> Just as Christianity, in its early era, readily incorporated pagan beliefs and iconography into its developing creed and rituals, Buddhism was very accepting of preexisting Indian beliefs. It simply reframed them in Buddhist terms.
This is an important point. Over the decades, I have seen it claimed on news-for-nerds sites like this, that Buddhism denied the supernatural entirely. Yet Buddhism as it is actually historically attested from its earliest eras (and attempts to reconstruct some kind of “pure” ur-Buddhism are dubious) show ready acceptance of e.g. the Vedic pantheon, with only the caveat that the gods, too, are stuck in samsara.
> I have seen it claimed on news-for-nerds sites like this, that Buddhism denied the supernatural entirely.
I haven't observed that. It's a difficult position to hold: the ideas of karma and rebirth are central dogmas in Buddhism, and it's hard to construe them as not supernatural.
Karma is purely action, cause and effect. There is little more to it. If I swing my hammer, it will hit something.
Rebirth largely depends on what kind of buddhism we are talking about. There is nothing supernatural about rebirth in Zen. Others not so much, Tibetan buddhism for instance they believe that the Dalai Lama is a direct reincarnation of the 13th Dalai Lama (who would be tried for pretty serious crimes if he was alive today). So meh. ymmv.
Treating karma as simply cause and effect amounts to an apologetic. The doctrine is that some kinds of action have effects that are borne in future lives. That would imply that there is some kind of place or medium where the seeds sown by actions can be stored, until they bear fruit in future lives. The Abidharma proposes some pretty convoluted metaphysics to explain this storage without postulating an enduring self.
Reincarnating lamas are a peculiarity of Tibetan Buddhism, honoured as much in the breach; for example, many lama lineages are passed from father to son. When searching for a reincarnated lama, monks rely on prophesies and magical signs. Unsurprisingly, the system is wide-open for corruption. Stephen Segal, for example, is supposed to be a reincarnated lama.
The central teaching of Buddhism revolves around one single concept 'nirvana'. In this state you become one with all, rather you understand your true nature as the supreme self. While Hindus described this state as basically "everything", buddha and later many prominent buddhists described it as "nothingness" which appears as inconsistent with each other and hence folks might see Buddha as some kind of rebel. Buddha and Buddhists talk about "un-atman" and Hindus talk about "atman".
There is one major difference between Buddhism and some schools of thought in Hinduism like Yoga or Bhakti. While Yoga and Bhakti insist that a 'deity' helps you make the progress much faster on path of self realization, Buddha did not explicitly support this. He instead focused on more inward looking approach of meditation and contemplation (which is a subset of Vedanta philosophy in Hinduism). This is often seen as Buddhism being an atheistic philosophy by Hindus.
Both Hinduism and Buddhism allow its followers to embed this central concept into various other "decorations" and "facades". Which may involve supernatural elements. But they are mostly irrelevant for you to be either Hindu or Buddhist. This is in stark contrast to Islam, Judaism and Christianity where some central core beliefs absolutely require you to believe in supernatural elements.
This is nonsense. Buddhism regards the "self" as not really a thing; rather, a bunch of aggregates that beings mistake for a thing. The idea of a "supreme self" is Atman, which nearly all Buddhists regard as illusory. The word generally occurs in Buddhist literature in the form "anatta", or no-self. Clinging to the idea of a self is considered a mistake, and the root cause of dukkha, or suffering.
you the real mvp. Thanks for what you're doing. Though may I caveat your description? The self may be a thing but it is not what we colloquially call a self. It doesn't exist independently - in the sense people think self means. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have existence and even undergo reincarnation too.
>>While Hindus described this state as basically "everything", buddha and later many prominent buddhists described it as "nothingness" which appears as inconsistent with each other
Similar are thoughtless (awareness) and mindfulness. Both may appear contradictory on the first glance but are same thing. These concepts are not easy to describe so often they are expressed multiple ways.
Of course there is a massive spread of religion that comes under the title 'buddhism'.
The buddhism I practice doesn't resemble this, there are others (e.g Pure Land or Tibetan) which I do think incorporate some real 'religious' dogma and supernatural nonsense; but personally (and perhaps somewhat offensively.. Sorry!) I don't refer to these as Buddhism.
The only thing I think my sect would say buddhists as a whole believe is that we absolutely do not care what any given person believes. There is no dogma, no leap of faith involved in zen. If you want to believe in a magical dude in the sky, that's up to you. It's not related to zen.
It's quite easy to be mislead on this point, especially as a lot of zen texts were written at a time where such beliefs were common, but while e.g Dogen sometimes talks about literal rebirth and various hells and so on, these are not part of his teachings but the settings for it. Like how if I was to write some sutra today, I may set it in a contemporary setting, but that setting would not be the teaching..
The whole rebirth topic has never been a part of my practice. I don't think I've ever even spoken to my teacher about it. Maybe once, and he just waved his hand and said "that's just Indian stuff".
My practice is much more about right action and living wholeheartedly, than contemplating eternal souls and rebirth. Everyone is different, though.
If life is suffering, but nothing comes after death, then suicide is a means to escape suffering. But Buddhism has always proscribed suicide, usually for the very supernatural reason that suicide victims would be reborn at some lower level of existence where they are even more miserable.
Moreover, if attachment brings suffering, but there is no rebirth, then the insistence on continuing to live is the ultimate attachment. I actually think that this is one possible solution to the Fermi Paradox and supports a pseudo-Buddhist view: eventually civilizations might transcend the biological impulses that keep them attached to life, and then deliberately choose extinction.
It's very difficult to have such a discussion when we are trying to group a massive spread of beliefs and practices under one umbrella. I can't speak for any 'Buddhism' besides my own, but mine does not proscribe suicide at all.
For some; it is clearly the most compassionate action even assist with suicide.
From your other comments, you seem to subscribe to one of those movements to restore some pure ur-Buddhism separate from its actual historical tradition. As I said up top, I find this dubious and I personally am not interested in discussing that kind of Buddhism.
You say “my practice does this” and “my practice does that” and you are certainly entitled to follow whatever approach you want. However, I think it would be more honest to label the collection of practices you very deliberately chose as something you could be comfortable with from a contemporary skeptical perspective, as something different from Buddhism.
I'm an ordained soto zen practitioner and study under a transmitted teacher; most of my views quite closely follow what our founding teacher (Eihei Dogen) wrote.
If that doesn't make me a buddhist, I'm not sure what would :}
Zen is certainly a 'back to basics' movement; but you're quite incorrect so think that zen is separate from historical traditions of buddhism. The buddha sat Shikantaza just as we, all the 'fluff' came later. We are perhaps a 'back to basics' movement, but one that has a several thousand year lineage. Unless you feel Bodhidharma was a dubious modernist? :}
I say 'my practice' as I do not wish to speak for others even inside my group, let alone buddhists as whole.
Believing certain stuff is “fluff” is precisely the dubious attempt at reconstruction that I was talking about.
In terms of their own practices, the Japanese practicing Zen in their own country, and the teachers who came to the West, had the excuse of being born into an existing cultural tradition that had evolved the way it had. First-generation Westerners taking on Buddhism, but only such things as they can feel comfortable with, and then claiming that what they put together is the authentic core Buddhism, just look like cultural appropriators.
Do you think the Indians accused the Chinese of cultural appropriation in the 5th century also?
Even more bizarre to think that chan buddhism (which later became zen) dropped a bunch of stuff they weren't comfortable with when buddhism arrived in china.
Is there some cut off date you think is the high water mark for authentic buddhism? Anything after 1260 need a new name? Buddhism-3? :}
buddha was written as having been fairly clear that his teaching would disappear in the world after 1-2k years. It's an entire meaning behind why the wheel of the dharma needs a buddha to turn it.
But.. meditation, I hate to break it to you, is not how Buddha was enlightened. It was merely when he calmed down that he realized he had already attained it long ago. After that he thought deeply as to how to skillfully lead such ignorant and arrogant beings to his knowledge. that was his purpose in life. He didn't spread the meditation you learned and practice. If it were not the case then there would be even one to have achieved perfect, supreme enlightenment and to have come from your practice, but there are none who have. Buddhism means Buddha's teaching. If what you know doesn't contain any ways for living beings then that's dead Buddhism. A living teaching always has the ways in it. If you ask me the difference btwn Buddhism today and Buddha's teaching I can say that Buddha taught us to save ourselves through the truth of the world and to live forever, whereas most people who think they learned Buddhism have learned to throw away their own self and to die forever.
Rebirth being untrue does not imply nothing comes after death. Even Buddha knew that he did not know what came after death. His teachings were about how to live, not about how to win at death.
> But Buddhism has always proscribed suicide ...
Not true. Himsa is proscribed, because it causes harm, and self-harm is still technically himsa, so a simplistic reduction might interpret suicide as proscribed. But such a reduction would also ignore all nuance.
Suicide causes harm. Not just to you, but to your loved ones, and possibly even strangers. Even if we restrict ourselves to an entirely aelfish point of view — where we ignore any auffering we may cause to others — unless you know, for a fact, that there is nothing after death, you cannot believe that you will not have suffering after death.
> Rebirth being untrue does not imply nothing comes after death.
Yes, the best way Vedantists as well as Buddhists scholars explain this is that even if there is no rebirth, you need to understand that a lot of us agonize ourselves in this life over our own deaths. I have seed devout christians who lived good life just feeling terrified about hell when the moment of death comes near.
The Buddhist and also Hindu doctrine while does address life after death also provides you very actionable advice to avoid suffering in this life itself before death too.
It still does. And it's easy too see once you understand the core precepts of Buddhism, that it's not based on rebirth or karma. Those two are just one possible way to see our existence in this universe.
Buddha started with the question: what is the cause of suffering? Desire. But desire is nigh unavoidable in life. Every member of society is likely to have many desires. Thus, everyone is likely to have pain, sooner or later. A person with pain is likely to propagate pain to another person, or more. This a major method through which suffering in society as a whole tends to grow. So we need a way to tell members of society to reduce the propagation of harm. Thus, ahimsa, i.e., do no harm.
But people aren't just gonna internalise such 'for the greater good' ideas, and especially not when they are in pain. Buddha recognised that people often need a strong faith system to root them to these ideas, instead of relying on pure rationality to prevail all the time.
