Buddhism and Hinduism Project

[Tathagata]

Dear Tathagata,

Do you know the meaning of Tathagatha(in sanskrit)?

One who has thus gone/come. It transcends all coming and going.

But I dont see how thats relevant.


.

 

[Tathagata]

Even if you guys are correct about the verse and the Buddha was saying that the Brahmins were merely not understanding and practicing the Vedas correctly, it does not then follow that the Buddha agreed with the Vedas. I could just as easily say that there are a bunch of Christians who dont practice Christianity or understand the Bible, but that doesnt mean I velieve Christianity is true.

Let me make this clear. The Buddha did not believe in Hinduism. This is blatantly fact. Buddhism is the rejection of Hinduism and the creation of a new underatanding and new philosophical system.

This is very clear! The teachings in the Tipitaka and Sutras do not match nor resemble the Vedas or Ghita.

The Buddha has never, is not, and never will be from India. He is from Lumbini. He was shielded from Hinduism and religion from his parents. He went on a journey of his own and came to his own conclusions. He didnt go on a big long journey of Enlightenment just to conform to Sanatan Dharma and their practices.

Buddhism doesnt even agree with Hinduism on reincarnation let alone anything else.


.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Tathagata,

Only one who has transceneded the mind understands what Oneness IS, In Oneness one only accepts everything and can never reject anything specially of matters of no-mind.
Gautama [kindly do not use the word *buddha* for Gautama as there were *n* number of individuals who attained to Buddhahood].
Vedas are about no-mind and so Gautama could never have done so, yes those who have not reached no-mind and start interpreting vedas or Gautam's teachings with minds and all mind matters were what Gautama warned every follower no to fall for and so had also said: "Even if a Buddha comes on the way, KILL him"

Now, kindly bring out your suttas to prove that Gautama was against the vedas and shall attempt to point where interpretations went wrong.

Love & rgds

 

[Secret Chief]

What are some common misconceptions or stereotypes about the people who practice Buddhism?

Perhaps that Buddhists have one "head" of the team, the Dalai Lama?

How does Buddhism relate to other religions/philosophies (Hinduism included)?

The Buddha was born in Lumbini, Nepal. The religious orthodoxy of the region was, I think Brahminism. Today this is called Hinduism, or more accurately Sanatana Dharma. I would suggest he must have been influenced by the variety of teachings that this represents but he also moved beyond them and rejected some key tenets.

Sanatana Dharma -

 

[nameless]

One who has thus gone/come. It transcends all coming and going.

tathagatha = tat+agatha
tat - that/brahman. The same 'tat' is used in 'Tat-Vam-Asi' - 'You are that (brahman),
gatha- arrived/become

so tathagatha means 'one who has become brahman/that'

to believe in tathagatha is to believe in brahman.

Another quote from Tevijja Sutta

“Vasettha, it might be said that such a man on being asked the way might be confused or perplexed - but the Tathagata, on being asked about the Brahma world and the way to get there, would certainly not be confused or perplexed. For, Vasettha, I know Brahma and the world of Brahma, and the way to the world of Brahma, and the path of practice whereby the world of Brahma may be gained.” - Buddha

 

[nameless]

Even if you guys are correct about the verse and the Buddha was saying that the Brahmins were merely not understanding and practicing the Vedas correctly, it does not then follow that the Buddha agreed with the Vedas. I could just as easily say that there are a bunch of Christians who dont practice Christianity or understand the Bible, but that doesnt mean I velieve Christianity is true.

if you have missed zenzero's post on Tevijja sutta

again the same quote from Tevijja sutta

those Brahmins learned in the Three Vedas who persistently neglect what a brahmin should do, and persistently do what a Brahmin should not do - Buddha

Buddha says "what a brahmin should do", so if a brahmin does what exactly a brahmin should do, then he will attain brahman according to Buddha.
Thus yes, Buddha approved the vedas.

