namaskaram Apophenia ji
I started this thread because of an interaction on a thread in the hinduism DIR. I had actually hoped for input from members who identify as hindu. So far that hasn't happened, except for Ratikala who has always identified as both, which is valid IMO.
that word valid is greatly appreciated , and a huge releif ,....
I will probably take some flack from some members here for saying this , but its ok , I am used to it , ...but lets put it this way . when we hear something we deem to be some what un conventional we can do two things , ...give it a fair hearing and a degree of unbaised contemplation , .....or we can reject it , ..however if we reject something without giving it a second thought we stand never to learn and never to develop our veiw , ....
Originally, I was thinking that hindu really refers to a region and its culture. And that Gautama was teaching in that milieu - to hindus.
this I would agree with Hindu as a title is so vast an umbrella trem and yes it is as much cultural as it is religious , ... allthough many Hindus argue vhemently about this , and fiercely guard the right to use this term which was originaly merely a cultural and reigional designation placed on all peoples east of and including the indus river basin ....It is a persian term which grouped many different peoples together , thus it encompases both Astika and Nastika ,..which covers both beleivers in the authority of the vedas Astika , and non beleivers Nastika comprising Jains Buddhists and Carvaka, ...these are regarded as Orthadox and hetradox , ..but still Hindu .
even these divisions are reletively recent by comparison to the vedic tradition , to Jainism and to Buddhism , ....
in truth when we look at Gautama Buddha as we know he was born into a vedic culture He was Kshatria Rulling class and with Dharmic responcibliities yet true to vedic culture he renounced worldly life and behaved just as a renunciate of his day , after renunciation he associated with Brahmins , ..' Brahmanas ' ..and tantrikas , ...not finding the answer he saught after he rejected both practices and saught his own enlightenment , ...upon ataining enlightenment he taught openly to who ever wished to receive his teachings , so one could easily say that he taught Hindus (despite the fact that that term was not in use at that point in time it still encompases that group of peoples it covers all castes and all traditions Astika and Nastika , ..tantrikas and other reigional traditions of the adivasis and the animists ,...
My own view is that Gautama was teaching apophatically ( the via negative - defining something by what it is not), to re-present teachings which had become somewhat overladen with symbols, gods and rituals etc. to the detriment of their value as paths to self-realisation.
exactly , ...Not this ! ..... not the body , ....not conventional reality , ....how do you explain Ultimate reality without deconstructing all attatchment to 'this' , ...without deconstructing all misscomprehension ..
''.to re-present teachings which had become somewhat overladen with symbols, gods and rituals etc. to the detriment of their value as paths to self-realisation.''
and this is the vaisnava's veiw , Buddha appeared to re establish Dharma simply because its true function and meaning had become lost , ....Brahminism had become some what hierachical and self serving , ..
...and now the teachings of the Buddha are becoming covered and lost simply by accidental missinturpretation of their original meaning , ...or from clinging to texts rather than using them as the tools they were intended to be , by inturpreting them and applying the principles to any given situation.
they are being destroyed by this obsurd need to put them into an individual box , to turn it from Dharma into an ism .....in truth the Buddha worked very hard to remove the ism's of the Vedic Brahmanas and liberate Dharma from the clutches and to make Dharma freely available , ....
but to return to the original question , ....
How can Buddhism NOT be part of Hinduism ?
“My teachings are (to be called) Brahmayana [Path to Brahman/Absolute/The-One]” –[Samyutta Nikaya, Mahavagga verse 4] ~ Gautama
Brahma or Brahman ? ...Brahmana (a brahmin )or Brahma-yana (vheicle or path ).....best reason never to attatch to any text ...as there is allways a schollar or historian somewhere who is translating according to this own preconceptions ,
in the Dharmapada there are many references to Brahmanas meaning Brahman seeker after the truth or a realiser of the truth ..
Dharmapada 391, ...
I call someone a true brahman if he is restrained in three ways: doing no wrong by body, speech or mind.
392
To him through whom you first received
The Dhamma that the Lord revealed,
Bestow respectful salutation,
Like priests serve fire, with veneration.
393
Not matted hair, nor birth, nor clan
Establish one’s a godly man.
But knowing truth, and conduct righteous,
Evince one’s pure, indeed religious.
416
One who abandons craving, becomes a homeless wanderer, and who then destroys both craving and becoming, I call a true brahman.
417
One who has forsaken human bonds, transcended divine bonds, who is thus liberated from all bonds, I call a true brahman.
418
One who has given up liking and disliking, who is free of passion, free of possessiveness, a hero who has conquered all worldly attachment, I call a true brahman.
419
One who understands in every way both the death and rebirth of beings, who is free of clinging, who has attained bliss, and is awakened, I call a true brahman.
420
One whose destiny is unknowable to humans, spirits and devas; who has destroyed the asavas, an arahant, I call a true brahman.
....but even still given that many translations are unreliable there are still many references to Brahmana's and to Brahma , Brahma lokas, ...heavens or realms , to spirits and to devas ......so the original question is still valid , ...
How can Buddhism NOT be part of Hinduism ? .....if one fully examins the comonality of so many principles it would be foolish to try to draw a line , it is better to look at it objectivly from both sides rather than constructing an ism around our own narrow mindedness , ....
where did you find the quote ? it would be interesting to see what the the translator was taking from ???