Buddha accepts that we do not really know how the universe works, but this fact does not remove the need for a strong faith system, because humans are imperfect. So — and being a philosopher — Buddha says humans can believe in whatever faith system works for them, as long as the system they choose upholds the core precepts.
The cycle of rebirth and karma just happened to be the predominant faith system at his time, and it also happened to fit the requirements, so most of his followers — at the time — had an easy job of adapting.
But he also warned against believing such faith systems to be the truth, instructing that people must not blindly take his teachings as authority, and must instead examine everything through their own experience and reason through it. When questioned, what to do if such examination reveals a truth that goes against his teachings, he clarified that one must go with the truth. The authority of scripture was explicitly placed below that of one's own experience and reason.
Thus, until proven, the cycle of karma and rebirth is not necessarily true, not is it required to explain that life is suffering and himsa (harm unto) propagates suffering. It's just a convenient way to tie it all together, just as good as any other unproven faith system.
If you don't believe me that Buddhism works just as well without karma and rebirth, take a look at Zen Buddhism. Despite being a modern form of Buddhism, it still holds closely to core of ancient Buddhism. And Zen makes no claim for, or against, the concept of Rebirth. It basically goes, "Idk. Does it matter?". According to Zen, who you are in this life, ceases to exist when you die, and that is plainly observable, so why not live the best life while you have it?
As you can see, this faith system also works to uphold the core precepts of Buddha. And I don't think he'd disagree with Zen on this matter. In fact, he'd probably be glad that Zen has made awakening accessible to people who had no background in the Hindu ideas of karma and rebirth, and thus would have found it harder to reach a path to awakening if they had to adopt those ideas first.
I think practicing Zen and saying Vajrayana is not Buddhist is a pretty wild thing to say.
Pure Land gives up the striving for enlightenment and turns it into a "regular" religion where you pray to Buddhas to do it for you, but, I dunno, they kind of have a point.
I think this misses a bit of what's going on. What Buddhism does when it encounters pre-existing religious traditions is that it relativizes them. Previously, the existence of the gods or mythic figures was considered an absolute truth. Post-Buddhism, the enlightened mind is absolute reality, and everything else is relative - to culture, history, etc.
For instance, a Tibetan Buddhist might visualise a deity, supplicate the deity, "interact" with the deity in various ways, but would still ultimately recognise that the deity is an empty appearance. But, since everything else is an empty appearance too, the question is simply whether engagement with the deity is a skilful practice. Which it might be - perhaps the practice fosters social cohesion, or helps with emotional regulation, or whatever. It can't really be "supernatural nonsense", since to be "supernatural" would require that it is beyond the nature of mind, which is absolute.
When I started Zen I met a western man who had a Japanese wife. She wasn’t interested in Zen because she was raised with Pureland and didn’t believe in Amitabha so was skeptical of all Buddhism.
I think most westerners are similar: we mostly think of Buddhism as the Dalai Lama with lots of different Buddhas and complex cosmology. The irony is that the complexity mostly represents the pre-buddhist parts.
Yes. Buddha himself was pretty much a Hindu. Most of his teachings perfectly consistent with the previous Vedic thought and where he differed again, it was perfectly within the framework where all other Munis or rishis would disagree with the established beliefs. Buddha's "dhamma" is basically just a different pronunciation of "Dharma". Buddha's primary teachings was around "nirvana" a concept which existed long before Buddha in the form of "Kaivalya", "Moksha" or "Apagraha". Hinduism itself does not have the concept of "other", it has wide body of work and it is also tolerant to a wide array of ideas under its umbrella and Buddha was pretty much under that Umbrella.
Hindus for example believe Buddha to be the 9th Avatar of Lord Vishnu. Their homes are full of Buddhist insignia and they name their children after Buddha. There is a parity in praxis.
"Pure Buddhism" is mostly a political issue and a much later addition to the discourse. One of the reason it happened is because a prominent caste based politician Ambedkar publicly declared that he is going to quit Hinduism because it did not treat his caste well. While Islamists and Christian missionaries rejoiced at the idea and try to court him he declared both the religions to be of foreign origin and harmful for India. He decided to become a Buddhist. This is the first time someone prominent tried and succeeded in drawing a clear line between Buddhism and Hinduism which since has become a bit thicker. The new converts however get called "neo buddhists" and aren't really seen as authentic buddhists by both non buddhists and original buddhists.
"Hindus for example believe Buddha to be the 9th Avatar of Lord Vishnu. "
So as to deny Buddhism is a separate religion, and co-opt Buddha among various Hindu avatars. This is how Buddhism was decimated by Brahminism in India, co-opting Budhha as their own.
What has evolved when it cannot evolve beyond caste system?
What has been done to Buddhism in India is inflammatory, not my take. The story of extinction of Buddhism is told proudly by Hindu seers too. So "absorbing stuff" is weird way to put it.
Let us see what Amebedkar says about anhilation of Buddhism from India.
> 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 Buddha in India. Religion like any other ideololgy can be attained only by propaganda. If propoganda fails, religion must disappear. The priestly class, however detestable it may be, is necessary to the sustenance of religion. For it is by its propoganda that religion is kept up. Without the priestly class religion must disappear. The sword of Islam fell heavily upon the priestly class. It perished or it fled outside India. Nobody remained to keep the flame of Buddhism burning.
Very brave to selectively quote Ambedkar, especially on Buddhism and Hinduism. Let me enlighten you with his own quotes:
"History of India before the Muslim invasions is the history of a mortal conflict between Brahmanism and Buddhism"
"No wonder if Pushyamitra who as a Samvedi Brahmin was the first to conceive the passion to end the degradation of the Brahmin by destroying the Buddhist state..."
"By this proclamation Pushyamitra set a price of 100 gold pieces on the head of every Buddhist monk"
And in turn the Islamic Mughal Empire of the subcontinent that destroyed this Buddhist priesthood was in turn replaced by that of the British. Indians still largely follow British ways even up to today. What do Indians themselves consider better? I don't know.
The concept of caste has evolved in Hinduism over time. The roots of caste system are in teh concept of Varna and Varna system has its roots in Sankhya.
In modern India, the secular law gives special status to castes that have violence potential and hence has solidified its existence and yet Hinduism has already evolved the concept of caste to make it ever more useful to society.
The caste was never a Hindu concept. If you said varna or jati, it would have made more sense. Caste was introduced by the British because they wanted to homogenize the different heterogeneous communities in India into one structured classification.
Varna is occupation and jati is tribe. Each tribe had people with different occupations who supported the village life through activities of their professions. Inter-jati marriages were allowed, and so were inter-varna marriages. There was no discrimination within jatis, in fact, they all supported each other for the sustenance of their jati.
Untouchability was present in some cases, but it was between 2 jatis. Meaning, one jati would consider the other jati as untouchable. However, it was not between varnas.
This system became more rigid after British started classifying people into different castes, providing benefits to some and taking away some from others, and that's how the caste system evolved into what it was.
> There was no discrimination within jatis, in fact, they all supported each other for the sustenance of their jati.
While I do not doubt the rest of your comment, I have a hard time believing this. In my experience, humans are tribal animals, and are constantly jockeying for status, as individuals and tribes (even constantly moving in and out of multiple tribes).
The British may have formalized/utilized and exacerbated things, but I imagine any group of humans anywhere is always dividing and subdividing into various tribes for various purposes. The simplest being to show you are better than other potential mates in order to attract your preferred mate.
If there was discrimination, there would not have been intermarriages. People switches profession to suit their needs. Buddhist texts themselves narrate that jatis were not tied to any particular profession.
There are examples of a Kshatriya warrior working successively as a potter, basket-maker, reed-worker, garland-maker, etc; and a Vaishya cook working as a tailor or potter without social push-back.
The rigidity of the varna-jati system started after the Mughal invasions, due to their exploitative taxation. It made the fluid system more rigid in matters of sharing food and marriages, and disintegrated due to opportunism and social stratification.
The British raised frustration several times that Indians did not know their caste, and had to be coached for their census forms. This was because varna-jati was not considered important by the Indians of that time.
I find this sort of defense inadequate and it is often proposed by Hindu apologists who feel a bit guilty about existence of caste.
Caste is not a British construct. They did not understand it properly but all evidence suggests that they in fact encouraged caste fluidity in most cases. The mapping of castes existed well before British. In fact you can look at smaller colonies such as Goa which were never under British rule and you find very strong existence of caste. Same with hindu society that moved to other countries. Even if it was a British construct it is still the failure of Indian society to continue with it if you assume it is bad.
> Varna is occupation and jati is tribe.
This is not true. There is no basis for Varna being treated as occupation. Gita and all other books are very clear that this is a qualitative classification of people where birth also played a good role.
In modern sense your definition of Varna is worthless too because people in same occupation show no solidarity along these lines. But show strong solidarity along the "jati" line.
> Jati is tribe.
Jati is inherited from father. In that sense it can be seen as a tribe. But it is also a classification very similar to Varna. Tamil Brahmins have completely different gene line from say Chitpavanas and yet both are seen as Brahmins and they will quickly form a good relationship compared to say a Chitpavana and Koli (fisherman).
Calling Jati a tribe does not explain this.
The broad idea of "caste" is probably a better term as it seems to represent really well the underlying social effect everyone is more interested in.
--
Untouchability was present in some cases, but it was between 2 jatis. Meaning, one jati would consider the other jati as untouchable. However, it was not between varnas.
This system became more rigid after British started classifying people into different castes, providing benefits to some and taking away some from others, and that's how the caste system evolved into what it was.
--
Most of the literature around "caste atrocities" is completely bogus and made up and does not stand close scrutiny. People might have been treated as untouchables, but it was not very different from you not willing to touch a homeless man on street of SF. Now you might find that there is very good mapping of race and homelessness but it is not the race which makes the person untouchable, it is the filthy lifestyle.
Most of the "low caste" people in India actually had very low social capital, were less civilized and had poor work ethic. Some of those castes quickly improved and suddenly became "upper caste". For example the most revered King from India is Shivaji who was from a lower class of land tillers who along with his entire tribe became one of the greatest ever "Kshatriya" (higher caste) person ever.
