No Buddhism without Hinduism

[RamaRaksha]

This is not a knock on Buddhism by any means, Hindus revere the Buddha as a God, one of the 10 Avatars of God Vishnu.

Would anyone doubt that if the Buddha had been born in Europe or Muslim lands in the middle ages, he would have been branded a heretic and burned at the stake, dying a horrible death? His teachings consigned to the fire, to be lost forever! There would be no Buddhism today! And what do we Hindus do to the man who rejected Hinduism? Why, make him a God, of course! Imagine the greatness of a faith that saw divinity in a man who rejects it's teachings! Go back a few hundred years and you see christian Europe and the muslim lands barren except for one religion each, while Hindu India is and has always been a polyglot of hundreds of religions. This is not an accident.

For over 200 years of American Independence, the President and his entire cabinet has been 99% christian with a Jewish person or an atheist thrown in from time to time. In the 60 years that India has been Independent, the opposite has been true - Almost every religion has been represented in India's cabinet. India is the only country in this entire world that is being headed by a man belonging to a minority faith. Again not an accident, these things could have occured only in a Hindu Country.

 

[Smoke]

It seems to me I read, and fruballed, a similar post recently.
If you're fishing for frubals, it's working.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

So are we posting the same exact thread everywhere we can?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/dharmic-religions/82128-no-buddhism-without-hinduism.html


We get it. If the Buddha had been born elsewhere then there would be no Buddhism as we know it. The simple fact is much of the characteristics which Buddhism holds dear have their origin in Hindu practices and societal acceptance/tolerance.

MTF

 

[rcscwc]

Buddha did not accept the orthodox views about authority of Vedas. He survived, his creed survived only because he was born in India among Hindus. In abrahmic environments he would not have survived, what to talk of his creed.

 

[LuisDantas]

This is not a knock on Buddhism by any means,

I understand. But neither is it quite true, really.

Hindus revere the Buddha as a God, one of the 10 Avatars of God Vishnu.

And we Buddhists... do not.

Would anyone doubt that if the Buddha had been born in Europe or Muslim lands in the middle ages, he would have been branded a heretic and burned at the stake, dying a horrible death? His teachings consigned to the fire, to be lost forever! There would be no Buddhism today! And what do we Hindus do to the man who rejected Hinduism? Why, make him a God, of course! Imagine the greatness of a faith that saw divinity in a man who rejects it's teachings! Go back a few hundred years and you see christian Europe and the muslim lands barren except for one religion each, while Hindu India is and has always been a polyglot of hundreds of religions. This is not an accident.

That is indeed one of the most remarkable characteristics of Hinduism: its flexibility, due to the lack of a true core dogma.

However... it does not necessarily follow that Buddhism, or something functionally similar, could not possibly arise in a non-Hindu society. Nor is it necessarily true that interpreting the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu is accurate or even respectful.

For over 200 years of American Independence, the President and his entire cabinet has been 99% christian with a Jewish person or an atheist thrown in from time to time. In the 60 years that India has been Independent, the opposite has been true - Almost every religion has been represented in India's cabinet. India is the only country in this entire world that is being headed by a man belonging to a minority faith. Again not an accident, these things could have occured only in a Hindu Country.

Hopefully that will soon no longer be true , for there is absolutely no merit in keeping minorities out of political power.

 

[rcscwc]

Quote:
Would anyone doubt that if the Buddha had been born in Europe or Muslim lands in the middle ages, he would have been branded a heretic and burned at the stake, dying a horrible death? His teachings consigned to the fire, to be lost forever! There would be no Buddhism today! And what do we Hindus do to the man who rejected Hinduism? Why, make him a God, of course! Imagine the greatness of a faith that saw divinity in a man who rejects it's teachings! Go back a few hundred years and you see christian Europe and the muslim lands barren except for one religion each, while Hindu India is and has always been a polyglot of hundreds of religions. This is not an accident.
That is indeed one of the most remarkable characteristics of Hinduism: its flexibility, due to the lack of a true core dogma.

However... it does not necessarily follow that Buddhism, or something functionally similar, could not possibly arise in a non-Hindu society. Nor is it necessarily true that interpreting the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu is accurate or even respectful.

Hinduism was liberal enough to allow Buddha and his creed to survive, though it had positioned itself as in direct opposition to it, verging on beligerence later.

History of abrahmic religion is a history of intolerance. In OT, the priests of non jews were killed, they were exterminated. Xianity never tolerated opposing views, right from 300 AD when it got state power. Mutual blood letting of catholics and protestants, shias ans sunnis is legendary. If they could not tolerate these divergence, would they accept opposing views? Could Bahaism survive in Iran?

 

[Humanistheart]

So are we posting the same exact thread everywhere we can?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/dharmic-religions/82128-no-buddhism-without-hinduism.html


We get it. If the Buddha had been born elsewhere then there would be no Buddhism as we know it. The simple fact is much of the characteristics which Buddhism holds dear have their origin in Hindu practices and societal acceptance/tolerance.

MTF

Huh, a copycat thread... weird.

 

[JamieA1A]

This is not a knock on Buddhism by any means, Hindus revere the Buddha as a God, one of the 10 Avatars of God Vishnu..

One could look at that as an acceptance of Buddhism or as an attempt of absorbing the new religion into Hinduism as a defense against the new religion without a fight.

 

[Luminous]

I agree with JamieA1A. and would add that François-Marie Arouet (Voltaire) had some similar believes as Sidharta Gautama (Buddha)

 

[Andal]

One could look at that as an acceptance of Buddhism or as an attempt of absorbing the new religion into Hinduism as a defense against the new religion without a fight.

Buddhadharma was not considered a new or separate religion from Hinduism during the time of the Buddha and it's development in India. It was viewed as a nastika (heterodox) branch of Hinduism, just like the Jains and a number of other subsequent groups during this time In fact the life of the Buddha exemplified the Upanishadic era.

Hinduism had (has) no centralized leadership nor is it this monolythic thing. How could Hinduism feel threatened when there were several different Hinduisms. When Buddhism was developing in India they were surrounded by Smartas, Brahmanic religionists, Bhaktas, Advaitas, Dvaitas. Tantrikas, and the list can go on and on. From the Buddhist side, there were up to 18 different sects existing. So which Hindu group was threatened by which Buddhist group?

 

[rcscwc]

Buddhadharma was not considered a new or separate religion from Hinduism during the time of the Buddha and it's development in India. It was viewed as a nastika (heterodox) branch of Hinduism, just like the Jains and a number of other subsequent groups during this time In fact the life of the Buddha exemplified the Upanishadic era.

Hinduism had (has) no centralized leadership nor is it this monolythic thing. How could Hinduism feel threatened when there were several different Hinduisms. When Buddhism was developing in India they were surrounded by Smartas, Brahmanic religionists, Bhaktas, Advaitas, Dvaitas. Tantrikas, and the list can go on and on. From the Buddhist side, there were up to 18 different sects existing. So which Hindu group was threatened by which Buddhist group?

Hinduism did not feel threatened by Buddhism, true. But it was opposed later on on philosophical grounds. Buddhism, within decades of death of Buddha, split into Mahayana and Hinayana sects, not too kind to each other. Former variety spread to other countries, while the latter died out even in India.

Later Madhyamikas were more near Vedanta in mant respects. Hindu philosophers like Gaudpada, Shankar etc were rather condescending toward it. They accepted even Shunayata, which they interpreted as defintion of Transcedent One. From Conditional Origination to No Origination of Madhyamikas was a BIG leap, and looked more Vandata than anything else.

It was inter-school war of Buddhists which did them in, refuting each other thoroughly, with no new doctribes. Of course Mimamsa and Vedanta helped them along.