 

[nameless]

Let me make this clear. The Buddha did not believe in Hinduism. This is blatantly fact. Buddhism is the rejection of Hinduism and the creation of a new underatanding and new philosophical system.

actually what does buddhism has of itself to contradict hinduism?
void? nirvana? meditation? non-theistic path? they were all already existed in hinduism.
Actually Buddhism dont exist neither the hinduism, they all are just the same dharma which is enternal.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The Buddha has never, is not, and never will be from India. He is from Lumbini. He was shielded from Hinduism and religion from his parents. He went on a journey of his own and came to his own conclusions. He didnt go on a big long journey of Enlightenment just to conform to Sanatan Dharma and their practices.

Your forgetting Siddhartha's first teachers again. There are Hindu roots from which Siddahartha's foundational training was developed and instituted and as such cannot be ignored. Nepal incidentally is largely a Hindu nation by way of majority, so I don't actually see how the geographical nuances apply here. Not that I'm debating the location you mention, as you are correct geographically speaking as most are in consensus here.

Buddhism doesnt even agree with Hinduism on reincarnation let alone anything else.

I'm not debating this as I agree fully here.The Buddha rejected many of the tenants of Hinduism. Yet all the same many Hindus recognize and embraces Buddhism by way of it's roots hence it's relationship, as many followers of the Sanatan Dharma institute a dual practice henceforth.

 

[Tathagata]

actually what does buddhism has of itself to contradict hinduism?
void? nirvana? meditation? non-theistic path? they were all already existed in hinduism.
Actually Buddhism dont exist neither the hinduism, they all are just the same dharma which is enternal.

* Hinduism believes in the efficacy and supremacy of the Vedic texts. The Buddhist do not believe in these texts or any Hindu scripture. (unlike the Christians adopting the Torah as the Old Testament)

* Hindus believe in the Atman, a concept closely related to a primordial soul, or God. Buddhism teaches that the belief in the Atman is the prime consequence of ignorance, which is itself the cause of all misery and the foundation of samsāra (the cycle of rebirth).

* Hinduism accepts the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, one of the gods of the Hindu trinity. The Buddhists do not accept any Hindu god either as equivalent or superior to the Buddha. In Buddhism, the Hindu gods are relegated to different roles but they are not more important the the Buddhas.

* The Buddhists consider the world as suffering and regard ending suffering as the chief aim of human life. The Hindus consider that there are four chief aims (arthas) in life which every being should pursue. They are dharma (religious duty), artha (wealth*or material possessions), kama (desires and passions) and moksha (salvation.)

* Buddhism believes in Bodhisattvas. Hinduism does not believe in them.

* Buddhism acknowledge the existence of some gods and goddesses of Hindu pantheon, but give them a rather subordinate status.

* Refuge in the Buddha, the Sangha and Dhamma are the three cardinal requirements on the eightfold path. Hinduism offers many choices to its followers on the path of self-realization.

* Although both religions believe in karma and rebirth, they differ in the manner in which they operate and impact the existence of individual beings.

(i.e. Buddhist karma is based on the law of causality, Hindu karma is guided by the gods. Buddhist rebirth does not involve transmigration of the soul, but rather a stream of transient consciousness, Hindus believe in reincarnation, transmigration of a soul. Hindus believe in union with Brahman, Buddhists reject both the existence of Brahman and union with Brahman.)


Differences Between Buddhism and Hinduism






.

 

[Tathagata]

tathagatha = tat+agatha
tat - that/brahman. The same 'tat' is used in 'Tat-Vam-Asi' - 'You are that (brahman),
gatha- arrived/become

so tathagatha means 'one who has become brahman/that'

to believe in tathagatha is to believe in brahman.

False.

Sanskrit grammar offers two possibilities for breaking up the compound: "ither*"tathā"*and"āgata"*or*"tathā"*and*"gata."[4]
:381-382"Tathā"*means*"thus"*in Sanskrit and Pali, and Buddhist thought takes this to refer to what is called*"reality as-it-is"*("yathā-bhūta"). This reality is also referred to ****"thusness"*or*"suchness"*("tathatā
") indicating simply that it (reality) is what it is.
A Buddha or an arahant is defined as someone who "knows and sees reality as-it-is" ("yathā bhūta ñāna dassana").*"Gata"*"gone" is the past passive participle of the verbal root"gam"*"go, travel".*"Āgata"*"come" is the past passive participle of the verb meaning "come, arrive"."