Once a person or tribe builds social capital they automatically transition into upper-caste. Those who do not, remain at the bottom.
> Caste is not a British construct
It comes from a Portuguese word 'casta'.
But that's beside the point. You are mistaking the discriminatory nature of 'caste' with just the different nature of 'varna's. There was fluidity among varnas long before the British arrived and also inter-varna and inter-jati marriages.
> Tamil Brahmins have completely different gene line from say Chitpavanas and yet both are seen as Brahmins and they will quickly form a good relationship compared to say a Chitpavana and Koli (fisherman)
Where are you getting such information from? As a person who has lived in India for several decades, I can tell you this is not true. Nobody asks which varna or jati you are from, or no one even mentions these words at least in urban parts.
> Even if it was a British construct it is still the failure of Indian society to continue with it...
We never had a discriminatory system in the first place, and the only thing that remains today is the damage done by our various colonizers. India's Prime Minister Sri Narendra Modi is himself part of an OBC (other backward classes) community (Modh Ganchi) and has enormous support from Indians from all backgrounds, India's President Smt. Draupadi Murmu is from a ST (Schedule Tribe) community called Santhali. The chief of the drafting committee of India's constitution is a Dalit, as you may know, Dr. Ambedkar, who was in strong opposition of the Brahmanical patriarchy himself. Yet he was given such an important role, in a country where ~80% of the people are Hindus.
Chatrapati Shivaji's father was a Jagirdaar serving under the Nizam, so their family was pretty well off. You are right that he was from a family of land-tillers which is considered to be of a Shudhra varna. However, he employed people of all varnas in his operations.
> Once a person or tribe builds social capital they automatically transition into upper-caste. Those who do not, remain at the bottom.
Now that's just... head cannon. President Draupadi Murmu being from a ST does not make any effort to hide the fact. Getting to the post of President has not changed that. Similarly, Dr. Ambedkar's achievements got him far, but he still was a Dalit. Same with Narendra Modi.
I do not disagree with you at all on most of your points except 1 that British are responsible for caste in any way. Even if they were if Indians weren't completely backward and uncivilized 70 years is a good enough time to get rid of bad things introduced only for 100 years or so.
> Nobody asks which varna or jati you are from, or no one even mentions these words at least in urban parts.
It matters 100% when it comes to renting places, dating, marriage, friendship, kitchen access and so on.
> We never had a discriminatory system in the first place, and the only thing that remains today is the damage done by our various colonizers.
There are two types of discriminations. One is the ethical one. For example if you believe in free speech like US first amendment as a good principle, from it follows the principle of right of association and not association. All the discriminations the caste grifters often cite as "oppression" are actually perfectly ethical and in line with values like free speech, right of association and individual liberty. For example discrimination in marriages, dating, renting, room sharing, offering access to private areas, sharing food everything is perfectly ethical and also socially useful.
The other form of discrimination where you discriminate on behalf of someone else who expects you not to discriminate is obviously unethical, harmful and against the principles I cited above. For example government reserving government jobs for certain castes, government forcing private institutions to reserve seats based on caste or Individual employee discriminating in hiring when their employer does not expect them to.
I agree with you that Indian people in general do not discriminate that much in latter harmful type of discriminations (unless law mandates such discrimination) with exception of politics. There is no evidence that TCS, Infosys, Ambanis, Tatas ever discriminating in employment either. There is no evidence that there is any economic boycott of any castes either. Caste structure for example encourages inter-caste trade.
The most discriminatory aspect of Indian life is politics. Ambedkar was precisely included by Nehru because of his caste. He was a political non-entity, Nehru used him for his personal agenda. Indian President Daurpadi Murmu is an affirmative action President who is President only because of her caste and otherwise have no other qualities that made her the first choice for that position.
> President Draupadi Murmu being from a ST does not make any effort to hide the fact.
She does it because it politically benefits her, the only reason why she is President is because she is ST.
There are plenty other examples for example Scindia royal family is Kunbi. They are tribals. So are Holkars. They are goat herders. You will rarely see them talking about their tribal identity. Daivadnya Brahmins aren't historically from the Brahmin tradition at all. They are Vaishyas, coming from goldsmith occupation, their wealth enabled them to upgrade themselves.
The British Census officers record this again and again. They note that how "Nayi" (Barbers) suddenly became "Nyayi Brahmins" (Brahmin in charge of dispensing ustice) as they acquired social capital.
British did their part in solidifying caste by accusing rebel groups such as Pindaris (Elite Special Forces of Marathas) as caste full of horrible ravaging criminals. But their impact on rest of the caste system is negligible.
> Even if they were if Indians weren't completely backward and uncivilized 70 years is a good enough time to get rid of bad things introduced only for 100 years or so.
If you think Indians were backward and uncivilized, there's no point in engaging further with you.
kula-s and jaati-s exist; injustices and poverty exist. Does the caste-system exist? One can't use injustices or fights between different kula-s or jaati-s as an evidence for the existence of the caste-system.
"While emphasizing that I do not attack and much less defend the caste system in what follows, let us look at the existing descriptions and their consequences.
(a) Caste is an antiquated social system that arose in the dim past of India. If this is true, it has survived many challenges – the onslaught of Buddhism and the Bhakti movements, the Islamic and British colonization, Indian independence, world capitalism – and might even survive ‘globalization’. It follows, then, that the caste system is a very stable social organization.
(b) There exists no centralized authority to enforce the caste system across the length and breadth of India. In that case, it is an autonomous and decentralized organization.
(c) All kinds of social and political regulations, whether by the British or by the Indians, have not been able to eradicate this system. If true, it means that the caste system is a self-reproducing social structure.
(d) Caste system exists among the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Jains, the Christians, the Muslims… It has also existed under different environments. This means that this system adapts itself to the environments it finds itself in.
(e) Because new castes have come and gone over the centuries, this system must also be dynamic.
(f) Since caste system is present in different political organizations and survives under different political regimes, it is also neutral with respect to political ideologies.
Even though more can be said, this is enough for us. A simple redescription of what we think we know about the caste system tells us that it is an autonomous, decentralized, stable, adaptive, dynamic, self-reproducing social organization. It is also neutral with respect to political, religious and economic doctrines and environments. If indeed such a system ever existed, would it also not have been the most ideal form of social organization one could ever think of?
How can we try to understand this odd state of affairs? The question of the immorality of the caste system became immensely important after the British came to India. Consequently, there are two interesting possibilities to choose from: one, Indians did not criticize the caste system (before the British came to India) because Indians are immoral; two, the Europeans ‘discovered’ something that simply does not exist in India, viz. the social organization that the caste system is supposed to be."
1. Immorality of Caste => This debate needs to happen as to why caste is immoral. It did not happen in British times nor it is happening now. I am talking about discussing the more fundamental first principles to be considered. Even today it is mostly a dog-whistle at very superficial level.
2. Legal protection to caste system.
One new thing that has happened to Caste is that Indian constitution has offered special rights to certain castes. This has resulted into a competition to be part of certain castes and then use these special benefits which come at a cost of harm to other castes.
This indicates that Indian Constitution and Law subsidizes existence and discrimination based on caste and strengthens caste system. This also alters the fundamental properties of caste system that you enumerated. If constitution offers you special benefits for being a member of caste, you will assert that identity strongly as long as constitution is in force.
Part of the reason why caste does not matter for Indians in USA (in public matters) is because the law does not offer any discriminatory benefit hence you do not benefit from asserting your caste identity in public sphere. Proposed laws like SB403 by precisely aim to change it by create "caste groups" of "victims" and "oppressors" which then benefit (or get harmed) by their identity. Such groups can then be shepherded to support other political platforms that the leaders of these groups may own.
I don't want to get into a war of "isms" Hinduism is much older than these isms and will outlive it. Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism like a sect like so many others. Hinduism is a collection of many sects. I hope considering Buddha an avatar of Vishnu is not meant for offence but the highest Honor.
> This is how Buddhism was decimated by Brahminism in India, co-opting Budhha as their own.
It makes no sense what so ever to me. By honoring Buddha, giving him one of the most prominent positions in the Hindu pantheon, extending Buddha's teachings and even internalizing them somehow was "decimated" ? How does reverence look then ?
This is how Hinduism evolves and always have been.
Embrace, Extend and Extinguish is what was followed by Brahmins to decimate Buddhism. If purpose was to absorb his teachings, the caste system is still present. No present day Hindu remembers or honors Buddha or his teachings. That's just laughable excuse to justify Buddhism not present in the land of Budhha. It is a cautionary tale, there's no reverence.
> is what was followed by Brahmins to decimate Buddhism.
Looks like you deep rooted anti-semitic hatred for Brahmins more than anything else.
> No present day Hindu remembers or honors Buddha or his teachings.
Well I do ! In fact some of the greatest Hindu philosophers spent their lifetime studying Buddhism and writing books. Even the Vipassana teachers in USA and everywhere happen to be Hindus not Buddhists.
> If purpose was to absorb his teachings, the caste system is still present.
Buddha himself was a proponent of basic tenants of caste. Buddha primarily took Brahmins as his disciples. Nearly 40% of his students where Brahmin and nearly all who got popular and wrote about buddhism were Brahmins. Buddha's multiple childhood friends studied at Takshashika a Hindu university that existed before Buddha and later prominent Hindu Brahmins like Aryabhatta studied at Buddhist universities like Nalanda.
When the Shakya king decides to disown his wife because she was born to a low caste mother, Buddha stops him, not by citing that "caste is evil" but rather the well established Hindu rules of caste that it is father's caste that should matter and not that of mother. Not to mention Buddha also predicted the future Buddha to be "maitreya" a person born in Brahmin family.
Even on the matter of "caste", Buddha is pretty much a Hindu.
Anti-semitic is a very deliberate choice here. Anti-semitic implies a highly prejudiced hatred against jewish people. The hatred from Brahmins is exactly the same, to the extent that some of the caste grifters literally use Nazi era propaganda posters and replace the Jew with Tamil Brahmin. (I am not a Tamil Brahmin, I only observe this from outside).
You are making a naive assumption here that there was no religion present in India before Buddha, and that after Buddha established his Dharma everyone should have abandoned their respective religions to take up Buddhism.
