nor the grace of the devas could do that for us. In this respect his teachings were very much in conformity with many of the Upanishadic sages.So the Buddha could not have rejected “Hinduism” - he spoke in the broad context of the cultural milieu of the time while accepting many of the given facets of the culture that later coalesced into modern “Hinduism.”Both Hinduism and Buddhism were terms and divisions of colonialism. Both traditions refer to themselves as “Sanātana Dharma”.
The the idea that Buddhists do not believe in God or gods is a western fabrication.
Buddhists even today worship many deities - there are more deities in the Tibetan Kalachakra than in the Hindu pantheon - even though many of them appear in the Kalachakra pantheon as well. Above the doorway of every Thai Buddhist temple is a statue of Vishnu on Garuda.the idea that Buddhists do not believe in God or gods is a western fabrication. Here is an example of a Buddhist prayer.
Here is an example of a Buddhist prayer from Dhammapada Transference of Merits to All Celestial Beings
May all beings inhabiting space and earth, Devas and Nagas of mighty powers. Having shared this merit Long protect the Dispensation!
May all beings inhabiting space and earth, Devas and Nagas of mighty powers. Having shared this merit Long protect the Teaching!
May all beings inhabiting space and earth, Devas and Nagas of mighty powers, Having shared this merit Long protect me and others!
May all Devas share this merit, which we have thus accumulated for the acquisition of all kinds of happiness and prosperity!
May all Bhūtas share this merit, which we have thus accumulated for the acquisition of all kinds of happiness and prosperity!
This is an excerpt from the Mahā Jayamangala Gātha
15. May all good fortune come my way
May all the deities protect me By all the power of the Saṅgha
May I always enjoy well being
16. By the power of this protective recital May my misfortunes due to stars,
Demons, harmful spirits and ominous planets Be prevented and destroyed
17. May rain fall in due time May there be a rich harvest
May the world be prosperous May the government be righteous
DD Kosambi in his 1965 book 'The Culture and Civilisation of Ancient India in Historical Outline' admits that Pali records started by making Indra and Brahma respectful hearers of the Original Buddhist discourses.
These terms like Jainism,Buddhism,Hinduism are the result of Colonial Creation in 19 century as a result of classifying people for conversion purposes by British. In reality,In Dharma Tradition,There is no such term as Conversion. It is an idea in Monotheistic religions becoz they r based on Commandements ,based on one Prophet one Book which is said by God. The Dharmic Religions r a result of inquiries of individuals in different periods of history who have attained Enlightment n Self Realization and expereinced Divinity ..India known by its org name Bharat had many sages who taught Dharma in their own unique ways .Buddha n Mahavira were one of them.Many of those sages could have started an ‘–ism’ in their names. they did not..Buddha never created Buddhism. It was always confined to Monasteries among Elitis,It was Emperor Ashoka a few hundred years after Buddha, who was intent to make people follow what Buddha had preached. In reality,Buddhism n Jainism were exclusivist groups meant for Enligghtment n Self Realization.These terms like Buddhism ,Hinduism r new introduced by the British, and does not do justice to the great variety of views, of philosophies, of gods, of rituals and to the huge body of knowledge that is contained in the Vedas,Dhammapada,Tripitikas n many other books, which includes ‘worldly’ subjects like medicine, economy, astronomy, mathematics, architecture, arts and so on. In fact People in old times never saw a dichotomy between worldly and sacred .They never felt the need to pledge that they only follow one particular human being. They were free to choose what suits them best to connect with the Divine.becoz they were seeking for attaining Enlightment n Self Realization..Sanatana Dharma or universal law is all-inclusive in nature and does not exclude anything. This way of life is not an organized belief system but a science of Self Realization. there were no theocratic states in this culture; the ruler had his religion and the subjects had the freedom to follow theirs. There was no conflict because people did not look at religion as an organized process.in this culture, there has never been anything called persecution for spiritual people. At the most, they called you for debates and asked you questions.Because the pursuit is truth, so people sat down and argued whether what they knew was true or what the other person knew was true. If his truth was more powerful than yours, you become a part of him. If your truth was more powerful than theirs, they would become a part of you. It was a very different kind of search. People were searching to know. They were not just believing and trying to prove that their belief was right.There is no belief system to this way of life. Someone believes in God, someone else can choose not to believe in God.