-- Tath

Tat means "that." The Hindus refered to Brahman when they said "that" but the Buddha refers to himself as "that" hence "that one who has thus come.

Tathagata - New World Encyclopedia

Another quote from Tevijja Sutta

You think I havent read that quote before? Ive had to explain this verse countless times to people who dont understand scripture. The Buddha was speaking to them in a language the Brahmins could understand. He was trying to make a specific point, but didnt want have to go on a tangent on why Brahman is Wrong View so he worked with them in a way they coukd understand so his more immediate point could be understood. Have you not heard that the Buddha uses expedient means to teach?

If the Buddha taught union with Brahman, then why isnt it a major theme throughout Buddhist scripture? Because it's not. Why is it that you only hear this talk of union with Brahman when he's speaking to Brahmins? Use critical thinking for such matters. And he certainly does not speak of the way to the Brahma World. At least not in a positive way. He's been to the Brahma world and degraded Brahma to the point of humiliation. He calls him ignorant, deluded, and inferior among other things. I have the scripture to back this up as usual. This distortion you perpetuate is a misrepresentation of Buddha Dharma.





.

 

[ratikala]

Greetings fellow RFers, I am doing a project in Contemporary World Issues and I would love for your assistance.



So, my question to you is...

What are some common misconceptions or stereotypes about the people who practice Buddhism?

How does Buddhism relate to other religions/philosophies (Hinduism included)?

.





Orias

dear orias,

just to simply and sincerely answer some of your questions ,

and just to destroy a few missconceptions

from the vaisnava perspective (that is a devotee of visnu )
yes , buddha is das avatar , the ninth of the ten incarnations of visnu

a vaisnava recognises this as it is taught that we recognise all incarnations ,

the buddha did not teach on this , which does not in any way mean that it is not true , it simply means that buddha did not think it relavant at that point to teach on his relation to any form of god ,
buddha simply taught on what he saw relevant at that specific moment , which was to teach a systematic path to enlightenment



in general a buddhist does not concern him self with god or god realization , but with ataining liberation from the conditioned realm of samsara , he seaks to liberate himself and others from suffering , thus the buddha taught non violence , ahimsa and to re establish the true principals of sanatana dharma he went against the bhraminical system of the day appearing to reject the vedas , rejecting many bhraminical practices including sacrifice .
in this manner lord buddha re established sanatana dharma by teaching the eight fold path .

buddhists generaly concern them selves simply with the teachings of the eight fold path and teachings given after by the buddha .

all the apparent conflict is pure miss understanding through not knowing .

best wishes

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

* Hinduism believes in the efficacy and supremacy of the Vedic texts. The Buddhist do not believe in these texts or any Hindu scripture. (unlike the Christians adopting the Torah as the Old Testament)

Some sects of Hinduism reject the Vedas also.

* Hindus believe in the Atman, a concept closely related to a primordial soul, or God.

Sankara believed that in the individual atman was an Illusion, and not all schools of Hinduism even talk about the concept of God.

* Hinduism accepts the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, one of the gods of the Hindu trinity.

Many sects of Hinduism reject the concept of an Avatar. Some Hindu's on RF reject this concept and it is a very orthodox belief in some schools of thought.

* The Buddhists consider the world as suffering and regard ending suffering as the chief aim of human life. The Hindus consider that there are four chief aims (arthas) in life which every being should pursue. They are dharma (religious duty), artha (wealth*or material possessions), kama (desires and passions) and moksha (salvation.)

This is a completely false. Moksha is freedom from suffering. Kama and Artha do not lead to freedom of suffering only Moksha does.

* Buddhism believes in Bodhisattvas. Hinduism does not believe in them.

Yes, some sects do we called them Ishvarakoti.

* Buddhism acknowledge the existence of some gods and goddesses of Hindu pantheon, but give them a rather subordinate status.

So do many Hindu's

* Refuge in the Buddha, the Sangha and Dhamma are the three cardinal requirements on the eightfold path. Hinduism offers many choices to its followers on the path of self-realization.

Yes, many many paths differing paths.

Buddhist karma is based on the law of causality, Hindu karma is guided by the gods.

False once more some Hindu belief systems don't even talk about God.