Ashoka converted to Buddhism and ruled almost the whole of the Indian subcontinent at one point. But that doesn't mean he converted all Hindus to Buddhist. Few Hindus may have converted, but 'land of Buddha' also happens to be the 'land of Sanatana Dharma' where there are several other deities people worshiped and traditions people practiced.
To me it looks similar to how Islam included Jesus: making him one of the most prominent prophets, while at the same time denying the core tenet of Christian doctrine (that he'd be the son of god, unus et trinus).
> This is how Hinduism evolves
It is indeed how religions evolve - literally by forking. Like Christianity forked Judaism (and was itself forked by Islam), Buddhism forked from Hinduism. Sometimes some patches are retrofitted on the original tree, sometimes trees diverge so much that it's hard to see the common root. Sometimes reformers go back to the original project, once their patches get somewhat accepted (a lot of anglicans after Vatican Council II...); sometimes they don't.
Whatever the result, it's important to respect one's choice - if buddhists reject the place that modern Hinduism tries to fit them into, because they think the patch is not enough, that's their call and there is no point insisting otherwise.
Note that none of the key philosophers around that time bothered with the "identity", it is a modern concept primarily driven by politics and exposure to outside religions.
So for none of them it was a fork. They all developed on the main branch, in the absence of centralized PR approvers everything gets merged.
In India this identity matters even more as the Indian constitution offers different rights to you based on your identity and you get to benefit from "unequal laws" hence everyone deeply gets sentimental about it.
> To me it looks similar to how Islam included Jesus: making him one of the most prominent prophets, while at the same time denying the core tenet of Christian doctrine (that he'd be the son of god, unus et trinus)
One has to look how Islam treated the faiths around it when Islam obtained power. It was mostly genocide and iconoclasm at scale not seen before. Even acknowledgement of Jesus in the Koran is more to enable easier conversion into Islam. The concept of conversion for example existed in Islam.
Buddhism deals with far subtle and much more complex ideas like nature of reality. You can see a detailed discussion here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAZPWu084m4 (Note that the monk talking here is a Vedantist, talking with great respect and reverence to Buddha/Buddhism and on Buddha's birthday).
> Whatever the result, it's important to respect one's choice - if buddhists reject the place that modern Hinduism tries to fit them into, because they think the patch is not enough, that's their call and there is no point insisting otherwise.
I think that is a great analogy, but note that Hinduism has not tried to "fit buddhism" into anything, Hinduism only point out that Buddhism's fork is pretty much similar to many other forks of Hinduism which have not been identified as separate from Hinduism.
Neither Hindu nor Buddhist philosophy however cares about such distinctions or boxes as they are completely irrelevant to their objective, it is mostly for people to argue. (This is not true for Islam and Christianity, Islam denies you heaven if you havent accepted Islam before death, Christianity does the same, hence it matters deeply whether you are Christian or Muslim, mere believing in the God wont help.)
Overall "melting pot" mentality is a good thing and must be encouraged and a good thing. It helps people find common ground and love each other rather than needlessly quarrel and fight.
You are attributing some kind of consciousness and purpose to what was a popular movement.
The Hindus of that time were used to different sects within Hinduism, some denying Vishnu the supreme godhead, some denouncing the entire pantheon and vedas, etc.
The pansyncretisism came quite naturally and 'brahminism' is a myth created recently to claim victimhood (woke ideology of suppressors and suppressed, very similar to the worker class and bourgeoisie of the communist thought)
1. They must sustain themselves by a livelihood that did little or no harm to creatures.
2. They could only accumulate minimum wealth for their sustenance, and that too only through the activities specific to them.
3. Punishments were harsher for Brahmins. For example, in instances of Theft,
i. Shudra had to pay 8 times the money stolen
ii. Vaishya had to pay 16 times the money stolen
iii. Kshatriya had to pay 32 times the money stolen
iv. Brahmins had to pay 64 to 128 times the money stolen
4. Brahmins were forbidden to make money by selling meat
5. They could not charge interest on lending
6. Could not touch weapons
7. Had to avoid seeking praise
8. Was not allowed to expect gifts from Shudras except in special circumstances.
(Source: Snakes in the Ganga - Breaking India 2.0)
It's their duty to perform rituals for other varnas, and if they get some money by performing those rituals, they can only use it for basic needs like food.
Brahmins were ascetics who had to follow the most difficult of rules. That and in addition to the fact that they must be knowledgeable about Vedas and other scriptures is why a Brahmin's life is considered as the hardest out of all varnas.
With such rules in play, it would be impossible for Brahmins to acquire wealth or military power to subdue Buddhists.
from my point of view, you are correct, that they have taken the name of Buddha in order to promote their own thoughts and ideas. If it were really true that they revered Buddha, then his special teaching should still be present within the material studied by e.g. Krishna devotees. I recently went to have around 10 deep conversations with such devotees and I confirmed that they know next to nothing about his real teaching. While they insist they know, they repeatedly describe the essence of his teaching as "non-violence". However this is virtually nothing to do with Buddha's special teaching, and as a matter of fact, only someone who already has the extraordinarily high level to differentiate true from false and, put it into practice by never telling any untruth, would be capable of even practicing non-violence. His teaching is far more profound and constructive than the idea of non-violence. In fact, saying his teaching merely amounted to non-violence and co-opting his name, portrait, and tacit approval of their usage of his name, calling him an incarnation of the deity of their choice, while he cannot come to correct them, is nothing other than blatant and dear violence against Gautama Buddha. This is while they insist that the words in the gita from Krisha to Arjuna that it is literally impossible to kill are remotely valid. It's merely delusion in order to further avoid the truth that Buddha left. It seems narcissistic at best and murderous at worst. Buddha called himself a self-born, not an incarnation of vishnu, and his teaching wasn't non-violence, but rather, he even stated once that he was here to destroy delusions. it would make sense that, for a person like him, with massively superior wisdom, to have come and tamed all those around him in debate on such matters, who also said that he is the only one who exists between all of heaven and earth, thus superseding the deities of the current religions, would have to be co-opted by those religions. misinforming people is the only way for religious people to maintain their position of influence over others and over their own subconscious.
What saddened me even more was only the children I met in that large group of devotees were able to admit they had doubts about the Gita and were able to listen a bit.
Buddha also was extremely clear in the Lotus Sutra that even "nirvana" is not his real teaching. He states repeatedly and very unmistakably that he used the concept of nirvana as a temporary resting spot for beings who would be too arrogant or too ignorant to accept the truth if he told them as he knew they wouldn't be able to understand without much more of his cultivating them. So he lets them play with the concept of nirvana, and when he sees them cultivated, he tells them that what they thought was nirvana was no true final resting spot and that real nirvana resides with omniscience. He claimed knowledge of the true nature of reality and was very clear in his explanation of the fundamental laws and theories of existence: reincarnation and the law of cause and effect. How a good or bad thing happens. How to live well or how to become worse. Lying, for example, is not good for people. He revealed the ways from the problems to the results.
As you can see this is a far cry from such a thing as ordering people not to be violent and not explaining how they can actually accomplish it.
suppose you were to hear that real nirvana is with omniscience... you'd probably have thrown it away too. or suppose you are a Krishna devotee who calls said deity to help or take control of your life - and Buddha comes and calls you "the blind who have eyes"... the main answer for people who remain in denial is to co-opt his name and deny that you're in denial.
it rather reminds me of modern Christians believing themselves saved from sin just through faith in their own ideas without ever having met Jesus and having listened to him scold them on their wrong ideas and practices. why do we think humanity killed people li...
> If it were really true that they revered Buddha, then his special teaching should still be present within the material studied by e.g. Krishna devotees
This is not true about Hinduism. It isn't one of those "take all or none" philosophies you can pick your parts without ever reading about many other parts which you still hold in high regard due to tradition. Hindus do not hold Islam and Christianity in the same reverence simply because both ideologies are outside the umbrella of Hinduism.
Now, if the claim is that someone have used Buddha's name to promote their own ideas then reverse would be true, you will find Buddha everywhere including in Gita as someone who is subservient to their favourite God. There would be fake quotes about Buddha praising Krishna and so on.
> most people I met interested in Buddhism are also co-opting his name
This is true for nearly all religions and especially for philosophies. The difference between philosophy and science is that, to understand someone else's philosophy you need to possess similar intellect. Where as average student of science can study and understad ideas of genius like Einstein.
> The difference between philosophy and science is that, to understand someone else's philosophy you need to possess similar intellect. Where as average student of science can study and understad ideas of genius like Einstein.
where on earth or from who did you learn this abject nonsense?
Based on what you said, whatever you learned is not actually philosophy.
Philosophy is not someone's thoughts or ideas. Reducing it to that makes it equivalent to some random person's random ravings and trivializes the word.
The reason why you can't understand all of philosophy is because you have learned from someone who didnt really know.
Philosophy is easily defined when you actually know.
Or perhaps you think you are expert enough of all philosophy to be able to state so boldly that all of them require some level of intellect.
I hate to break it to you, but that is an immensely arrogant thing to say, aside from being obviously self-contradictory and produced by someone who speaks of his thoughts rather than what is known.
meanwhile you're attempting to rob humanity of real philosophy, which is not at all apart from science. Philosophy and science are both part of the same object - two sides of one coin. Philosophy is the study of what is in the truth. We call truth that way because it's fixed and can be confirmed through literally anything.
But whatever you learned is actually a tool to deceive people who don't know any better.
There is a phrase: "buddha's teaching is so simple that can be learned by a three year old boy, but it cannot be practiced by an 80 year old man."
> This is true for nearly all religions and especially for philosophies.
Remove the word philosophy and I'll agree with you.
> This is not true about Hinduism. It isn't one of those "take all or none" philosophies you can pick your parts without ever reading about many other parts which you still hold in high regard due to tradition.
I'm wondering if you decided to completely ignore everything I previously wrote or if you've got something controlling you to be unable to correctly understand what you read of what I wrote. Chances are you are another person who does not actually want to know the truth. The best way to remain in ignorance is to falsely convince yourself that you actually do want to know.
There is blatant evidence that Buddha's teaching is thrown away. He himself says the Lotus Sutra is the one sutra that is rejected by the majority of people, even while he's alive.