There is no Buddhist or Hinduist.These terms were created by Abrahamanics.The conversion to another religion is an abrahamanic idea.
Buddha never accepted or rejected the idea of God.He was silent about God.Let me begin by sharing an excerpt from the Buddhist text Vinaya Pitaka.
Now, those who were formerly seers of the brahmins, makers of mantras, preservers of mantras, whose ancient mantras as sung, taught, and composed the brahmins of to-day still sing, still speak ; they still speak what was spoken, they still teach what was taught, that is to say (by) Atthaka, Vamaka,’ Vamadeva,’ Vessamitta, Yamataggi, Angirasa, Bharadvaja, Vasettha, Kassapa, Bhagu —these abstaining from food at night, restrained from eating at the wrong time,’ (yet) consented to such things as drinks. The sages mentioned above are none other than the famed Saptarishi of Hindu mythology. According to the text, Buddha agreed that the Vedas were originally sacred but were later interpolated by some Brahmins who added practices like animal sacrifice to the texts. The text also states that Buddha refused to acknowledge the Vedas in their present state only due to their corruption and not due to him believing that the texts themselves were not divine .In Pali Canon, the Buddha also states that the Agnihotra as the foremost sacrifice and the Gayatri mantra is the foremost meter. Both of course are Vedic rituals. Sacrifices have the agnihotra as foremost; of meter the foremost is the Sāvitrī.”
The Buddha and the Veda
one could find differences between Buddhism and Brahmanism only if one were to study the former superficially rather than profoundly. The more superficially one studies Buddhism, the more it seems to differ from the Brahmanism in which it originated; the more profound our study.the more realized one becomes that they both are same
The major differences lies in ATMAN (SELF) vs ANATMAN(NON-SELF)
Buddha said “i have searched everywhere but I have not found a self” - so who was doing the looking? He also taught a positive state of Nirvana - so who or what experiences Nirvana?Many Buddhist monks themselves clarify the anatma theory and say it has been misunderstood. Annattalakhana Sutta Mahavagga 1, 6, 38 And the Blessed One thus spoke to the five Bhikkhus: 'The Body (Rupa), O Bhikkhus, is not the Self. If the body, O Bhikkhus, were the Self, the body would not be subject to disease, and we should be able to say: " Let my body be such and such a one, let my body not be such and such a one." But since the body, ‑ O Bhikkhus, is not the Self, therefore the body is subject to disease, and we are not able to say: "
Let my body be such and such a one, let my body not be such and such a one." 'Sensation (Vedana), O Bhikkhus, is not the Self,.... Perception (Sanna) is not the Self, . . . The Mental formations (Sankharas) are not the Self .... Consciousness (Vinnanam) is not the Self.
Nirvana is not just a negative state of cessation of suffering it is a positive state as well - "This is peace, this is exquisite -- the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana." -- AN III.32
"There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress." - Ud VIII.1
If u compare it with Hindu Upanishads.ere is a description of ATMAN from Hindu Upanishads- Not inwardly cognitive, not outwardly cognitive, not both-wise cognitive, Not an undifferentiated mass of consciousness, not cognitive, not non-cognitive, Unseen, with which there can be no dealing, ungraspable, devoid of characteristics: Inconceivable, indefinable, its sole essence being the consciousness of its own Self, The cessation of proliferation, tranquil, blissful, without a second; [such] they consider is the fourth [state of being]. This is the Atman [Self]. This should be realised.”
Mandukya Upanishad 7. Who experiences the peace and joy and absence of craving which is Nirvana?Tell me what it is that experiences cessation of suffering and the peace of Nirvana - gotcha! All investigative ideologies including Science come to a point of “unknown” in relation to first things. Why the Bigbang? Why is there something rather than nothing? - No one can answer these question not you nor I nor any other religion or science. Hinduism says Sarvam Khalvidam Brahman which Everything is Brahman and It is the material cause of Universe
These are the 4 Main Mahavakyas in Vedanta
1 - Sarvam khalvidam Brahman — Everything that one can sense with the five senses in Brahman (meaning the “immensity” _ the “Unified Field”, the “ground of Being”.)
2- Prajñānam Brahma — that Immensity or Unified Field is consciousness.
3. Ayam ātma Brahman — this individual Self (ātman) which is me in my essential nature as a ray of consciousness is that same Unified Field — Brahman.
