[tln750]

What an absolutely shocking misrepresentation of the Buddha !

The Buddha rejected the authority of the Vedas entirely and this infuriated the Brahmins of that time. He had both philosophical and pragmatic objections to the theistic stance of Brahminical groups, along with a total rejection of their focus on mass animal slaughter in the name of rituals.

From the original Pali canon, this discourse captures the Buddha's position:

https://suttacentral.net/an3.61/en/sujato

And, Adi Sankara wrote an entire polemic trashing the Buddha as an insignificant man who should be shunned by everybody. Here is a passage straight from the Vedanta Sutras written by Sankara:

Moreover, Buddha by propounding the three mutually contradictory systems, teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of ideas only, and general nothingness, has himself made it clear either that he was a man given to make incoherent assertions, or else that hatred of all beings induced him to propound absurd doctrines by accepting which they would become thoroughly confused.--So that--and this the Sutra means to indicate--Buddha's doctrine has to be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness.

Source: https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe34/sbe34208.htm

[jaldhar]

The neo-Hindu view of the Buddha is indeed misrepresentation. Buddha couldn’t have been a Hindu because “Hinduism” as they understand it simply didn’t exist at that time. But your view isn’t any better.

1. There is no reason to believe the Pali Tripitaka represents the authentic words or teachings of the Buddha. He would have spoken Magadhi as his mother tongue. Pali was a Western Prakrit and moreover a trade and literary language not a popular one. Also the Pali Tripitaka was composed and edited by the Hinayanists several centuries after the Buddha’s life and expresses doctrinal developments that would be anachronistic in that era.

2. There is no particular reason to believe that Buddha and early Buddhism was against caste except in the general sense that they are against worldly behaviors of any type. You won’t find anything about it in the Aryan eightfold path (Aryashtangamarga) for instance. (Aryan is usually translated as “noble” in this case. Did you ever wonder why?). The ten major disciples of the Buddha were all either Brahmanas or his royal relatives. The first major historical Buddhist ruler Ashoka in his rock edicts exhorts his subjects to respect both “Brahmanas and Shramanas”. The Ashokavadana, the earliest Buddhist hagiography (and canonical in Theravada) states that a Buddha can only be born in a Brahmana or Kshatriya womb.

3. Buddhism is against karma and holds that liberation is from Jnana only. Animal sacrifices are mentioned a lot because they are particularly vivid examples of the negative consequences of karma but the Buddhist critique applies just as readily to lighting a ghee lamp for worldly reasons. The Jains were more consistently for non-violence than the Buddhists. (No predominantly Buddhist culture is predominantly vegetarian). Jnana only is the position of Advaita Vedanta too. The difference is Smarta Hinduism developed a modus vivendi where karma was acceptable for householders. There was no lay Buddhism during its Indian phase only the sangha so the question could be put aside.

4. Yes Astika philosophers and saints contended against Buddhist counterparts (and each other) but it is anachronistic to bring those disputes back to the time of the Buddha himself. By the time of Shankaracharya there were several mutually antagonistic Buddhist sects. (Actually three is generous. Traditionally there are said to be eighteen.). That is what he is referring to. They can’t all be “the true teaching of the Buddha” unless he was incoherent.

[tln750]

The Pali Canon contains the kernel of the Buddha's Teaching. It is not difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff and arrive at the essence of what the Buddha taught. A guide on how to approach the discourses:

https://suttacentral.net/general-guide-sujato

Sujato addresses several claims in his essay, and has some helpful hints on the historical placement of the Buddhadhamma.

The Buddha was not a social reformer - his teaching was about total renunciation of the world. But there are plenty of discourses that reject the birth-based caste system and instead establishes that deeds and actions are the sole criteria for judging a person.

An example: https://suttacentral.net/mn98/en/sujato

You are mistaken about Karma (Pali: Kamma). Kamma is a central pillar in the Buddha's Teaching. It is, arguably, one of the most important aspects, since Nibbana is described as the cessation of kamma.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html

Adi Sankara's rejection of the Buddha's Teaching was not a simplicistic dismissal based on sectarian divisions. His rejection was based on philosophical differences - the Vedanta Sutras make that very clear.

In any case, my main point was that it is nonsensical to call the Buddha as a Hindu.

[jaldhar]

The Pali canon contains one sects idea of the kernel of Buddha’s teaching. It so happens that sect has survived to this day while many of its competitors did not. That does not make its claims any more valid. The site you quote itself says that it began to be redacted around 300+ years after Buddhas demise. By contrast the books of the New Testament were composed 40-100 years after Jesus’s death and even then scholars hotly contest how much were his actual words. All the prominent figures in late stage Indian Buddhism were Mahayanists of various stripes. They would certainly disagree that Pali texts were the kernel of the Buddhas teaching.

I am mystified as to what you think I’ve got wrong about karma. As you say Nirvana involves the cessation of karma. Jnana alone is its cause. This is the same as Advaita Vedanta (and several other darshanas.). The point of difference is what pragmatic concessions are to be given to those who cannot become monks. To be a Buddhist in ancient India was to be a monk. There were lay people who donated to the monks but they otherwise carried on their ancestral traditions. There was no specifically Buddhist way to be a layman until after the religion left India. In Smartism, to learn Advaita Vedanta and give up karma and become a monk is the highest goal but if you can’t, rituals and worldly life still have some positive worth. Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and Tantra were even more this-world oriented and in actual practice more egalitarian and accessible than Buddhism nevermind whatever rhetoric was put forth.

I don’t understand the distinction you are trying to make between sectarian division and philosophical difference. A philosophical difference is what makes a sect a sect no?