Out of respect or Buddhists I do not call it the same religion. Still some forms of Hinduism are more like the Buddhists then other types of Hinduism. Hindus have just a huge tent of beliefs. Bigger then you think. For some Hindus its hard to think that Buddhism and Jainism don't fit in that tent. I have asked a group of Buddhist monks whats the difference in deer park they laugh hard and said not much. In fact I have been to temple in the Himalayas were there was a Buddhist monk and a Brahman priest both doing pujas on either side of the same temple! Most people went to both for worship. When some Buddhist monks saw me chanting in Sanskrit and doing Hindu sadhana they wanted to sneak me into Bhutan for a big festival. I could not go unfortunately. It would have been a blast. Things in India and Nepal are much different then many think.

 

[ratikala]

Common misconceptions about Buddhists. That we're all calm and never get angry.

too true ,

but one aspect of buddhism which is well worth mentioning is that in general buddhist practice is much about transforming negative emotions in to the path , transforming uncontroled anger or frustration into a positive resolve to free oneself from the cycle of conditioned existance .

where as in general the hindu seeks to transcend the mundane nature of worldlines by linking the mind and the emotions with god .

so where a buddhist seeks to acheive non attatchment on a worldly level , the hindu seeks to accheive attatcment to god whilst situated within worldly existance , ultimately they accheive the same goal what ever one chooses to call it .

on the subject of anger , there are two kinds of anger .... controled anger and uncontrolled anger .
controled anger results in skillful actions , and uncontroled anger results in missery .

there is a tendancy in debates such as this for the wrong kind of anger and unnesecary attatchment to a divided veiw .

obviously I see no division between hindus and buddhists only different approaches , and as we all know there are many different approaches within orthadox hinduism alone . .....and a lot to learn from oneanother .

thus it is said ....

"satyameva jayate"

Truth alone triumphs; not falsehood.
Through truth the divine path is spread out by which
the sages whose desires have been completely fulfilled,
reach where that supreme treasure of Truth resides

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

[personal understanding]
Dharma is Sanatan and so it is open for different paths to the same state.
One may take it differently than what appears to be different but finally its all ONE or VOID.
Dharma wheel moves when an individual reaches to that state where his *I* ness is nomore 'gate'.
One uses mind to argue and in no mind there is always oneness.
Those who argue are still using a mind as their mind/s perceives differences and all perceptions are illusions and there one immediately needs to be conscious of the mind raising it's hood that needs to be meditated upon.

Still those who have doubts which arises out of perceptions by the minds about any sutta from Gautama's are free to bring it out for a discussion. Discussions should be with open minds without bias so that even the buddha can be killed if he came in the way.

We shall act in oneness as we ARE one.
Love & rgds

 

[DreadFish]

* Hinduism believes in the efficacy and supremacy of the Vedic texts. The Buddhist do not believe in these texts or any Hindu scripture. (unlike the Christians adopting the Torah as the Old Testament)

FALSE, not all of "Hinduism" believes in the Vedas. You are mistaken and your position is wrong.

* Hindus believe in the Atman, a concept closely related to a primordial soul, or God. Buddhism teaches that the belief in the Atman is the prime consequence of ignorance, which is itself the cause of all misery and the foundation of samsāra (the cycle of rebirth).

FALSE, not all of "Hinduism" believes in the Atman. Likewise, Buddha's so called "doctrine" (calling it a doctrine is a misunderstanding) of anatta simply refers to the five skandas as being void of self. There is a quote from the suttas, I know you have read it. In fact, the Upanishads have the same practice, it's called neti-neti. Advaita Vedanta (Vedanta being the end of the Vedas) is very similar in teaching to Buddhism. Of course, no school wants to appear like it is copying or the same as another school, many want to have a separate identity.

* Hinduism accepts the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, one of the gods of the Hindu trinity. The Buddhists do not accept any Hindu god either as equivalent or superior to the Buddha. In Buddhism, the Hindu gods are relegated to different roles but they are not more important the the Buddhas.