Maybe if you had a basic amount of regard for him and even perhaps yourself then you wouldn't so obviously deny how deeply in denial you are.
I will explain something for you. Buddhism is not under the umbrella of Santanadharma, however much you try to neuter Buddha's real teaching so as to stay so comfortable in your own ideas. Buddha admitted the existence of Gods because they are equivalent to aspects of nature or because they don't really exist or are metaphors and he uses them entirely as such. The mere fact that you are possessed by a god justifies Buddha's using the term - because you are a servant of a dead God , it was accurate to call you one. But Buddha was clear that there are no beings. If you knew even a little of his real teaching then you would notice how silly
you sound claiming that what you know even approaches his level. Buddha used words like bodhisattva or deva even though he is later clear about the true nature of those terms. You're the one who missed the point. Buddha basically intentionally trolled you.
Besides, if you really knew the nature of a real Krishna, you would see that the truth of those concepts do not originate in "Hinduism", whatever that is.
Are you aware of the fact buddha said, "in all of heaven and earth, only I exist"?
Stop changing his words if you want to convince the future humanity you actually respect him.
The fact is, for now, you are lying to people. The G...
When Siddhartha becomes Buddha under the tree, he is in the state of bliss, nirvana and he has absolutely no need to go back, go back to the human world. But it was Brahma and Indra who request him to do so as per Buddha's own account.
Budhha rejected Vedas. "He repudiated their thesis that the Vedas are infallible and their authority could never be questioned" - When you reject Vedas and question them, there is nothing left to salvage.
Entire body of Upanishads are about questioning Vedas. The repudiation of Vedas isn't new thing that Buddha invented and pretty much part of usual Hindu philosophical traditions. The buddha himself says that very clearly that he is walking on the same old path treaded by others before him.
I think it's important to remind ourselves that our ancestors didn't view the world like we do. There wasn't a clear line between "nature" and "supernature".
Is alchemy supernature?
If you don't know 1) microorganism 2) atoms, is there any reason to say "flour can be transformed into breads, but stones can never be transformed into gold"?
I think it's worth remembering that Gautama did not create Buddhism. He passed on and people that came after, continued teaching in his stead. So to say that Buddhism was very accepting of preexisting Indian beliefs doesn't say anything about what he actually taught after his liberation. For a number of reasons I don't think he himself incorporated pagan beliefs. If I laid out all my arguments, this answer would probably turn into an article. For the sake of brevity, I'll only pick three.
First, most teachings that aim at orienting seekers toward a realization are non-conceptual, they're not intellectual. They don't ask you to believe in anything, but to orient to your own senses in the present. They require your direct participation. The work is about getting the mind out of the way of direct experience, which is antithetical to orienting it toward even more beliefs. The mind needs no extra motivation for stories, that's its job.
The second point ties in with the first. The mind loves to intellectualize, to conceptualize. It wants to understand realization, since it cannot experience it. So eventually, some people will try to teach from a conceptual framework. It's in this form that the teachings will actually be either transmitted to or apprehended by the vast majority of "practitioners". This is where you'll also notice some ambiguity between original teachings and doctrine. In the morning you're taught to inquire into the nature of the I and to focus on your senses; then in the evening you're on your knees, chanting in front of a statue.
Finally, did Gautama deny the supernatural? I think that the answer is probably yes and no. Yes, because as I explained, I don't think he actively included them in his teachings. No, because it would be as pointless as convincing a 2 year old that Santa doesn't exist. How fruitful would it be for a teacher whose aim is to help you realize, to spend their time debating concepts, when you might just wake up any instant and see things for yourself?
I'm confused why that troubles you. Does every article concerning Buddha have to mention his birthplace? Or to generalize, does every article about any significant historical figure have to mention their birthplace?
Well written articles will provide only relevant details. Exhaustive details can be found in encyclopaedias.
94 comments
[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 171 ms ] threadThis is an important point. Over the decades, I have seen it claimed on news-for-nerds sites like this, that Buddhism denied the supernatural entirely. Yet Buddhism as it is actually historically attested from its earliest eras (and attempts to reconstruct some kind of “pure” ur-Buddhism are dubious) show ready acceptance of e.g. the Vedic pantheon, with only the caveat that the gods, too, are stuck in samsara.
I haven't observed that. It's a difficult position to hold: the ideas of karma and rebirth are central dogmas in Buddhism, and it's hard to construe them as not supernatural.
Rebirth largely depends on what kind of buddhism we are talking about. There is nothing supernatural about rebirth in Zen. Others not so much, Tibetan buddhism for instance they believe that the Dalai Lama is a direct reincarnation of the 13th Dalai Lama (who would be tried for pretty serious crimes if he was alive today). So meh. ymmv.
Treating karma as simply cause and effect amounts to an apologetic. The doctrine is that some kinds of action have effects that are borne in future lives. That would imply that there is some kind of place or medium where the seeds sown by actions can be stored, until they bear fruit in future lives. The Abidharma proposes some pretty convoluted metaphysics to explain this storage without postulating an enduring self.
Reincarnating lamas are a peculiarity of Tibetan Buddhism, honoured as much in the breach; for example, many lama lineages are passed from father to son. When searching for a reincarnated lama, monks rely on prophesies and magical signs. Unsurprisingly, the system is wide-open for corruption. Stephen Segal, for example, is supposed to be a reincarnated lama.
There is one major difference between Buddhism and some schools of thought in Hinduism like Yoga or Bhakti. While Yoga and Bhakti insist that a 'deity' helps you make the progress much faster on path of self realization, Buddha did not explicitly support this. He instead focused on more inward looking approach of meditation and contemplation (which is a subset of Vedanta philosophy in Hinduism). This is often seen as Buddhism being an atheistic philosophy by Hindus.
Both Hinduism and Buddhism allow its followers to embed this central concept into various other "decorations" and "facades". Which may involve supernatural elements. But they are mostly irrelevant for you to be either Hindu or Buddhist. This is in stark contrast to Islam, Judaism and Christianity where some central core beliefs absolutely require you to believe in supernatural elements.
This is nonsense. Buddhism regards the "self" as not really a thing; rather, a bunch of aggregates that beings mistake for a thing. The idea of a "supreme self" is Atman, which nearly all Buddhists regard as illusory. The word generally occurs in Buddhist literature in the form "anatta", or no-self. Clinging to the idea of a self is considered a mistake, and the root cause of dukkha, or suffering.
Similar are thoughtless (awareness) and mindfulness. Both may appear contradictory on the first glance but are same thing. These concepts are not easy to describe so often they are expressed multiple ways.
The buddhism I practice doesn't resemble this, there are others (e.g Pure Land or Tibetan) which I do think incorporate some real 'religious' dogma and supernatural nonsense; but personally (and perhaps somewhat offensively.. Sorry!) I don't refer to these as Buddhism.
The only thing I think my sect would say buddhists as a whole believe is that we absolutely do not care what any given person believes. There is no dogma, no leap of faith involved in zen. If you want to believe in a magical dude in the sky, that's up to you. It's not related to zen.
It's quite easy to be mislead on this point, especially as a lot of zen texts were written at a time where such beliefs were common, but while e.g Dogen sometimes talks about literal rebirth and various hells and so on, these are not part of his teachings but the settings for it. Like how if I was to write some sutra today, I may set it in a contemporary setting, but that setting would not be the teaching..
The whole rebirth topic has never been a part of my practice. I don't think I've ever even spoken to my teacher about it. Maybe once, and he just waved his hand and said "that's just Indian stuff".
My practice is much more about right action and living wholeheartedly, than contemplating eternal souls and rebirth. Everyone is different, though.
Moreover, if attachment brings suffering, but there is no rebirth, then the insistence on continuing to live is the ultimate attachment. I actually think that this is one possible solution to the Fermi Paradox and supports a pseudo-Buddhist view: eventually civilizations might transcend the biological impulses that keep them attached to life, and then deliberately choose extinction.
For some; it is clearly the most compassionate action even assist with suicide.
We tend to lean towards compassion.
You say “my practice does this” and “my practice does that” and you are certainly entitled to follow whatever approach you want. However, I think it would be more honest to label the collection of practices you very deliberately chose as something you could be comfortable with from a contemporary skeptical perspective, as something different from Buddhism.
If that doesn't make me a buddhist, I'm not sure what would :}
Zen is certainly a 'back to basics' movement; but you're quite incorrect so think that zen is separate from historical traditions of buddhism. The buddha sat Shikantaza just as we, all the 'fluff' came later. We are perhaps a 'back to basics' movement, but one that has a several thousand year lineage. Unless you feel Bodhidharma was a dubious modernist? :}
I say 'my practice' as I do not wish to speak for others even inside my group, let alone buddhists as whole.
Believing certain stuff is “fluff” is precisely the dubious attempt at reconstruction that I was talking about.
In terms of their own practices, the Japanese practicing Zen in their own country, and the teachers who came to the West, had the excuse of being born into an existing cultural tradition that had evolved the way it had. First-generation Westerners taking on Buddhism, but only such things as they can feel comfortable with, and then claiming that what they put together is the authentic core Buddhism, just look like cultural appropriators.
Do you think the Indians accused the Chinese of cultural appropriation in the 5th century also?
Even more bizarre to think that chan buddhism (which later became zen) dropped a bunch of stuff they weren't comfortable with when buddhism arrived in china.
Is there some cut off date you think is the high water mark for authentic buddhism? Anything after 1260 need a new name? Buddhism-3? :}
But.. meditation, I hate to break it to you, is not how Buddha was enlightened. It was merely when he calmed down that he realized he had already attained it long ago. After that he thought deeply as to how to skillfully lead such ignorant and arrogant beings to his knowledge. that was his purpose in life. He didn't spread the meditation you learned and practice. If it were not the case then there would be even one to have achieved perfect, supreme enlightenment and to have come from your practice, but there are none who have. Buddhism means Buddha's teaching. If what you know doesn't contain any ways for living beings then that's dead Buddhism. A living teaching always has the ways in it. If you ask me the difference btwn Buddhism today and Buddha's teaching I can say that Buddha taught us to save ourselves through the truth of the world and to live forever, whereas most people who think they learned Buddhism have learned to throw away their own self and to die forever.