4 - Tat tvam asi — “you are that” – you, me and ever sentient being is a ray of that Supreme All-pervading consciousness.
On Close observation-they both sound as same
Buddhism began in India and was once the major religion of the Indian subcontinent. Today it is officially followed by less than 0.5% of the population of India, with main adherents being refugees from Tibet and Ambedkarite Neo-Buddhists.
Navyana Buddhists often criticize Hindus for ‘usurping’ Buddha and transforming him into an avatar of Vishnu. However, the truth is that the Buddhist texts themselves feature Rama, an avatar of Vishnu, as a previous incarnation of the Buddha. In Dashratha Jataka, Buddha claims that he was Rama in his previous life. “At that time the king Suddhodana (Buddha’s father) was the King Dasaratha, Mahamayi (Buddha’s mother) was the mother, Rahula’s (Buddha’s son) mother was Sita, Ananda was Bharat, and I myself was Rama-pandita”.Though I agree Buddha is not a incarnation of Vishnu but the intention of Hindus was not wrong
Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan was a philosopher and a former president of India. In his book “Indian Philosophy”, which is considered a classic, he presents his main hypothesis for the decline of Buddhism.
“The vital reason for the disappearance of Buddhism from India is the fact that it became ultimately indistinguishable from the other flourishing forms of Hinduism, Vaishṇavism, Śaivism and Tantrik belief.
Mahāyānism was unable to acquire the prestige of primitive Buddhism, and so proved weak and vacillating in its conflicts with Brāhmanical religion… Throughout its conquests it did not aim at the suppression of other religions, but tried to suffuse them with its own ethical spirit.
Early Buddhism included Indra, Brahma and other divinities. The new converts carried into it much of their reverence for the old gods. The Hīnayāna accepted Brahma, Visṇu and Nārāyaṇa in their own names. The Mahāyāna, we have seen, never seriously opposed itself to the Hindu doctrines and practices. It elaborated the mythology and spoke of a hierarchy of divine grades and capacities, at the head of which was Ādi Buddha. While the Brāhmins looked upon Buddha as an incarnation of Visṇu, the Buddhists returned the compliment by identifying Visṇu with Bodhisattva Padmapāṇi, called Avalokiteśvara. Religion became a private affair, and the Brāhmin ascetics were looked upon as the brethren of the Buddhist śamanas. Brāhmanism and the Mahāyāna faith affirmed identical philosophical and religious views.
The Mahāyāna metaphysics and religion correspond to the Advaita metaphysics and theism. In serving the needs of a large majority of men, it became only a feeble copy of the Bhagavadgītā.A gradual process of intellectual absorption and modification developed to such an extent as to countenance the theory that Mahāyānism was only a sectarian phase of the great Vaishnava movement. The Hīnayāna, with its more ascetic character, came to be regarded as a sect of Śaivism. Buddhism found that it had nothing distinctive to teach. When the Brāhmanical faith inculcated universal love and devotion to God proclaimed Buddha to be an avatar of Visṇu, the death knell of Buddhism in India was sounded.
Buddhism died a natural death in India.”
The main points of Radhakrishnan are
1. Mahāyāna Buddhism became indistinguishable from Vedic Hinduism with it’s plethora of deities and practices.
2. There was mutual acceptance and assimilation of Mahāyāna and Vedic Hinduism – acceptance of Buddha as an avatar of Visṇu by the Vaidikas and acceptance of Visṇu as a Bodhisattva by the Mahāyānas.
3. Philosophically too, Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta become hardly distinguishable.
4. Thus, Buddhism dissolved into Hinduism.
This is highly probable, given the way Buddhism spread to East Asia and beyond. Wherever it went, it took the local form, a fact mentioned by Radhakrishnan too. Having dabbled in Chinese Buddhism for a while, I see very little distinction between Chinese Buddhism and Chinese Paganism, especially in the mode of rituals. Buddhism appears like a Chinese religion in China and a Japanese religion in Japan. Similarly Buddhism eventually blended into mainstream Indian religion. Much of today’s Hinduism is heavily Buddhistized. Radhakrishnan eloquently puts it:
“The best things of the world die before they are re-born, and even so has Buddhism perished in India, to be born again in a refined Brāhmanism. Buddha today lives in the lives of those Indians who have not given up their past traditions. His presence is felt in all around. Throughout worshipped as a god, he has a place in the mythology which is still alive, and so long as the old faith remains without crumbling down before the corrosive influence of the new spirit, Buddha will have a place among the gods of India.”