The explanations of why Vishnu emenated as Buddha differ, some saying he did it to lead the asuras away from the truth (by teaching an atheistic doctrine), while others say he did it to condemn Vedic animal sacrifices, and others so that he could show people how to be enlightened because the Bramins of the day were like the pharisees of Jesus' time. It is not a doctrinal assertion on the part of "Hindus" that Gautama was an avatar of Vishnu.

* The Buddhists consider the world as suffering and regard ending suffering as the chief aim of human life. The Hindus consider that there are four chief aims (arthas) in life which every being should pursue. They are dharma (religious duty), artha (wealth*or material possessions), kama (desires and passions) and moksha (salvation.)

I feel "suffering" is misrepresentative of "dukka." On one end, it can be suffering, but on a more everyday end, it is discontentment. We experience discontentment because of belief that we are the ego self and by grasping at things that are impermanent. And what of those "Hindus" who forgo the first three and go straight to renunciation? There are sadhus who renounced when they were less than 15 years old.

* Buddhism believes in Bodhisattvas. Hinduism does not believe in them.

Mahayana Buddhism uses the idea of Bodhisattvas. Though the idea is also present in Theravada, it is rarely emphasized. Likewise, Theravada does not accept the Bodhisattvas that Mahayana has (such as Manjushri, Avalokiteshvara etc.)

* Although both religions believe in karma and rebirth, they differ in the manner in which they operate and impact the existence of individual beings.

(i.e. Buddhist karma is based on the law of causality, Hindu karma is guided by the gods. Buddhist rebirth does not involve transmigration of the soul, but rather a stream of transient consciousness, Hindus believe in reincarnation, transmigration of a soul. Hindus believe in union with Brahman, Buddhists reject both the existence of Brahman and union with Brahman.)

Again, a broad generalization of "Hinduism" that is incorrect. Not all "Hindus" have the same concepts. In fact, there were schools of "Hinduism" that outright deny the existence of the soul, of karma, of rebirth, and anything else, and when one dies, they are dead for good. Some of them were contemporaries of Gautama.


Listen man, you have made it quite apparent that you know the facts of "Buddhism" but you really only know the surface. Likewise, the style of your responses is indicative of your lack of true understanding. Im not claiming to have true understanding or wisdom at all, but I have happened to scratched below the surface a little bit. Doctrines and the like are only ideas and conceptual languages and dont actually describe reality. The Buddha even mentioned in a sutra that, like a painter who uses strokes of a brush to make a painting of a scene, He is using words to make a painting of the scene, it is not the scene itself.

What happened to your quote you posted a couple days ago where the Buddha said for one to be self governed and governed by the cosmos? The cosmos has no doctrines or conceptual stains.

I really encourage you to practice instead of reading and being content with intellectual knowledge.


BTW, do you think I might have been a bit obnoxious with the way I responded?

 

[ratikala]

[dear tathagata ,

Complete and utter lie. Take your disinfo somewhere else. The Buddha was born in Nepal/Lumbini. NOT India.

before you assume that others are lieing , as that tends to imply a deliberate atempt to deceive ......which is not a polite thing to do ..... especialy for a buddhist who should be practicing right speach !

I suggest that you concider the simple fact that the moddern divisions and naming of the countrys as india and nepal have come about much more recently than the birth of lord buddha . and that we must concider that what is now a divided sub continent , was in the day of lord buddha a large number of principalities known to many as bharata varsa sperading over many now seperate countrys from modern day iran up into north western tibet and including nepal .

so to call siddhatha an indian prince is not so wrong as the area in question is now commonly known as the indian sub continent .

in future please refrain from calling people liars and let us have a freindly and instructive conversation .

many thanks

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

when we term or use *ism* in a label; by default a segregation crops up and so buddhi*ism* or hindu*ism* are taken to be different which is a sign of *buddhi* lessness. Early meditators and enlightened individuals therefore usedthe term/label SANATAN DHARMA which is open ended for all paths to follow throughout human kind and so that in built freedom was there for everyone to find his own path which as we know may not be possible in few countries even today, atleast not by declaring it.
When we take the foreground we leave out the background and vice versa but then when a WHOLE picture is in front of the viewer why observe and perceive just the part of IT.
The complete picture is that we are humans that have evolved from consciousness and consciousness [existence]has its laws with which to be in oneness is the goal of all paths that are here and yet to come. Consciousness is being HERE-NOW!