Rebirth being untrue does not imply nothing comes after death. Even Buddha knew that he did not know what came after death. His teachings were about how to live, not about how to win at death.
> But Buddhism has always proscribed suicide ...
Not true. Himsa is proscribed, because it causes harm, and self-harm is still technically himsa, so a simplistic reduction might interpret suicide as proscribed. But such a reduction would also ignore all nuance.
Suicide causes harm. Not just to you, but to your loved ones, and possibly even strangers. Even if we restrict ourselves to an entirely aelfish point of view — where we ignore any auffering we may cause to others — unless you know, for a fact, that there is nothing after death, you cannot believe that you will not have suffering after death.
Yes, the best way Vedantists as well as Buddhists scholars explain this is that even if there is no rebirth, you need to understand that a lot of us agonize ourselves in this life over our own deaths. I have seed devout christians who lived good life just feeling terrified about hell when the moment of death comes near.
The Buddhist and also Hindu doctrine while does address life after death also provides you very actionable advice to avoid suffering in this life itself before death too.
Buddha started with the question: what is the cause of suffering? Desire. But desire is nigh unavoidable in life. Every member of society is likely to have many desires. Thus, everyone is likely to have pain, sooner or later. A person with pain is likely to propagate pain to another person, or more. This a major method through which suffering in society as a whole tends to grow. So we need a way to tell members of society to reduce the propagation of harm. Thus, ahimsa, i.e., do no harm.
But people aren't just gonna internalise such 'for the greater good' ideas, and especially not when they are in pain. Buddha recognised that people often need a strong faith system to root them to these ideas, instead of relying on pure rationality to prevail all the time.
Buddha accepts that we do not really know how the universe works, but this fact does not remove the need for a strong faith system, because humans are imperfect. So — and being a philosopher — Buddha says humans can believe in whatever faith system works for them, as long as the system they choose upholds the core precepts.
The cycle of rebirth and karma just happened to be the predominant faith system at his time, and it also happened to fit the requirements, so most of his followers — at the time — had an easy job of adapting.
But he also warned against believing such faith systems to be the truth, instructing that people must not blindly take his teachings as authority, and must instead examine everything through their own experience and reason through it. When questioned, what to do if such examination reveals a truth that goes against his teachings, he clarified that one must go with the truth. The authority of scripture was explicitly placed below that of one's own experience and reason.
Thus, until proven, the cycle of karma and rebirth is not necessarily true, not is it required to explain that life is suffering and himsa (harm unto) propagates suffering. It's just a convenient way to tie it all together, just as good as any other unproven faith system.
If you don't believe me that Buddhism works just as well without karma and rebirth, take a look at Zen Buddhism. Despite being a modern form of Buddhism, it still holds closely to core of ancient Buddhism. And Zen makes no claim for, or against, the concept of Rebirth. It basically goes, "Idk. Does it matter?". According to Zen, who you are in this life, ceases to exist when you die, and that is plainly observable, so why not live the best life while you have it?
As you can see, this faith system also works to uphold the core precepts of Buddha. And I don't think he'd disagree with Zen on this matter. In fact, he'd probably be glad that Zen has made awakening accessible to people who had no background in the Hindu ideas of karma and rebirth, and thus would have found it harder to reach a path to awakening if they had to adopt those ideas first.
Pure Land gives up the striving for enlightenment and turns it into a "regular" religion where you pray to Buddhas to do it for you, but, I dunno, they kind of have a point.
For instance, a Tibetan Buddhist might visualise a deity, supplicate the deity, "interact" with the deity in various ways, but would still ultimately recognise that the deity is an empty appearance. But, since everything else is an empty appearance too, the question is simply whether engagement with the deity is a skilful practice. Which it might be - perhaps the practice fosters social cohesion, or helps with emotional regulation, or whatever. It can't really be "supernatural nonsense", since to be "supernatural" would require that it is beyond the nature of mind, which is absolute.
This is not true in the context of Hinduism though but could be true outside of the Indian area.
I think most westerners are similar: we mostly think of Buddhism as the Dalai Lama with lots of different Buddhas and complex cosmology. The irony is that the complexity mostly represents the pre-buddhist parts.
Let's see (not think):
"I think"
"sect"
"buddhists as a whole"
"believe"
>There is no dogma, no leap of faith involved in zen.
"no dogma"
"no leap of faith"
"Dogen"
"his teachings"
Hindus for example believe Buddha to be the 9th Avatar of Lord Vishnu. Their homes are full of Buddhist insignia and they name their children after Buddha. There is a parity in praxis.
"Pure Buddhism" is mostly a political issue and a much later addition to the discourse. One of the reason it happened is because a prominent caste based politician Ambedkar publicly declared that he is going to quit Hinduism because it did not treat his caste well. While Islamists and Christian missionaries rejoiced at the idea and try to court him he declared both the religions to be of foreign origin and harmful for India. He decided to become a Buddhist. This is the first time someone prominent tried and succeeded in drawing a clear line between Buddhism and Hinduism which since has become a bit thicker. The new converts however get called "neo buddhists" and aren't really seen as authentic buddhists by both non buddhists and original buddhists.
Dharma is Sanskrit, Dhamma is Pali. There is not difference otherwise.
Otherwise, agree completely. Nicely put.
So as to deny Buddhism is a separate religion, and co-opt Buddha among various Hindu avatars. This is how Buddhism was decimated by Brahminism in India, co-opting Budhha as their own.
What has been done to Buddhism in India is inflammatory, not my take. The story of extinction of Buddhism is told proudly by Hindu seers too. So "absorbing stuff" is weird way to put it.
> 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 Buddha in India. Religion like any other ideololgy can be attained only by propaganda. If propoganda fails, religion must disappear. The priestly class, however detestable it may be, is necessary to the sustenance of religion. For it is by its propoganda that religion is kept up. Without the priestly class religion must disappear. The sword of Islam fell heavily upon the priestly class. It perished or it fled outside India. Nobody remained to keep the flame of Buddhism burning.
"History of India before the Muslim invasions is the history of a mortal conflict between Brahmanism and Buddhism"
"No wonder if Pushyamitra who as a Samvedi Brahmin was the first to conceive the passion to end the degradation of the Brahmin by destroying the Buddhist state..."
"By this proclamation Pushyamitra set a price of 100 gold pieces on the head of every Buddhist monk"
This is not historically verified I think.
In modern India, the secular law gives special status to castes that have violence potential and hence has solidified its existence and yet Hinduism has already evolved the concept of caste to make it ever more useful to society.
Varna is occupation and jati is tribe. Each tribe had people with different occupations who supported the village life through activities of their professions. Inter-jati marriages were allowed, and so were inter-varna marriages. There was no discrimination within jatis, in fact, they all supported each other for the sustenance of their jati.
Untouchability was present in some cases, but it was between 2 jatis. Meaning, one jati would consider the other jati as untouchable. However, it was not between varnas.
This system became more rigid after British started classifying people into different castes, providing benefits to some and taking away some from others, and that's how the caste system evolved into what it was.
While I do not doubt the rest of your comment, I have a hard time believing this. In my experience, humans are tribal animals, and are constantly jockeying for status, as individuals and tribes (even constantly moving in and out of multiple tribes).
The British may have formalized/utilized and exacerbated things, but I imagine any group of humans anywhere is always dividing and subdividing into various tribes for various purposes. The simplest being to show you are better than other potential mates in order to attract your preferred mate.
There are examples of a Kshatriya warrior working successively as a potter, basket-maker, reed-worker, garland-maker, etc; and a Vaishya cook working as a tailor or potter without social push-back.
The rigidity of the varna-jati system started after the Mughal invasions, due to their exploitative taxation. It made the fluid system more rigid in matters of sharing food and marriages, and disintegrated due to opportunism and social stratification.
The British raised frustration several times that Indians did not know their caste, and had to be coached for their census forms. This was because varna-jati was not considered important by the Indians of that time.
Caste is not a British construct. They did not understand it properly but all evidence suggests that they in fact encouraged caste fluidity in most cases. The mapping of castes existed well before British. In fact you can look at smaller colonies such as Goa which were never under British rule and you find very strong existence of caste. Same with hindu society that moved to other countries. Even if it was a British construct it is still the failure of Indian society to continue with it if you assume it is bad.
> Varna is occupation and jati is tribe.
This is not true. There is no basis for Varna being treated as occupation. Gita and all other books are very clear that this is a qualitative classification of people where birth also played a good role.
In modern sense your definition of Varna is worthless too because people in same occupation show no solidarity along these lines. But show strong solidarity along the "jati" line.
> Jati is tribe.
Jati is inherited from father. In that sense it can be seen as a tribe. But it is also a classification very similar to Varna. Tamil Brahmins have completely different gene line from say Chitpavanas and yet both are seen as Brahmins and they will quickly form a good relationship compared to say a Chitpavana and Koli (fisherman).
Calling Jati a tribe does not explain this.
The broad idea of "caste" is probably a better term as it seems to represent really well the underlying social effect everyone is more interested in.
-- Untouchability was present in some cases, but it was between 2 jatis. Meaning, one jati would consider the other jati as untouchable. However, it was not between varnas.
This system became more rigid after British started classifying people into different castes, providing benefits to some and taking away some from others, and that's how the caste system evolved into what it was. --
Most of the literature around "caste atrocities" is completely bogus and made up and does not stand close scrutiny. People might have been treated as untouchables, but it was not very different from you not willing to touch a homeless man on street of SF. Now you might find that there is very good mapping of race and homelessness but it is not the race which makes the person untouchable, it is the filthy lifestyle.
Most of the "low caste" people in India actually had very low social capital, were less civilized and had poor work ethic. Some of those castes quickly improved and suddenly became "upper caste". For example the most revered King from India is Shivaji who was from a lower class of land tillers who along with his entire tribe became one of the greatest ever "Kshatriya" (higher caste) person ever.
Once a person or tribe builds social capital they automatically transition into upper-caste. Those who do not, remain at the bottom.
But that's beside the point. You are mistaking the discriminatory nature of 'caste' with just the different nature of 'varna's. There was fluidity among varnas long before the British arrived and also inter-varna and inter-jati marriages.