Pandurang Vaman Kane, a notable Indologist and Sanskrit scholar, rebuts the claim that Buddhism disappeared in India due to persecution by Hindus. He provides numerous examples of Islamic persecution of the people of the lands they conquered and contrasts it with both Hindu and Buddhist kings allowing all religions to flush and even Hindu kings funding Buddhist monasteries. He shows the general pattern of religious tolerance prevalent in pre-colonial India. This theory of Buddhists being persecuted by Hindus is today the pet theory of the Marxists, who use it to justify the persecution of Hindus by Muslims. Kane has provided ample evidence against it and discussing it could be a blog post by itself.
Kane’s reasons for the decline of Buddhism can be summarized as follows
1. Buddhism becoming indistinguishable from Hinduism and thus the two merging into one another. This is the same hypothesis provided by Radhakrishnan.
2. Internal corruption and strife in the monasteries resulting partially from them becoming too wealthy due to generous donations of the people. Swami Vivekananda also spoke about this. People soon grew disillusioned with the monks and Buddhism.
3. Islamic invasions delivered the death blow to Buddhism.
“From about the 7th century A.D. Buddha began to be recognized by Hindus as an avatāra of Vishṇu and by the 10th century Buddha came to be so recognized throughout India by almost all Hindus.
When Buddha came to be worshipped by Buddhists as God, when Buddhists gave up the original characteristic doctrine of the attainment of peace and bliss of nirvāna in this very life through the eradication of selfish desires by following the Noble Eightfold Path, when Buddhists adopted the doctrines of bhakti and the ideal they set up was the evolution of Bodhisattvas through aeons by good deeds, the line of demarcation between Buddhism and popular Hinduism became very thin and was gradually obliterated.”
Here, Kane’s reasoning is similar to that of Radhakrishnan.
About internal corruption in the monasteries, he mentions:
“Monasteries of Buddhist monks and nuns became in course of time centres of idleness, pleasures and immorality… A well-known scholar like Rāhula Sānkrtyāyana, himself a Buddhist bhikśu, In a paper on ‘Vajrayana and the 81 Siddhas’ contributed to the Journal Asiatique vol. 235 ( 1934 ) pp. 209-230 was constrained to say “The monasteries and temples were gorged with riches due to the pious offerings made by the multitudes. The life of the monk became more comfortable than that of the layman. The discipline weakened and many unfit persons entered the community. The easy life associated with the culture of a sensual art under the cover of cultured paintings, meditation, gods and goddesses must have inclined the minds towards sensuality.”
I tend to agree with this reasoning since monasteries being a center of wealth was one of the motivations of Islamic invaders to desecrate and plunder them. The critique of Buddhist monks living in comfort and luxury isn’t new. In the 9th century C.E., Jayanta Bhatta, a Nyāyika, in Āgamaḍambara, which is a satirical Sanskrit play, lampoons a sect which is a parody of Buddhism, for this reason. Though, I would not be as harsh as Kane, since his views seems to mainly come from one perspective (I don’t question Kane’s integrity or his scholarship. He is undoubtedly one of the best historians India has ever had).
Kane then talks about the devastating effect of Islamic invasions.
“Moslem fanaticism and invasions of India delivered the coup de grace (final blow) to Buddhism about and after 1200 A. D. by ruining famous universities like those of Nalanda and Vikramasila and the monks were mercilessly killed in large numbers. Those who escaped the carnage fled to Tibet and Nepal. H. M. Elliott’s History of India (as told by its own historians) vol. II p. 306 contains a passage from Tabakat-i-Nasiri about Bakhtiyar Khilji that states that Bakhtiyar led his army to Behar and ravaged it, that great plunder fell in his hands, that most of the inhabitants of the place were Brāhmanas with shaven heads, that they were put to death, that large numbers of books were found and it was discovered that the whole fort and city was a place of study (madrasa). The description indicates that that Brāhmana with shaven heads were Buddhist monks.
When Moslem invaders exterminated the monks, the laity became bewildered and were either converted to Islam or became slowly absorbed among Hindus.”