We agree that Buddha was not a Hindu. For exactly the same reasons we must say Buddha was not not a Hindu. The whole question anachronistically projects latter day concerns and concepts too far into the past. But was Buddhism (or is or could it be) Hinduism? That’s the real bone of contention anyway and its a much more ambiguous question. We could mention how Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu or Yoga borrows concepts from Mahayana or the wholesale adoption of Shaiva tantric concepts in Vajrayana. I personally like to compare with Jainism. It is just as old as Buddhism, heretical to Astikas for exactly the same reasons as Buddhism and yet thoroughly integrated into social structures, modes of worship, and literary traditions to the extent that the man in the street is not even aware that Jainism is anything more than another Hindu sect. I think that would have been the fate of Buddhism if it had survived to this day. And that’s the key. It went extinct a long time ago. So the correct answer to my question is: “we don’t know.”

[tln750]

Liberation in Advaita Vedanta is attaining the realization that one's individual self is identical with Brahman, posited as Higher Self. This is diametrically at odds with the anatta (not-self) doctrine of the Buddha. There is simply no common ground here - I am sorry, but you are washing away key doctrinal differences with a sweep. When Adi Sankara himself condemned Buddhadhamma as incomprehensible heresy, and yet you claim that Advaita Vedanta is the same as Buddhadhamma - I doubt that there can be any further discussion.

It is troubling to see how the current wave of jingoism coupled with religious fervor is trying to reduce the Buddha to a mere pawn in an imaginary, all-encompassing Hindu pantheon. Maybe you are not deliberately trying to do this, but the muddled and confused efforts of numerous foot-soldiers expose the sad trend all the same.

[zozbot234]

> Liberation in Advaita Vedanta is attaining the realization that one's individual self is identical with Brahman, posited as Higher Self. This is diametrically at odds with the anatta (not-self) doctrine of the Buddha.

This is not true, there's no conflict. The Buddha was not interested in abstract doctrines but only in what was most pragmatically useful for attaining stream entry, enlightenment and liberation from craving and desire. People who are actually pursuing these goals, even in modern times (with very compelling results, though obviously any claims to arhat status will always be viewed skeptically by most) have clarified how anatta is entirely compatible with a Higher Self as with Brahman.

[tln750]

Your assertion that there is no doctrinal difference between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta is ludicrous and downright silly. Even Wikipedia clarifies this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankara

From the second para:

He also explained the key difference between Hinduism and Buddhism, stating that Hinduism asserts "Ātman (Soul, Self) exists", while Buddhism asserts that there is "no Soul, no Self".

[jaldhar]

They are the same in the sense that both privilege jnana over karma for liberation that is all. They are different in that Advaita Vedanta gives some scope to karma (Indian) Buddhism gave none.

Buddhists themselves reduced the historical Shakyamuni to one member of a pantheon long ago. This was a clear trend in Mahayana and Vajrayana before Allauddin Khilji came and settled the issue once and for all.

[naruvimama]

You clearly do not understand what Hinduism is.

Brahmins are a small subset, who at different regions and times might have been corrupt. Just like the church.

But unlike the church, Hinduism is experiential and no one has a monopoly, which is precisely why Buddhism is one of many 1000s of movements.

There is no singular holy book and no need even in communities where it existed.

[tln750]

This obsession with trying to somehow make the Buddha and his teaching as a branch of Hinduism falls flat on its face when you look at his teaching even cursorily. The central tenet of the Buddha's position was his exposition of anatta (not-self), which is directly opposed to all Hindu doctrines which preach that finding one's 'true self' is the goal of existence. Instead, the Buddha taught that the search for a 'true self' (including God, Brahman etc.) is futile and pointless. This is an irreconcilable cleavage between Buddhism and Hinduism.

You really need to look into the Buddha's teaching properly before trying to appropriate it to fit your agenda.

[naruvimama]

For me Hinduism is an ecosystem as is for millions of Hindus.

A Hindu will feel very comfortable in a Buddhist temple and practice and vice versa. Hindus themselves have extremely diverse traditions.

I see where we have diverging views. My Swedish landlords who happens to be a Christian once asked we where is your holy book.

In her mind not having a one-one equivalent with Christianity delegitimises the religion.

In trying to intellectualise the debate, you have taken the limited view of a Christian.

The vast majority of the Hindus are open to the ideas of Buddhism as well as 1000s of tribal/rural/regional gods and rituals. Not only is there no conflict, there is perhaps no clear boundaries.

This is completely alien to xtianity/Islam.

[ir123]

You define Hinduism as an ecosystem of ideas, with no clear boundaries, sometimes adopting ideas from Buddhism as well as other tribal rituals.

In another comment you said that casteism was brought by the West to India. (I do not agree with this but lets go with for now). So it clearly follows that Hindus (Hinduism) adopted casteism from somewhere externally. This is not for debate because we have seen and continue to see Hindus practicing casteism for whatever reason.

Hinduism can be simultaneously extolled for adopting "good" ideas from Buddhism but is also beyond criticism for adopting casteism from the west?

You arbitrarily laid the boundary for Hinduism at "caste" arguing that it was brought externally and hence not an inherent Hindu feature, yet somehow you take pride in Hinduism being a religion that does adopt external ideas. Which one is it?

[naruvimama]

@ir123

If you have been under Islamic and xtian occupation for a 1000 years, there isn't a lot of options.

Some communities are driven to extreme poverty and it becomes a dog eat dog world.

Considering Islam in Perssia completely wiped out the culture in 50 years.

And it took only 150 years for xtianity to wipe out pagan culture in Europe or the Americas.

Caste as a system was clearly used by the British to separate communities at different levels of destitution coopting some as native informants.

Even in current day USA people are divided on their political, regional, occupational lines. Dems and Reps each consider themselves superior and the other one dumb. Inspite of public schools there is a big impact of family background even in politics.