> Tamil Brahmins have completely different gene line from say Chitpavanas and yet both are seen as Brahmins and they will quickly form a good relationship compared to say a Chitpavana and Koli (fisherman)
Where are you getting such information from? As a person who has lived in India for several decades, I can tell you this is not true. Nobody asks which varna or jati you are from, or no one even mentions these words at least in urban parts.
> Even if it was a British construct it is still the failure of Indian society to continue with it...
We never had a discriminatory system in the first place, and the only thing that remains today is the damage done by our various colonizers. India's Prime Minister Sri Narendra Modi is himself part of an OBC (other backward classes) community (Modh Ganchi) and has enormous support from Indians from all backgrounds, India's President Smt. Draupadi Murmu is from a ST (Schedule Tribe) community called Santhali. The chief of the drafting committee of India's constitution is a Dalit, as you may know, Dr. Ambedkar, who was in strong opposition of the Brahmanical patriarchy himself. Yet he was given such an important role, in a country where ~80% of the people are Hindus.
Chatrapati Shivaji's father was a Jagirdaar serving under the Nizam, so their family was pretty well off. You are right that he was from a family of land-tillers which is considered to be of a Shudhra varna. However, he employed people of all varnas in his operations.
> Once a person or tribe builds social capital they automatically transition into upper-caste. Those who do not, remain at the bottom.
Now that's just... head cannon. President Draupadi Murmu being from a ST does not make any effort to hide the fact. Getting to the post of President has not changed that. Similarly, Dr. Ambedkar's achievements got him far, but he still was a Dalit. Same with Narendra Modi.
> Nobody asks which varna or jati you are from, or no one even mentions these words at least in urban parts.
It matters 100% when it comes to renting places, dating, marriage, friendship, kitchen access and so on.
> We never had a discriminatory system in the first place, and the only thing that remains today is the damage done by our various colonizers.
There are two types of discriminations. One is the ethical one. For example if you believe in free speech like US first amendment as a good principle, from it follows the principle of right of association and not association. All the discriminations the caste grifters often cite as "oppression" are actually perfectly ethical and in line with values like free speech, right of association and individual liberty. For example discrimination in marriages, dating, renting, room sharing, offering access to private areas, sharing food everything is perfectly ethical and also socially useful.
The other form of discrimination where you discriminate on behalf of someone else who expects you not to discriminate is obviously unethical, harmful and against the principles I cited above. For example government reserving government jobs for certain castes, government forcing private institutions to reserve seats based on caste or Individual employee discriminating in hiring when their employer does not expect them to.
I agree with you that Indian people in general do not discriminate that much in latter harmful type of discriminations (unless law mandates such discrimination) with exception of politics. There is no evidence that TCS, Infosys, Ambanis, Tatas ever discriminating in employment either. There is no evidence that there is any economic boycott of any castes either. Caste structure for example encourages inter-caste trade.
The most discriminatory aspect of Indian life is politics. Ambedkar was precisely included by Nehru because of his caste. He was a political non-entity, Nehru used him for his personal agenda. Indian President Daurpadi Murmu is an affirmative action President who is President only because of her caste and otherwise have no other qualities that made her the first choice for that position.
> President Draupadi Murmu being from a ST does not make any effort to hide the fact.
She does it because it politically benefits her, the only reason why she is President is because she is ST.
There are plenty other examples for example Scindia royal family is Kunbi. They are tribals. So are Holkars. They are goat herders. You will rarely see them talking about their tribal identity. Daivadnya Brahmins aren't historically from the Brahmin tradition at all. They are Vaishyas, coming from goldsmith occupation, their wealth enabled them to upgrade themselves.
The British Census officers record this again and again. They note that how "Nayi" (Barbers) suddenly became "Nyayi Brahmins" (Brahmin in charge of dispensing ustice) as they acquired social capital.
British did their part in solidifying caste by accusing rebel groups such as Pindaris (Elite Special Forces of Marathas) as caste full of horrible ravaging criminals. But their impact on rest of the caste system is negligible.
If you think Indians were backward and uncivilized, there's no point in engaging further with you.
From: https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/what-can-india-of...
"While emphasizing that I do not attack and much less defend the caste system in what follows, let us look at the existing descriptions and their consequences.
(a) Caste is an antiquated social system that arose in the dim past of India. If this is true, it has survived many challenges – the onslaught of Buddhism and the Bhakti movements, the Islamic and British colonization, Indian independence, world capitalism – and might even survive ‘globalization’. It follows, then, that the caste system is a very stable social organization.
(b) There exists no centralized authority to enforce the caste system across the length and breadth of India. In that case, it is an autonomous and decentralized organization.
(c) All kinds of social and political regulations, whether by the British or by the Indians, have not been able to eradicate this system. If true, it means that the caste system is a self-reproducing social structure.
(d) Caste system exists among the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Jains, the Christians, the Muslims… It has also existed under different environments. This means that this system adapts itself to the environments it finds itself in.
(e) Because new castes have come and gone over the centuries, this system must also be dynamic.
(f) Since caste system is present in different political organizations and survives under different political regimes, it is also neutral with respect to political ideologies.
Even though more can be said, this is enough for us. A simple redescription of what we think we know about the caste system tells us that it is an autonomous, decentralized, stable, adaptive, dynamic, self-reproducing social organization. It is also neutral with respect to political, religious and economic doctrines and environments. If indeed such a system ever existed, would it also not have been the most ideal form of social organization one could ever think of?
How can we try to understand this odd state of affairs? The question of the immorality of the caste system became immensely important after the British came to India. Consequently, there are two interesting possibilities to choose from: one, Indians did not criticize the caste system (before the British came to India) because Indians are immoral; two, the Europeans ‘discovered’ something that simply does not exist in India, viz. the social organization that the caste system is supposed to be."
1. Immorality of Caste => This debate needs to happen as to why caste is immoral. It did not happen in British times nor it is happening now. I am talking about discussing the more fundamental first principles to be considered. Even today it is mostly a dog-whistle at very superficial level.
2. Legal protection to caste system.
One new thing that has happened to Caste is that Indian constitution has offered special rights to certain castes. This has resulted into a competition to be part of certain castes and then use these special benefits which come at a cost of harm to other castes.
This indicates that Indian Constitution and Law subsidizes existence and discrimination based on caste and strengthens caste system. This also alters the fundamental properties of caste system that you enumerated. If constitution offers you special benefits for being a member of caste, you will assert that identity strongly as long as constitution is in force.
Part of the reason why caste does not matter for Indians in USA (in public matters) is because the law does not offer any discriminatory benefit hence you do not benefit from asserting your caste identity in public sphere. Proposed laws like SB403 by precisely aim to change it by create "caste groups" of "victims" and "oppressors" which then benefit (or get harmed) by their identity. Such groups can then be shepherded to support other political platforms that the leaders of these groups may own.
It makes no sense what so ever to me. By honoring Buddha, giving him one of the most prominent positions in the Hindu pantheon, extending Buddha's teachings and even internalizing them somehow was "decimated" ? How does reverence look then ?
This is how Hinduism evolves and always have been.
Looks like you deep rooted anti-semitic hatred for Brahmins more than anything else.
> No present day Hindu remembers or honors Buddha or his teachings.
Well I do ! In fact some of the greatest Hindu philosophers spent their lifetime studying Buddhism and writing books. Even the Vipassana teachers in USA and everywhere happen to be Hindus not Buddhists.
> If purpose was to absorb his teachings, the caste system is still present.
Buddha himself was a proponent of basic tenants of caste. Buddha primarily took Brahmins as his disciples. Nearly 40% of his students where Brahmin and nearly all who got popular and wrote about buddhism were Brahmins. Buddha's multiple childhood friends studied at Takshashika a Hindu university that existed before Buddha and later prominent Hindu Brahmins like Aryabhatta studied at Buddhist universities like Nalanda.
When the Shakya king decides to disown his wife because she was born to a low caste mother, Buddha stops him, not by citing that "caste is evil" but rather the well established Hindu rules of caste that it is father's caste that should matter and not that of mother. Not to mention Buddha also predicted the future Buddha to be "maitreya" a person born in Brahmin family.
Even on the matter of "caste", Buddha is pretty much a Hindu.
See this for example: https://indicworks.org/2023/05/04/sb403-is-hindu-segregation...
what is the teaching of Buddha's?
Ashoka converted to Buddhism and ruled almost the whole of the Indian subcontinent at one point. But that doesn't mean he converted all Hindus to Buddhist. Few Hindus may have converted, but 'land of Buddha' also happens to be the 'land of Sanatana Dharma' where there are several other deities people worshiped and traditions people practiced.
> This is how Hinduism evolves
It is indeed how religions evolve - literally by forking. Like Christianity forked Judaism (and was itself forked by Islam), Buddhism forked from Hinduism. Sometimes some patches are retrofitted on the original tree, sometimes trees diverge so much that it's hard to see the common root. Sometimes reformers go back to the original project, once their patches get somewhat accepted (a lot of anglicans after Vatican Council II...); sometimes they don't.
Whatever the result, it's important to respect one's choice - if buddhists reject the place that modern Hinduism tries to fit them into, because they think the patch is not enough, that's their call and there is no point insisting otherwise.
So for none of them it was a fork. They all developed on the main branch, in the absence of centralized PR approvers everything gets merged.
In India this identity matters even more as the Indian constitution offers different rights to you based on your identity and you get to benefit from "unequal laws" hence everyone deeply gets sentimental about it.
One has to look how Islam treated the faiths around it when Islam obtained power. It was mostly genocide and iconoclasm at scale not seen before. Even acknowledgement of Jesus in the Koran is more to enable easier conversion into Islam. The concept of conversion for example existed in Islam.
Buddhism deals with far subtle and much more complex ideas like nature of reality. You can see a detailed discussion here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAZPWu084m4 (Note that the monk talking here is a Vedantist, talking with great respect and reverence to Buddha/Buddhism and on Buddha's birthday).
> Whatever the result, it's important to respect one's choice - if buddhists reject the place that modern Hinduism tries to fit them into, because they think the patch is not enough, that's their call and there is no point insisting otherwise.
I think that is a great analogy, but note that Hinduism has not tried to "fit buddhism" into anything, Hinduism only point out that Buddhism's fork is pretty much similar to many other forks of Hinduism which have not been identified as separate from Hinduism.
Neither Hindu nor Buddhist philosophy however cares about such distinctions or boxes as they are completely irrelevant to their objective, it is mostly for people to argue. (This is not true for Islam and Christianity, Islam denies you heaven if you havent accepted Islam before death, Christianity does the same, hence it matters deeply whether you are Christian or Muslim, mere believing in the God wont help.)
Overall "melting pot" mentality is a good thing and must be encouraged and a good thing. It helps people find common ground and love each other rather than needlessly quarrel and fight.
He (Swami Sarvapriyananda) has a lot of other interesting talks too, many of them about Advaita (Vedanta), which is the main focus of his work.
He is at the Vedanta Society of New York, which was started by Swami Vivekananda in 1894.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Vivekananda
https://www.vedantany.org
https://www.vedantany.org/resident-minister
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37210062
The Hindus of that time were used to different sects within Hinduism, some denying Vishnu the supreme godhead, some denouncing the entire pantheon and vedas, etc.
The pansyncretisism came quite naturally and 'brahminism' is a myth created recently to claim victimhood (woke ideology of suppressors and suppressed, very similar to the worker class and bourgeoisie of the communist thought)
Brahmins are bound by rules, like:
1. They must sustain themselves by a livelihood that did little or no harm to creatures.
2. They could only accumulate minimum wealth for their sustenance, and that too only through the activities specific to them.
3. Punishments were harsher for Brahmins. For example, in instances of Theft,
i. Shudra had to pay 8 times the money stolen
ii. Vaishya had to pay 16 times the money stolen
iii. Kshatriya had to pay 32 times the money stolen
iv. Brahmins had to pay 64 to 128 times the money stolen
4. Brahmins were forbidden to make money by selling meat
5. They could not charge interest on lending
6. Could not touch weapons
7. Had to avoid seeking praise
8. Was not allowed to expect gifts from Shudras except in special circumstances.
(Source: Snakes in the Ganga - Breaking India 2.0)
It's their duty to perform rituals for other varnas, and if they get some money by performing those rituals, they can only use it for basic needs like food.
Brahmins were ascetics who had to follow the most difficult of rules. That and in addition to the fact that they must be knowledgeable about Vedas and other scriptures is why a Brahmin's life is considered as the hardest out of all varnas.
With such rules in play, it would be impossible for Brahmins to acquire wealth or military power to subdue Buddhists.
What saddened me even more was only the children I met in that large group of devotees were able to admit they had doubts about the Gita and were able to listen a bit.
Buddha also was extremely clear in the Lotus Sutra that even "nirvana" is not his real teaching. He states repeatedly and very unmistakably that he used the concept of nirvana as a temporary resting spot for beings who would be too arrogant or too ignorant to accept the truth if he told them as he knew they wouldn't be able to understand without much more of his cultivating them. So he lets them play with the concept of nirvana, and when he sees them cultivated, he tells them that what they thought was nirvana was no true final resting spot and that real nirvana resides with omniscience. He claimed knowledge of the true nature of reality and was very clear in his explanation of the fundamental laws and theories of existence: reincarnation and the law of cause and effect. How a good or bad thing happens. How to live well or how to become worse. Lying, for example, is not good for people. He revealed the ways from the problems to the results. As you can see this is a far cry from such a thing as ordering people not to be violent and not explaining how they can actually accomplish it.
suppose you were to hear that real nirvana is with omniscience... you'd probably have thrown it away too. or suppose you are a Krishna devotee who calls said deity to help or take control of your life - and Buddha comes and calls you "the blind who have eyes"... the main answer for people who remain in denial is to co-opt his name and deny that you're in denial.
it rather reminds me of modern Christians believing themselves saved from sin just through faith in their own ideas without ever having met Jesus and having listened to him scold them on their wrong ideas and practices. why do we think humanity killed people li...
This is not true about Hinduism. It isn't one of those "take all or none" philosophies you can pick your parts without ever reading about many other parts which you still hold in high regard due to tradition. Hindus do not hold Islam and Christianity in the same reverence simply because both ideologies are outside the umbrella of Hinduism.
Now, if the claim is that someone have used Buddha's name to promote their own ideas then reverse would be true, you will find Buddha everywhere including in Gita as someone who is subservient to their favourite God. There would be fake quotes about Buddha praising Krishna and so on.
> most people I met interested in Buddhism are also co-opting his name
This is true for nearly all religions and especially for philosophies. The difference between philosophy and science is that, to understand someone else's philosophy you need to possess similar intellect. Where as average student of science can study and understad ideas of genius like Einstein.
where on earth or from who did you learn this abject nonsense?
Based on what you said, whatever you learned is not actually philosophy.
Philosophy is not someone's thoughts or ideas. Reducing it to that makes it equivalent to some random person's random ravings and trivializes the word.
The reason why you can't understand all of philosophy is because you have learned from someone who didnt really know.
Philosophy is easily defined when you actually know.
Or perhaps you think you are expert enough of all philosophy to be able to state so boldly that all of them require some level of intellect. I hate to break it to you, but that is an immensely arrogant thing to say, aside from being obviously self-contradictory and produced by someone who speaks of his thoughts rather than what is known.
meanwhile you're attempting to rob humanity of real philosophy, which is not at all apart from science. Philosophy and science are both part of the same object - two sides of one coin. Philosophy is the study of what is in the truth. We call truth that way because it's fixed and can be confirmed through literally anything.
But whatever you learned is actually a tool to deceive people who don't know any better.
There is a phrase: "buddha's teaching is so simple that can be learned by a three year old boy, but it cannot be practiced by an 80 year old man."
> This is true for nearly all religions and especially for philosophies.
Remove the word philosophy and I'll agree with you.
> This is not true about Hinduism. It isn't one of those "take all or none" philosophies you can pick your parts without ever reading about many other parts which you still hold in high regard due to tradition.
I'm wondering if you decided to completely ignore everything I previously wrote or if you've got something controlling you to be unable to correctly understand what you read of what I wrote. Chances are you are another person who does not actually want to know the truth. The best way to remain in ignorance is to falsely convince yourself that you actually do want to know.
There is blatant evidence that Buddha's teaching is thrown away. He himself says the Lotus Sutra is the one sutra that is rejected by the majority of people, even while he's alive.
Maybe if you had a basic amount of regard for him and even perhaps yourself then you wouldn't so obviously deny how deeply in denial you are.
I will explain something for you. Buddhism is not under the umbrella of Santanadharma, however much you try to neuter Buddha's real teaching so as to stay so comfortable in your own ideas. Buddha admitted the existence of Gods because they are equivalent to aspects of nature or because they don't really exist or are metaphors and he uses them entirely as such. The mere fact that you are possessed by a god justifies Buddha's using the term - because you are a servant of a dead God , it was accurate to call you one. But Buddha was clear that there are no beings. If you knew even a little of his real teaching then you would notice how silly you sound claiming that what you know even approaches his level. Buddha used words like bodhisattva or deva even though he is later clear about the true nature of those terms. You're the one who missed the point. Buddha basically intentionally trolled you.
Besides, if you really knew the nature of a real Krishna, you would see that the truth of those concepts do not originate in "Hinduism", whatever that is.
Are you aware of the fact buddha said, "in all of heaven and earth, only I exist"?
Stop changing his words if you want to convince the future humanity you actually respect him.
The fact is, for now, you are lying to people. The G...
It is nibbana in Pali, nirvana is in Sanskrit.
The same is the case for many other words related to Buddhism and its scriptures.
E.g.: Sanskrit, Pali:
Sutra, sutta
bhikshu, bhikkhu
maitri, metta
ausadha, osadha
smrti, sati
trsna, tanha
drsti, ditthi
(I removed the dots and other stuff below the letters, because I was not sure they would render correctly here in HN.)
Edit: See:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pali
in the section "Conversion between Sanskrit and Pali forms".
And:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_Buddhism
After nirvana, he felt compassion for all the countless beings who were not there yet, so he resolved to stay until everyone got it.
And that is supposed to be the difference between an arhat and a bodhisattva.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arhat
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhisattva
https://www.google.com/search?q=arhat+vs+bodhisattva
https://www.artic.edu/artworks/142512/buddha-worshipped-by-t...
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/ambe...
It is essential that people transmit the words of the masters exactly as they are so that we don't damage the truth of them.
So, can you provide any citation as to where you believe you heard this "buddha himself" say that? What was he saying it about?
He was not saying it about the people in "Hinduism" as you appear to be trying to take it out of context to say.
I have read of him, however, saying it about the other Tathagatas that have appeared and will appear in other worlds and eras.
quite different, sir.
> earliest eras
I think it's important to remind ourselves that our ancestors didn't view the world like we do. There wasn't a clear line between "nature" and "supernature".
Is alchemy supernature?
If you don't know 1) microorganism 2) atoms, is there any reason to say "flour can be transformed into breads, but stones can never be transformed into gold"?
First, most teachings that aim at orienting seekers toward a realization are non-conceptual, they're not intellectual. They don't ask you to believe in anything, but to orient to your own senses in the present. They require your direct participation. The work is about getting the mind out of the way of direct experience, which is antithetical to orienting it toward even more beliefs. The mind needs no extra motivation for stories, that's its job.
The second point ties in with the first. The mind loves to intellectualize, to conceptualize. It wants to understand realization, since it cannot experience it. So eventually, some people will try to teach from a conceptual framework. It's in this form that the teachings will actually be either transmitted to or apprehended by the vast majority of "practitioners". This is where you'll also notice some ambiguity between original teachings and doctrine. In the morning you're taught to inquire into the nature of the I and to focus on your senses; then in the evening you're on your knees, chanting in front of a statue.
Finally, did Gautama deny the supernatural? I think that the answer is probably yes and no. Yes, because as I explained, I don't think he actively included them in his teachings. No, because it would be as pointless as convincing a 2 year old that Santa doesn't exist. How fruitful would it be for a teacher whose aim is to help you realize, to spend their time debating concepts, when you might just wake up any instant and see things for yourself?
Buddha was born in Nepal. Omission of these facts in mainstream articles like these has robbed Nepal of its history.
Well written articles will provide only relevant details. Exhaustive details can be found in encyclopaedias.