It is also no coincidence that Afghanistan and Kashmir which were once flourishing as hubs of Buddhism are now plagued by Islamic jihad and human suffering.
There has been a Lie propagated about Persecution of Buddhists by Hindus-Marxist historians who have been perpetrating this falsehood have not been able to produce even an iota of evidence to substantiate the concoction.. the contention that "the Hindus destroyed Nalanda Buddhist university".
This is a plain lie: under several Hindu dynasties, Nalanda flourished and was the biggest university in the world for centuries; it was destroyed by the Muslim invader Bakhtiar Khilji in 1200. But if you repeat a lie often enough, it gains currency, and now many Indians have come to believe that Buddhism had been replaced by Hinduism as India's chief religion in a most violent manner. In reality, Buddhism had always been a minority religion in India, confined to nobles and traders; before its disappearance around 1200 AD, it had been partly reabsorbed by mainstream Hinduism; otherwise it co-existed peacefully with other Hindu sects, often sharing the same temple- complexes. The historical allegations of violent conflicts between mainstream Hinduism and Buddhism can be counted on one hand. It is not Brahminical onslaught but Islam that chased Buddhism from India. In Central Asia, Islam had wiped out Buddhism together with Nestorianism, Zoroastrianism, Manicheism, and whatever other religion it encountered. The Persian word for idol is but, from Buddha, because the Buddhists with their Buddha-status were considered as the idol-worshippers par excellence. The Buddhists drew the wrath of every Muslim but-shikan (idol-breaker), even where they had not offered resistance aganinst the Muslim armies because of their doctrine of non-violence. As a reminder of the Buddhist past of Central Asia, the city name Bukhara is nothing but a corruption of vihara, i.e. a Buddhist monastery; other Indian names include Samarkhand and Takshakhand, i.e. Tashkent. In India, Buddhism was a much easier target than other sects and traditions, because it was completely centralized around the monasteries. Once the monsteries destroyed and the monks killed, the Buddhist community had lost its backbone and was helpless before the pressure to convert to Islam (as happened on a large scale in East Bengal).
This is what Arun Shorie called in his book eminent Intellectual- How history was made up at Nalanda by Marxists
How history was made up at Nalanda
Koenraad Elst has debunked Shunga myth of Buddhist persecution in his blog
Why Pushyamitra was more "secular" than Ashoka
Any anti Hindu is quick to say " but Sungas persecuted Buddhists". This is pure nonsense. In very heartland of Sunga ruled MP, we have this Bharhut stupa which was extensively beautified under Sunga rule as said and we will see the evidence. (1)
Almost 2100 year old Prakrit inscription on eastern gateway of this Stupa says that stone work was caused to be made in 'reign of Sungas'. Text of inscription along with translation. One of grandest ancient Buddhist monuments built under patronage of Sungas
Source for inscription on Bharhut is here. The book lists every inscription and is as authentic as it can get. (3)
People who ask Divyavadana a Buddhist text also depicts pushyamitra sunga as a great prosecutor of Buddhist will u accept that -
are WRONG. FACTUALLY WRONG. That is because they have apparently never read the Divyavadana . I did. Divyavadana NEVER claims "Brahmin Pushyamitra Shunga persecuted Buddhists". It actually talks about "Pushyamitra Maurya a descendant of Ashoka" persecuting Buddhists.
nglish translation of the relevant section of Divyavadana. Pushyamitra Maurya was a descendant of Ashoka . Much nonsense has been written about alleged persecution of Buddhists by Pushyamitra Sunga when in reality the Bharhut Stupa was enlarged under Sunga patronage.
Pushyamitra Maurya was a descendant of Ashoka via his successor Sampadi( Samprati). He was the son of Pushyadharman who was Samprati's descendant. Source: Divyavadana (English translation by indologist John Strong.
Infact, Divyavadana is very clear. it says-"With the death of Pushyamitra Maurya, the Mauryan lineage came to an end" Divyavadana very clearly states that the persecutor of Buddhists was the last Mauryan king. The word "Sunga" doesn't appear in Divyavadana
Buddha's father Śuddhōdana was a Hindu. According to the Buddhist scriptures themselves, Śuddhōdana performed Vedic Yajnas and drank Soma according to Vedic injunctions. He was a devotee of Indra.
Buddhist chronicle Mahavamsha says India was full of non Buddhist "heretical worshipers of Brahman" during this period.
There was never a "violent communal confrontation" between Hindus and Buddhists as a society, whether in India or South East Asia. Sects which are very popular survived into modern times. Sects which lost popularity saw their followers drift towards Shaivism and Vaishnavism.This is not to say that either "Brahmins usurped Buddhist temples" or "Buddhists usurped Brahmin/Hindu temples". The actual process of "conversion" was very complicated and depended upon a set of social and political factors. "Conflict" is certainly not the word here.Archaeological evidence shows that Buddhism was a minority religion even in this period (Maurya-Kushan). There is complete absence of Buddhism at both Gandhara and Mathura in the pre Kushan layers. Even in the Kushan period, the presence was 'weak"
Even in the Kushan capital Mathura, the earliest Buddhist sculpture didnt appear before 2nd cent CE. Complete absence of Buddhism in Pre Kushana layers and a weak presence in Kushan age. In entire corpus of early Mathura inscriptions, only two inscriptions are Buddhist.
To this I must add, that contrary to popular perception, various Kushan emperors like Vima Kadphises and Huvishka were Shaivites rather than Buddhist and they did not mint any deity other than Shiva on their coins. Worship of Nagas and Yakshas was the popular "folk religion"
Dr BR Ambedkar has described this in his book
· There can be no doubt that the fall of Buddhism in India was due to the invasions of the Musalmans. Islam came out as the enemy of the 'But'. The word 'But' as everybody knows, is the Arabic word and means an idol. Thus the origin of the word indicates that in the Moslem mind idol worship had come to be identified with the Religion of the Buddha. To the Muslims, they were one and the same thing. The mission to break the idols thus became the mission to destroy Buddhism. Islam destroyed Buddhism not only in India but wherever it went. Before Islam came into being Buddhism was the religion of Bactria, Parthia, Afghanistan, Gandhar, and Chinese Turkestan, as it was of the whole of Asia. In all these countries Islam destroyed Buddhism.B. R. Ambedkar, "The decline and fall of Buddhism," Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol. III, Government of Maharashtra. 1987, p. 229-30
· The Mussalman invaders sacked the Buddhist universities of Nalanda, Vikramshila, Jagaddala, Odantapuri to name only a few. They razed to the ground Buddhist monasteries with which the country was studded. The monks fled away in thousands to Nepal, Tibet and other places outside India. A very large number were killed outright by the Muslim commanders. How the Buddhist priesthood perished by the sword of the Muslim invaders has been recorded by the Muslim historians themselves. Summarizing the evidence relating to the slaughter of the Buddhist Monks perpetrated by the Musalman General in the course of his invasion of Bihar in 1197 AD, Mr. Vincent Smith says, "The Musalman General, who had already made his name a terror by repeated plundering expeditions in Bihar, seized the capital by a daring stroke... Great quantities of plunder were obtained, and the slaughter of the 'shaven headed Brahmans', that is to say the Buddhist monks, was so thoroughly completed, that when the victor sought for someone capable of explaining the contents of the books in the libraries of the monasteries, not a living man could be found who was able to read them. 'It was discovered,' we are told, 'that the whole of that fortress and city was a college, and in the Hindi tongue they call a college Bihar.' "Such was the slaughter of the Buddhist priesthood perpetrated by the Islamic invaders. The axe was struck at the very root. For by killing the Buddhist priesthood, Islam killed Buddhism. This was the greatest disaster that befell the religion of the Buddha in India..
·
B. R. Ambedkar, "The decline and fall of Buddhism," Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol. III, Government of Maharashtra. 1987, p. 232-233 with quote from Vincent Smith
When Buddhists passively succumbed to the Ms onslaught, it was left to Brahmins to manage their Mahabodhi temple for centuries. But being far more pampered than other Hindus in Nehruvian India, they don't even show any gratitude. they behave like self-centred spoiled brats.
The Mahabodhi story illustrates where the stories of Buddhist "Stupas" turned into Mandirs come from. When the Buddhist monks fled or were killed, their (surviving) temples were continued by Brahmins, & the peripheral Buddhist-made doorkeeper-Shiva was turned into the main deity
There is this myth propagated that Ashoka left Hinduism and adopted Budddhism which is complete SCHAM. Ashoka adopted Buddhism but that doesnot mean he left anything,He was a fervent propagator of Hinduism in his kingdom.