Let us find ways to find similarities knowing that there is a merger somewhere and finding THAT is the only goal. The method is the path/way/religion.

Love & rgds

 

[ratikala]

dear freind zenzero

Friends,

when we term or use *ism* in a label; by default a segregation crops up and so buddhi*ism* or hindu*ism* are taken to be different

yes , this is true, and illustrates that allthough one may be loyal to one particular tradition or *ism* it is foolish to see it as the only truth .
which as you say in many posts that there are many paths which lead to an enlightened state , so with this realisation a wise man never sees these ridgid seperations , he sees only cultural differences and understands each to have its value within its own society .

which is a sign of *buddhi* lessness.

so yes ! by seeing sepperation between methods on the path , by seeing ridgid *isms*
there is a distinct lack of buddhi (which you may translate as inteligence , knowledge or awakening)

Early meditators and enlightened individuals therefore usedthe term/label SANATAN DHARMA which is open ended for all paths to follow throughout human kind and so that in built freedom was there for everyone to find his own path

here I must ask a question .....can we ever know what early meditators called them selves or the terms they used to describe their thought , philosophy or practice.
I would err on the side of caution and say that most probably all titles , names and descriptive terms were applied at a later date simply in a descriptive manner....
ie , buddh*ism*to denote the set of principles and precepts laid down by lord buddha , and a buddhist being simply a follower of that tradition , set of principals and teachings .

When we take the foreground we leave out the background and vice versa but then when a WHOLE picture is in front of the viewer why observe and perceive just the part of IT.

yes , there is a great danger in bieng narrow minded , it is far better to see the broader picture and then to simply addopt the path that one feels suits him best ,
without dissregarding or diminishing the path of another .

The complete picture is that we are humans that have evolved from consciousness and consciousness [existence]has its laws with which to be in oneness is the goal of all paths that are here and yet to come. Consciousness is being HERE-NOW!

jai jai !

Let us find ways to find similarities knowing that there is a merger somewhere and finding THAT is the only goal. The method is the path/way/religion.

Love & rgds

unfortunately it takes boddhi to understand this ....so I emplore any serious seaker after the truth to concidder this most carefully !
how can we argue about the nature of "THAT"when we have not realised it our selves ?
remember that lord buddha himself warrned against taking the word of others without fully examining it :namaste

 

[zenzero]

Friend ratikala,
Thank you for your response.
Each one is a *bodhi* by birth and all it needs is awareness through any means and all those are termed yogs/paths/ways/religion.
Sanatan dharma is not a religion it is a way of life and every way of life reaches to THAT state. Some ways may reach through evolutionary way others revolutionise their way.
Under this cultural background itself there are many many ways and Gauatama too belonged to this background.

remember that lord buddha himself warrned against taking the word of others without fully examining it :namaste

Firstly finding no *I* here have not said anything and if at all have shared anything are all personal understandings which is open ended and so others too can share their views and reach the middle path through sharing.
Rgds examining, firstly do not know what GAuatama said and in what context, do not mind if someone can bring the actual context and text for an understanding besides this much is sure anyone approaching with minds will be perceiving and all perceptions are wrong/illusions and what buddha said about that is known and understood.

Love & rgds

 

[DreadFish]

Yes, it has been my impression that, back in the day of Gautama, there weren't isms, but rather a "which teacher do you follow?" kind of thing. (Of course there weren't isms, that is a modern western feature, but you get what I mean).

Anyway, this is a good time to bring out, as an example, the Venerable Buddhadasa:


“ ...those who have penetrated to the highest understanding will feel that the thing called 'religion' doesn't exist after all. There is no Buddhism; there is no Christianity; there is no Islam. How can they be the same or in conflict when they don't even exist?[8] ”

I would also mention that Buddhadasa was a Theravada bhikkhu. In fact, he was am ascetic and one of the forest meditators. This means that he practiced, not just studied, and through practice of the teachings, he realized the truths of them.

I find him to be very inspirational, especially when I have had my own biases against Theravada. He seems to exemplify the attributes of Gautama.

Here, the All Powerful Wiki has something to say about him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhadasa