Did the Buddha Break Away from Hinduism?
This was published in Hindu Human Rights, on 10 August 2013, and in Sutra Journal, October, 2015.
Orientalists have started treating Buddhism as a separate religion because they discovered it outside India, without any conspicuous link with India, where Buddhism was not in evidence. At first, they didn’t even know that the Buddha had been an Indian. It had at any rate gone through centuries of development unrelated to anything happening in India at the same time. Therefore, it is understandable that Buddhism was already the object of a separate discipline even before any connection with Hinduism could be made.
Buddhism In Modern India
In India, all kinds of invention, somewhat logically connected to this status of separate religion, were then added. Especially the Ambedkarite movement, springing from the conversion of Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar in 1956, was very driven in retro-actively producing an anti-Hindu programme for the Buddha.
Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar
Conversion itself, not just the embracing of a new tradition (which any Hindu is free to do, all while staying a Hindu) but the renouncing of one’s previous religion, as the Hindu-born politician Ambedkar did, is a typically Christian concept.
The model event was the conversion of the Frankish king Clovis, possibly in 496, who “burned what he had worshipped and worshipped what he had burnt.” (Let it pass for now that the Christian chroniclers slandered their victims by positing a false symmetry: the Heathens hadn’t been in the business of destroying Christian symbols.) So, in his understanding of the history of Bauddha Dharma (Buddhism), Ambedkar was less than reliable, in spite of his sterling contributions regarding the history of Islam and some parts of the history of caste.
But where he was a bit right and a bit mistaken, his later followers have gone all the way and made nothing but a gross caricature of history, and especially about the place of Buddhism in Hindu history.
The Ambedkarite worldview has ultimately only radicalized the moderately anti-Hindu version of the reigning Nehruvians. Under Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, Buddhism was turned into the unofficial state religion of India, adopting the “lion pillar” of the Buddhist Emperor Ashoka as state symbol and putting the 24-spoked Cakravarti wheel in the national flag.
Essentially, Nehru’s knowledge of Indian history was limited to two spiritual figures, viz. the Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi, and three political leaders: Ashoka, Akbar and himself. The concept of Cakravarti (“wheel-turner,” universal ruler) was in fact much older than Ashoka, and the 24-spoked wheel can also be read in other senses, e.g. the Sankhya philosophy’s worldview, with the central Purusha/Subject and the 24 elements of Prakrti/Nature.
The anglicized Nehru, “India’s last Viceroy,” prided himself on his illiteracy in Hindu culture, so he didn’t know any of this, but was satisfied that these symbols could glorify Ashoka and belittle Hinduism, deemed a separate religion from which Ashoka had broken away by accepting Buddhism. More broadly, Nehru thought that everything of value in India was a gift of Buddhism (and Islam) to the undeserving Hindus. Thus, the fabled Hindu tolerance was according to him a value borrowed from Buddhism.
In reality, the Buddha had been a beneficiary of an already established Hindu tradition of pluralism. In a Muslim country, he would never have preached his doctrine in peace and comfort for 45 years, but in Hindu society, this was a matter of course. There were some attempts on his life, but they emanated not from “Hindus” but from jealous disciples within his own monastic order.
So, both Nehru and Ambedkar, as well as their followers, believed by implication that at some point in his life, the Hindu-born renunciate Buddha had broken away from Hinduism and adopted a new religion, Buddhism. This notion is now omnipresent, and through school textbooks, most Indians have lapped this up and don’t know any better.
However, numerous though they are, none of the believers in this story have ever told us at what moment in his life the Buddha broke away from Hinduism. When did he revolt against it? Very many Indians repeat the Nehruvian account, but so far, never has any of them been able to pinpoint an event in the Buddha’s life which constituted a break with Hinduism.
The Term “Hinduism”
Their first line of defence, when put on the spot, is sure to be:“Actually, Hinduism did not yet exist at the time.”So, their position really is:Hinduism did not exist yet, but somehow the Buddha broke away from it.Yeah, the secular position is that he was a miracle-worker.
Darius relief from the northern stairs of the Apadana of Persepolis (Archaeological museum, Tehran)
Let us correct that: the word “Hinduism” did not exist yet. When Darius of the Achaemenid Persians, a near-contemporary of the Buddha, used the word “Hindu,” it was purely in a geographical sense: anyone from inside or beyond the Indus region.
When the medieval Muslim invaders brought the term into India, they used it to mean: any Indian except for the Indian Muslims, Christians or Jews. It did not have a specific doctrinal content except “non-Abrahamic,” a negative definition. It meant every Indian Pagan, including the Brahmins, Buddhists (“clean-shaven Brahmins”), Jains, other ascetics, low-castes, intermediate castes, tribals, and by implication also the as yet unborn Lingayats, Sikhs, Hare Krishnas, Arya Samajis, Ramakrishnaites, secularists, and others who nowadays reject the label “Hindu.”
This definition was essentially also adopted by V.D. Savarkar in his book Hindutva (1923), and by the Hindu Marriage Act (1955). By this historical definition, which also has the advantages of primacy and of not being thought up by the wily Brahmins, the Buddha and all his Indian followers are unquestionably Hindus. In that sense, Savarkar was right when he called Ambedkar’s taking refuge in Buddhism “a sure jump into the Hindu fold.”
But the word “Hindu” is a favourite object of manipulation. Thus, secularists say that all kinds of groups (Dravidians, low-castes, Sikhs, etc.) are “not Hindu,” yet when Hindus complain of the self-righteousness and aggression of the minorities, secularists laugh at this concern: “How can the Hindus feel threatened? They are more than 80%!”
The missionaries call the tribals “not Hindus,” but when the tribals riot against the Christians who have murdered their Swami, we read about “Hindu rioters.” In the Buddha’s case, “Hindu” is often narrowed down to “Vedic” when convenient, then restored to its wider meaning when expedient.
[contextly_sidebar id=”YAAEETEkTfndc81ET5emwyt2nbEEpaOt”]
One meaning which the word “Hindu” definitely does not have, and did not have when it was introduced, is “Vedic.” Shankara holds it against Patanjali and the Sankhya school (just like the Buddha did) that they don’t bother to cite the Vedas, yet they have a place in every history of Hindu thought.
Hinduism includes a lot of elements which have only a thin Vedic veneer, and numerous ones which are not Vedic at all. Scholars say that it consists of a “Great Tradition” and many “Little Traditions,” local cults allowed to subsist under the aegis of the prestigious Vedic line. However, if we want to classify the Buddha in these terms, he should rather be included in the Great Tradition.
Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha was a Kshatriya, a scion of the Solar or Ikshvaku dynasty, a descendant of Manu, a self-described reincarnation of Rama, the son of the Raja of the Shakya tribe, a member of its Senate, and belonging to the Gautama gotra (roughly “clan”).
Though monks are often known by their monastic name, Buddhists prefer to name the Buddha after his descent group, viz. the Shakyamuni, “renunciate of the Shakya tribe.” This tribe was as Hindu as could be, consisting according to its own belief of the progeny of the eldest children of patriarch Manu, who were repudiated at the insistence of his later, younger wife.
The Buddha is not known to have rejected this name, not even at the end of his life when the Shakyas had earned the wrath of king Vidudabha of Kosala and were massacred. The doctrine that he was one in a line of incarnations which also included Rama is not a deceitful Brahmin Puranic invention but was launched by the Buddha himself, who claimed Rama as an earlier incarnation of his. The numerous scholars who like to explain every Hindu idea or custom as “borrowed from Buddhism” could well counter Ambedkar’s rejection of this “Hindu” doctrine by pointing out very aptly that it was “borrowed from Buddhism.”
Career
At 29, he renounced society, but not Hinduism. Indeed, it is a typical thing among Hindus to exit from society, laying off caste marks including civil name.
The Rg-Veda already describes the Muni-s as having matted hair and going about sky-clad: such are what we now know as Naga Sadhus. Asceticism was a recognized practice in Vedic society long before the Buddha. Yajnavalkya, the Upanishadic originator of the notion of Self, renounced life in society after a successful career as court priest and an equally happy family life with two wives.
By leaving his family and renouncing his future in politics, the Buddha followed an existing tradition within Hindu society. He didn’t practice Vedic rituals anymore, which is normal for a Vedic renunciate (though Zen Buddhists still recite the Heart Sutra in the Vedic fashion, ending with“sowaka,” i.e., svaha).
He was a late follower of a movement very much in evidence in the Upanishads, viz. of spurning rituals ( Karmakanda) in favour of knowledge (Jnanakanda). After he had done the Hindu thing by going to the forest, he tried several methods, including the techniques he learned from two masters and which did not fully satisfy him−but nonetheless enough to include them in his own and the Buddhist curriculum.
The Buddha in a preaching pose flanked by bodhisattvas, Cave 4 Ajanta.
Among other techniques, he practised Anapanasati, “attention to the breathing process,” the archetypal yoga practice popular in practically all yoga schools even today. For a while he also practised an extreme form of asceticism, still existing in the Hindu sect of Jainism. He exercised his Hindu freedom to join a sect devoted to certain techniques, and later the freedom to leave it, remaining a Hindu at every stage.
He then added a technique of his own, or at least that is what the Buddhist sources tell us, for in the paucity of reliable information, we don’t know for sure that he hadn’t learned the Vipassana (“mindfulness”) technique elsewhere.
Unless evidence of the contrary comes to the surface, we assume that he invented this technique all by himself, as a Hindu is free to do. He then achieved Bodhi, the “Awakening.” By his own admission, he was by no means the first to do so. Instead, he had only walked the same path of other Awakened beings before him.
At the bidding of the Vedic gods Brahma and Indra, he left his self-contained state of Awakening and started teaching his way to others. When he “set in motion the wheel of the Law” (Dharma-cakra-pravartana, Chinese Falungong), he gave no indication whatsoever of breaking with an existing system.
On the contrary, by his use of existing Vedic and Upanishadic terminology (Arya, “Vedically civilized”; Dharma), he confirmed his Vedic roots and implied that his system was a restoration of the Vedic ideal that had become degenerate. He taught his techniques and his analysis of the human condition to his disciples, promising them to achieve the same Awakening if they practiced these diligently.
Caste
On caste, we find him in full cooperation with existing caste society. Being an elitist, he mainly recruited among the upper castes, with over 40% Brahmins. These would later furnish all the great philosophers who made Buddhism synonymous with conceptual sophistication.
Conversely, the Buddhist universities trained well-known non-Buddhist scientists such as the astronomer Aryabhata. Lest the impression be created that universities are a gift of Buddhism to India, it may be pointed out that the Buddha’s friends Bandhula and Prasenadi (and, according to a speculation, maybe the young Siddhartha himself) had studied at the university of Takshashila, clearly established before there were any Buddhists were around to do so. Instead, the Buddhists greatly developed an institution which they had inherited from Hindu society.
Takshashila
The kings and magnates of the eastern Ganga plain treated the Buddha as one of their own (because that is what he was) and gladly patronized his fast-growing monastic order, commanding their servants and subjects to build a network of monasteries for it. He predicted the coming of a future Awakened leader like himself, the Maitreya (“the one practising friendship/charity”), and specified that he would be born in a Brahmin family.
When king Prasenadi discovered that his wife was not a Shakya princess but the daughter of the Shakya ruler by a maid-servant, he repudiated her and their son; but his friend the Buddha made him take them back.
Did he achieve this by saying that birth is unimportant, that “caste is bad” or that “caste doesn’t matter,” as the Ambedkarites claim? No, he reminded the king of the old view (then apparently in the process of being replaced with a stricter view) that caste was passed on exclusively in the paternal line.
Among hybrids of horses and donkeys, the progeny of a horse stallion and a donkey mare whinnies, like its father, while the progeny of a donkey stallion and a horse mare brays, also like its father. So, in the oldest Upanishad, Satyakama Jabala is accepted by his Brahmins-only teacher because his father is deduced to be a Brahmin, regardless of his mother being a maid-servant. And similarly, king Prasenadi should accept his son as a Kshatriya, even though his mother was not a full-blooded Shakya Kshatriya.
When he died, the elites of eight cities made a successful bid for his ashes on the plea: “We are Kshatriyas, he was a Kshatriya, therefore we have a right to his ashes”. After almost half a century, his disciples didn’t mind being seen in public as still observing caste in a context which was par excellence Buddhist.
The reason is that the Buddha in his many teachings never had told them to give up caste, e.g. to give their daughters in marriage to men of other castes. This was perfectly logical: as a man with a spiritual message, the Buddha wanted to lose as little time as possible on social matters. If satisfying your own miserable desires is difficult enough, satisfying the desire for an egalitarian society provides an endless distraction from your spiritual practice.
The Seven Rules
There never was a separate non-Hindu Buddhist society.
Most Hindus worship various gods and teachers, adding and sometimes removing one or more pictures or statues to their house altar. This way, there were some lay worshippers of the Buddha, but they were not a society separate from the worshippers of other gods or Awakened masters. This box-type division of society in different sects is another Christian prejudice infused into modern Hindu society by Nehruvian secularism. There were only Hindus, members of Hindu castes, some of whom had a veneration for the Buddha among others.
Buddhist buildings in India often follow the designs of Vedic habitat ecology or Vastu Shastra. Buddhist temple conventions follow an established Hindu pattern. Buddhist mantras, also outside India, follow the pattern of Vedic mantras.
When Buddhism spread to China and Japan, Buddhist monks took the Vedic gods (e.g. the twelve Adityas) with them and built temples for them. In Japan, every town has a temple for the river-goddess Benzaiten, i.e. “Saraswati Devi,” the goddess Saraswati. She was not introduced there by wily Brahmins, but by Buddhists.
At the fag end of his long life, the Buddha described the seven principles by which a society does not perish (which Sita Ram Goel has given more body in his historical novel Saptasheel, in Hindi), and among them are included: respecting and maintaining the existing festivals, pilgrimages and rituals; and revering the holy men.
These festivals etc. were mainly “Vedic,” of course, like the pilgrimage to the Saraswati River that Balarama made in the Mahabharata, or the pilgrimage to the Ganga which the elderly Pandava brothers made. Far from being a revolutionary, the Buddha emphatically outed himself as a conservative, both in social and religious matters. He was not a rebel or a revolutionary, but wanted the existing customs to continue.
The Buddha was every inch a Hindu.
There was no “Hinduism” at that time. There was a nation of many religions united under Aryan (Brahmin) law, the Constitutional Mantra of which is represented by the Yantra of the Swastika. This nationality came to be called Hinduism much later after it was defunct.. The Budha was an Arya of the Gautama Gothra who practiced Brahmanism. He was a Brahmin by religion and a Kshatriya by Varna who opted for Shivacharya Tantra and Sankhya Pramana.
“Hindu” is not a religion. It is is an agglomerations of religions. It was a defunct nationality. It is now a legal fiction exploited by the Indian State for the benefit of the secular, the god less and Non Hindoos.
There was no such thing as “Hindus” outside of the Indus Valley even a 1,000 years ago. “Hindu” was a term coined by the Persians to describe their co-coreligionists during their Vedai period (before their Avesthan-Zoroastrain Period) who lived in the Indus Valley i.e. present day Pakistan. The term was used by Moslem invaders to describe all natives who were not Moslem and was resurrected as a “religion” by the British when they began their pogrom to erase the Brahmins and the People of Dharma who adhered to Aryan Brahmin Law after the Sepoy Mutiny to put an end to all resistance to alien ideologies, cultures, religions and laws..
Original Budhism is a peculiar mythology developed from local tribal lore in different places around a core of Brahmanism. Ashokan Budhism was Imperial like the Christianity of Paul, Charlemagne and Constantine or the Islam of Mahomet and Budhist Mendicants were often Imperial spies intended to smell out dissent and Brahmanism which would then be eradicated by ruthless “Budhist” soldiers..
Pre-Ashokan Budhism which was spread through debate and preaching is nothing but Brahmanism translated to Pali and other languages and then back again to eternal fissiparious confusion.
Budha himself was an agnostic with a handful of faithful disciples whose answer to the question, “Is there Brahma”? was a half smile as he passed away. Budha was used to reform and spread Brahmanism by Brahmins. Kashyapa created Zen (good) , Koushika (Padma Sambhava) took it to Tibet. Bharadwaja took it to Japan. His statue still sits outside the great temple at Nara.
Budhism adopts the notions of Karma and Dharma that originated in the Prathamo Upanishad that was received by the Saptha Rishis (Athri, Bhrigu, Kuthsa, Vasishta, Gautama, Kashyapa and Angirasa) who are the patrilineal ancestors of the Shroutha Smartha Brahmins (I am a Kashyapa) .
While Ashoka destroyed and plundered all the Brahmin temples and guru kulas (Sarnath and theSanchi Stupa are now the oldest buildings in his erstwhile empire), the Budhist temples of Japan, which predate Ashokan Budhism, sport the Saffron Swastika of Aryavarta Dharma rather than the Chakra of Ashoka’s tyranny, (So do India’s Jain temples).
Japan is a classic case which has been immune to political mythology masquerading as History thanks to their Shinto-Kojiki culture which passes mouth to ear from guru to shishya as does the Shroutha Smartha tradition. The ancient Shinto-Budhist Sanju Sanjusangendo Hall of Warriors at Kyoto has 12 foot high bronze statues of the Dasha Dikpalaka of Aryan Brahmanism. The not so ancient Asakusa Budhist Temple (near Tokyo) has enormous stone statues of Virinchi (Mahasthana Praptha), and Narayana (Amithabha) installed in the garden outside the Shinto Shrine to those who built the temple and Shankara (Avalokiteshwara or Kannon) is the principal deity. These are the trinity of Gunas that come from Savitur,the Light of Surya (the Sun) which is itself formed from the light of Brahma (Mitra common to Zorastrianism and the now exterminated Gnostic Christianity-though the Mitre head dress derives its name from the original Mitra) in Brahmanism. Indra, Varuna, Rahu and Kethu guard the gates at Asakusa Temple and the temple main shrine is emblazoned with an enormous Saffron Swastika at its rear which all traditional worshipers pay obeisance to during perambulations. There is a separate shrine for Lalitha which indicates that this temple was constructed post Dravido-Aryan integration (Atharva Veda period) and pre Ashokan.
Thailand is also an interesting point here. While the majority of the population follow pre-Ashokan Budhism (distinguished by the Swasthika of Aryavartha Dharma), the State Religion is Brahmanism, and the King, Bhoomipala Athulyatheja, is an Arya Kshatriya who follows Brahmanism. So was the late Nara Utham Sihanouk of Cambodia. Budhism in India was destroyed in the backlash to Ashoka but prospered elsewhere. .
Footnote:
Gandhi, like any post 1857 “God Man,” is the “Hindoo” that the British helped create to emasculate the People of Dharma.
Outside of the “Church”, we, the Illuminati, have always known that Titus Flavius brought about the first schism between the Gnostics and the literati to pacify the Jews and create a Christianity, via the Literati, that would be an instrument of the Roman Empire. Paul embraced the temptations of Satan repudiated by Jesus and turned Christianity into an Empire. Constantine Charlemagne James and others formed Councils that cherry picked gospels suitable for the purpose and discarded the rest. This is why present day Christians cannot perform the miracles that Jesus’ original disciples could despite claiming to be following in Jesus’ footsteps. We also know that Christianity not only failed Jesus, but also failed Satan as it got corrupted by various human virtues such as mercy, compassion, and love. This is why Satan set Christianity aside, possessed Mahomet and founded Islam:
Ashoka did the same thing and twisted Budhism (which was a proselytizing and modified Brahmanism) to his Imperial advantage, tyranny and self glorification. The backlash all but wiped out Budhism and the Black Chakra of Ashoka’s writ in India while Budhism prospered elsewhere in China, Japan, Tibet and so on under the benign Saffron Swasthika of the Aryan Constitution.
Uthman (3rd Khalifa) had ordered burning of all copies of Quran except his version. Abdullah Ibn Masud (person Mohammad recommended to learn Quran from) Rejected Uthman’s version and asked the people of Iraq to hide the real Quran from Uthman. The Original Quran was hidden somewhere in Iraq or Syria, destroying which is the target of descendants of Uthman and Abu Bakr, this is the reason why they are attacking the museums in Iraq & Syria. Todays muslims have a choice – to continue following Uthman’s Quran; OR to find the original Quran, follow it, and become the protected “one sect” Mohammad talked about.
This is rather like William Hunter of the William Hunter Commission created by the British that picked up fragments of the Manu Smrithi, Vedas and so on from Max Mueller and others and twisted them and published their own perverted versions as a central pillar of their effort to create a “Hinduism” to replace the People of Dharma by eradicating Brahmanism, and the talking, walking Libraries of Aryan History, Law, Traditions and so on, The Brahmins.
Post 1857, the British took a page from Titus Flavius to create a “Hindu” lumpen in the vacuum comprising all who were not the Deen e Kitabi with Sgt Khilafart Gandhi, MBE, leading the charge to emasculate the natives and lobotomize the People of Dharma.
Sufism is a similar confection that attempted to disarm pockets of resistance that could not be overcome with violence through a form of “bribery”. It began with the need to motivate the enslaved architects, masons, artists, musicians and others to remain creative and productive though enslaved under the iron heel of Moslem tyranny.
The British began the eradication of Brahmins and Brahmanism post 1857. Part of the project was to create a tame Hinduism that went by the Book as trans created and approved by the British. The William Hunter Commission was entrusted with this project of creating a :”Hinduism” that would include all those who were not Deen e Kitabi as the “Hindu” lumpen independent of Brahmins and dependent on British made books. From this distortion sprang the pratings of Ambedkar, Periyar, Narayana Guru, Khilafart Gandhi and the great veneration of the Gita which is but an excerpt from a literary masterpiece that contains far more sagacious passages and has no canonical significance whatsoever other than in India’s grotesque British made courts and the lectures of latter day God Men.
Hinduism (ie Santan Dharma) is like an open architecture where gurus, after becoming enlightened, customized a simpler and defined way to reach supreme. These are known as Samprdayas. Buddha, Ballabhacharya, Guru Nanak, Kabir, Dayanand Sarswati, Osho etc created a path based on their experience to reach supreme within Hindu framework. Only idiots or cunning will separate them from Sanatan dharma. There was no concept of Buddhism as separate religion in India. That is the reason every Buddha temple has all Hindu tridev or Ram’s story.
Really ….Constitution of India was written by Ambedkar 😮
I respect every word of this article … Thanks for sharing …. Can you shed more light on Maitreya
Jainism is Hinduism too. So? Hinduism is not a religion but a defunct nationality comprising myriad religions united by Aryan (Brahmin) Law. Both Budhism and Jainism adhere to the Aryan Constitution represented by its symbol of the Swasthika. The Third great Religion of the time, the root religion of Aryans, from which they attempted to move away through reform was Brahmanism.
There was no “Hinduism” at that time. There was a nation of many religions united under Aryan (Brahmin) law, the Constitutional Mantra of which is represented by the Yantra of the Swastika. This nationality came to be called Hinduism much later after it was defunct.. Original Budhism is a peculiar mythology developed from local tribal lore in different places around a core of Brahmanism. Ashokan Budhism was Imperial like the Christianity of Paul, Charlemagne and Constantine or the Islam of Mahomet and Budhist Mendicants were often Imperial spies intended to smell out dissent and Brahmanism which would then be eradicated by ruthless “Budhist” soldiers..
Pre-Ashokan Budhism which was spread through debate and preaching is nothing but Brahmanism translated to Pali and other languages. Budha himself was an agnostic with a handful of faithful disciples whose answer to the question, “Is there Brahma”? was a half smile as he passed away. Budha was used to reform and spread Brahmanism by Brahmins. Kashyapa created Zen (good) , Koushika (Padma Sambhava) took it to Tibet. Bharadwaja took it to Japan. His statue still sits outside the great temple at Nara. Budhism adopts the notions of Karma and Dharma that originated in the Prathamo Upanishad that was received by the Saptha Rishis (Athri, Bhrigu, Kuthsa, Vasishta, Gautama, Kashyapa and Angirasa) who are the patrilineal ancestors of the Shroutha Smartha Brahmins (I am a Kashyapa) . While Ashoka destroyed and plundered all the Brahmin temples and guru kulas (Sarnath and theSanchi Stupa are now the oldest buildings in his erstwhile empire), the Budhist temples of Japan, which predate Ashokan Budhism, sport the Swastika of Aryavarta Dharma rather than the Chakra of Ashoka, (So do India’s Jain temples).
Japan is a classic case which has been immune to political mythology masquerading as History thanks to their Shinto-Kojiki culture which passes mouth to ear from guru to shishya as does the Shroutha Smartha tradition. The ancient Shinto-Budhist Sanju Sangendo Hall of Warriors at Kyoto has 12 foot high bronze statues of the Dasha Dikpalaka of Brahmanism. The not so ancient Asakusa Budhist Temple (near Tokyo) has enormous stone statues of Virinchi (Mahasthana Praptha), and Narayana (Amithabha) installed in the garden outside the Shinto Shrine to those who built the temple and Shankara (Avalokiteshwara or Kannon) is the principal deity. These are the trinity of Gunas that come from Savitur,the Light of Surya (the Sun) which is itself formed from the light of Brahma (Mitra common to Zorastrianism and the now exterminated Gnostic Christianity-though the Mitre head dress derives its name from the original Mitra) in Brahmanism. Indra, Varuna, Rahu and Kethu guard the gates at Asakusa Temple and the temple main shrine is emblazoned with an enormous Saffron Swastika at its rear which all traditional worshipers pay obeisance to during perambulations. There is a separate shrine for Lalitha which indicates that this temple was constructed post Dravido-Aryan integration (Atharva Veda period) and pre Ashokan Thailand is also an interesting point here. While the majority of the population follow pre-Ashokan Budhism (distinguished by the Swasthika of Aryavartha Dharma), the State Religion is Brahmanism, and the King, Bhoomipala Athulyatheja, is an Arya Kshatriya who follows Brahmanism. So was the late Nara Utham Sihanouk of Cambodia. Budhism in India was destroyed in the backlash to Ashoka but prospered elsewhere.
Please understand once and for all that there is no such thing as Aryan race. The word “Arya” in Sanskrit clearly means one and only one thing “Noble”. It was the racist Max Mueller who gave it a racial connotation. The Dravido-Aryan integration that you mention is a complete cock and bull story. There were no Dravidians and no Aryans. There was only the varnashrama system.
Also understand once and for all that there is no such thing as “Brahmanism” or “Brahminism”. It was all terminology coined during colonial era. So when there is no such thing as “Brahmanism”, there is no question of spreading it by Buddhists or anyone else.
“Brahmn” or “Brahman” is the Supreme Reality as explained in the Upanishads and has nothing to do with the caste of “Brahmins” or “Brahmanas”.
Please be informed, once and for all, that you are ignorant, and have no more substance than an average politician like Nehru, Gandhi, Ambedkar or worse. I have no intention of taking instruction from somebody who is as erudition, arithmetic, integrity and culture challenged as a member of India’s higher judiciary. You have evidently no classical Sanskrit education and only a lot of politically convenient brain washing to go on.
Aryas are those bound by Aryan Law. The notion of Karma and Dharma received by the Seven Sages from Brahma and passed on as the Prathamo Upanishad to their patrilineal descendants, father to son during the Upanayana ceremony, by the Shroutha Smartha Brahmins which revolve around truth, beauty and virtue as the cardinal virtues of Karma and generosity, compassiona dn moderation as the cardinal virtues of Dharma, and the Aryan law emanating from the Swathika dilienating the duties and characterestics of the Leader, the Judge, the Law Enforcer and the Mentor.
The Rik Veda evolved in the Aryan Grazing grounds between East Prussia and Mongolia. They had interactions with agricultural civilizations all around them and, therefore, cultural influence when they raided them for food during times of Kshama (scarcity) for themselves. The Druids of ancient Ur escaped their harrying as well as their own apostates who had embraced Yahweh and migrated all over. Some of them brought, agriculture, architecture etc (i.e. civilization) to the Indo-Gangetic Plains. Some Aryans followed them, conquering them during the Shukla Yajur Veda Period (invention of Archery, Chariot use in warfare). During the Krishna Yajur Veda Period, they settled under the treaty and laws of Bharatha. They exacted tribute from the Dasyus (Druids) in terms of agricultural and archtiectural produce and other forms of labour. This led to the decadence of the Sama Veda period. This led to the Kurukshetra War. This civil war broke Aryan hegemony giving rise to the Atharva Veda Period when the Dasyus and the Aryas inter married, the Shudra Varna entered the Guru Kulas and a great number of Aryas migrated back to their home lands and beyond. The Atharva Veda (Vedic period) came to an end when Ashoka destroyed the Druido-Aryan temples and dismantled the Gurukulas (thereby putting an end to Varna Mobility) in revenge for being declared an outcaste by the Supreme Council of Kashi when he contravened the treaty of Bharatha that established the consensus of Ashwamedha Yajna during the Krishna Yajur Veda period in place of the Rik Vedic Rajasooya where the heads of opposing kings are offered in the sacred fire by the victor. Ashoka waged war on his fellow Aryas (like the US waging war on NATO). Markers, there is no older structure than Saranath in Ashoka’s former empire. The back lash to Ashoka’s tyranny destroyed Budhism is India together withn the Ashoka Chakra with which Ashoka replaced the Swastika of Aryavartha Dharma whereas, Budhism prospers in South East Asia and Japan with the Swastika emblazoned on Budhist temples. Adi Shankara whose ancestors fled deep South to escape Ashokan persecution revived Sanskrit and the Brahma Sutras. At this time too a great number of Druido Aryas migrated to the North and the North West from India.
Gothra: For Brahmins by religion (irrespectuve of Varna) it is the patrilineal ancestry. For all others (Brahmins to Shudras by “caste” etc,) it is disciplary i.e. it comes from the Guru Kula or the Pathashala and the Gothra of the presiding Acharya or Adhyapaka) Jaathi comes from the same root as Gyan (knowledge). Gyathi refers to the professional skills or the trade craft.
In the Rik Vedic (Evolution of fire technology and metal working) Period following Brahma giving the Prathamo Upanishad to the Saptha Rishis (from which the notions of Karma and Dharma were born) and the formulation of the Aryan Constitution represented by the Swastika, when the pastoral, Brahmin, multi racial Aryas roamed the grass lands from East Europe to Mongolia, there was no Varna. During the Shukla Yajur Veda (Archery, chariot war fare and the harrying of the Druid Civilizations of Mesopotamia and Persia) Period there were two Varnas. Arya and Dasyu (Serf or Slave). The tall, fair, semitic, encycephalic, idolatrous, agricultural and archtiectural Shiva, Vishnu and Lalitha worshiping Druhyus (Druids) scattered from the Ur civilization to escape the constant harrying by the Aryas as well as their own apostates who had embraced Yahweh who said unto Abraham, “Put no other Gods before me for I am a jealous God”. Some of them headed East and formed the Indus Valley civilization displacing the indigenous tribals. Some Aryas followed and settled in the Indo-Gangetic Plain and were bound by the treaty of Bharatha (a codicil to the main Constitution of Arya Varsha). They over laid the Druhyus and exacted tribute in the form of agricultural, architectural and other produce and services from the Dasyus. Here was born the joyous tones of the Krishna Yajur Veda from plenty and luxury. Here too were born the Varnas. The Brahmana, the Kshatriya and the Vaishya. The Varnas were decided by the Brihaspathi in the Pathashala. Then came the decadence of the Sama Veda. The Great Civil War (referred to in the masterly literary work “Mahabharatha” by Vyasa) decimated the Aryas and broke their hegemony. This began the Atharva Veda Period. Thereafter the Dravids and the Aryas began to inter marry. The Druid dieites were Sanskritized and the compendium of the Thaithreya Upanishad was created including the Druid deities for the use of all previous Vedas. The temple worship, architectural and agricultural technologies entered the Atharva Veda through the Aagama (that which came from outside) Shastras. The Dasyus entered the Guru Kula system as Shudras with full Varna mobility thereafter. The Druhyus already had a complex system of professional specializations as behooves an advanced civilization and this was verniered and integrated into the Varna system. The Vedic Period was brought to an end by Ashoka who destroyed the temples, dismantled the Guru Kulas and drove Brahmanism and Sanskrit under ground. He replaced the Swastika of Arya Varsha with his Chakra. With this, the Varna system ossified and education passed from father to son as Varna mobility was not possible without Guru Kulas. Many of the indigenous people as also the Dasyus never accepted Aryan Law and remained out side the Varna system. Many others who had been put into “Bahishkara” (open prison or exile) could not be reintegrated as the Ashwamedha Yajna when the laws were recodified and this took place were no longer conducted as Ashoka had ended Bharatha Varsha when he performed the Raja Suya Yajna (sacrificing the heads of the defeated Kings of the Sukla Yajur Veda period) instead of the Ashwamedha Yajna (consensus under Bharatha Varsha Krishna Yajur Veda). These were called Dalits by the British in 1921. The British wrongly gave the term “Dravid” to the indigenous people of India rather than the semitic Druhyus from the place of the three rivers (now known as the Euphrates, Tigris and Jordan) who brought agriculture and temple building to India.
The British did “Divide to Rule”. They turned against the Brahmins after the Sepoy Muitny in 1857. Every Brahmin man, woman and child that they could lay hands on in the Bengal Presidency was massacred out of hand. In 1921 their “Dravid” stooges of the “Justice” Party were set against the Brahmins. False canards were spread against the Brahmins who had formed the impoverished (by culture and way of life dedicated to learning and trusteeship) hereditary priesthood, judiciary, and trustees of the “Hindu” commonwealth) to destroy the soul of Hinduism. The British coined the word “Dalit” for Non Hindus and made them “Hindus” in law to swamp the congregational temple welfare system. In the Madras Presidency, the British stooge Patro promulgated the Communal Gazetted Order 613 of 1923 to discriminate against Brahmins in all walks of life including education, employment, land ownership and court cases. The British then confiscated all the Heritage Temples and Religious endowments including the Veda Pathashalas. This policy has been followed ever since by the heirs and successors to the British and their “Dravid-Dalit” stooges. The Cambridge, Columbia, Oxford, Elphinstone, Presdiency, St Stephen’s and Madras Christian educated British stooges who usurped the rulership of India from the people in 1947 had no notion, whatsoever, of Indian tradition, History or Culture. In 1949, the Indian Republic, constitutionally turned Hindus into Third Class citizens and in 1959 confiscated all their temples, religious endowments and common wealth. The Indian Constitution was largely plagiarized from the British Government of India Act (1935) and included inequality under law, exceptions to the rule of law and the “Many Nations” Theory that rascals like Nehru, Ambedkar and their successors have expanded and strengthened leaving India a weakened nation, struggling below its potential, in a perpetual state of Civil War. India is 135 out of 172 nations (below Sub Saharan Africa) in Human and Social Development and 143 out of 172 nations in internal peace and stability. It is also the largest exporter of skilled Brain Ware that builds the might of the US and other “Western” Powers.
There was no “Hinduism” at that time. There was a nation of many religions united under Aryan (Brahmin) law, the Constitutional Mantra of which is represented by the Yantra of the Swastika. This nationality came to be called Hinduism much later after it was defunct.. The Budha was an Arya of the Gautama Gothra who practiced Brahmanism. He was a Brahmin by religion and a Kshatriya by Varna who opted for Shivacharya Tantra and Sankhya Pramana.
Original Budhism is a peculiar mythology developed from local tribal lore in different places around a core of Brahmanism. Ashokan Budhism was Imperial like the Christianity of Paul, Charlemagne and Constantine or the Islam of Mahomet and Budhist Mendicants were often Imperial spies intended to smell out dissent and Brahmanism which would then be eradicated by ruthless “Budhist” soldiers..
Pre-Ashokan Budhism which was spread through debate and preaching is nothing but Brahmanism translated to Pali and other languages and then back again to eternal fissiparious confusion.
Budha himself was an agnostic with a handful of faithful disciples whose answer to the question, “Is there Brahma”? was a half smile as he passed away. Budha was used to reform and spread Brahmanism by Brahmins. Kashyapa created Zen (good) , Koushika (Padma Sambhava) took it to Tibet. Bharadwaja took it to Japan. His statue still sits outside the great temple at Nara.
Budhism adopts the notions of Karma and Dharma that originated in the Prathamo Upanishad that was received by the Saptha Rishis (Athri, Bhrigu, Kuthsa, Vasishta, Gautama, Kashyapa and Angirasa) who are the patrilineal ancestors of the Shroutha Smartha Brahmins (I am a Kashyapa) .
While Ashoka destroyed and plundered all the Brahmin temples and guru kulas (Sarnath and theSanchi Stupa are now the oldest buildings in his erstwhile empire), the Budhist temples of Japan, which predate Ashokan Budhism, sport the Saffron Swastika of Aryavarta Dharma rather than the Chakra of Ashoka’s tyranny, (So do India’s Jain temples).
Japan is a classic case which has been immune to political mythology masquerading as History thanks to their Shinto-Kojiki culture which passes mouth to ear from guru to shishya as does the Shroutha Smartha tradition. The ancient Shinto-Budhist Sanju Sanjusangendo Hall of Warriors at Kyoto has 12 foot high bronze statues of the Dasha Dikpalaka of Aryan Brahmanism. The not so ancient Asakusa Budhist Temple (near Tokyo) has enormous stone statues of Virinchi (Mahasthana Praptha), and Narayana (Amithabha) installed in the garden outside the Shinto Shrine to those who built the temple and Shankara (Avalokiteshwara or Kannon) is the principal deity. These are the trinity of Gunas that come from Savitur,the Light of Surya (the Sun) which is itself formed from the light of Brahma (Mitra common to Zorastrianism and the now exterminated Gnostic Christianity-though the Mitre head dress derives its name from the original Mitra) in Brahmanism. Indra, Varuna, Rahu and Kethu guard the gates at Asakusa Temple and the temple main shrine is emblazoned with an enormous Saffron Swastika at its rear which all traditional worshipers pay obeisance to during perambulations. There is a separate shrine for Lalitha which indicates that this temple was constructed post Dravido-Aryan integration (Atharva Veda period) and pre Ashokan
Thailand is also an interesting point here. While the majority of the population follow pre-Ashokan Budhism (distinguished by the Swasthika of Aryavartha Dharma), the State Religion is Brahmanism, and the King, Bhoomipala Athulyatheja, is an Arya Kshatriya who follows Brahmanism. So was the late Nara Utham Sihanouk of Cambodia. Budhism in India was destroyed in the backlash to Ashoka but prospered elsewhere. .
Footnote:
Gandhi, like any post 1857 “God Man,” is the “Hindoo” that the British helped create to emasculate the People of Dharma.
Outside of the “Church”, we, the Illuminati, have always known that Titus Flavius brought about the first schism between the Gnostics and the literati to pacify the Jews and create a Christianity, via the Literati, that would be an instrument of the Roman Empire. Paul embraced the temptations of Satan repudiated by Jesus and turned Christianity into an Empire. Constantine Charlemagne James and others formed Councils that cherry picked gospels suitable for the purpose and discarded the rest. This is why present day Christians cannot perform the miracles that Jesus’ original disciples could despite claiming to be following in Jesus’ footsteps. We also know that Christianity not only failed Jesus, but also failed Satan as it got corrupted by various human virtues such as mercy, compassion, and love. This is why Satan set Christianity aside, possessed Mahomet and founded Islam:
Ashoka did the same thing and twisted Budhism (which was a proselytizing and modified Brahmanism) to his Imperial advantage, tyranny and self glorification. The backlash all but wiped out Budhism and the Black Chakra of Ashoka’s writ in India while Budhism prospered elsewhere in China, Japan, Tibet and so on under the benign Saffron Swasthika of the Aryan Constitution.
Uthman (3rd Khalifa) had ordered burning of all copies of Quran except his version. Abdullah Ibn Masud (person Mohammad recommended to learn Quran from) Rejected Uthman’s version and asked the people of Iraq to hide the real Quran from Uthman. The Original Quran was hidden somewhere in Iraq or Syria, destroying which is the target of descendants of Uthman and Abu Bakr, this is the reason why they are attacking the museums in Iraq & Syria. Todays muslims have a choice – to continue following Uthman’s Quran; OR to find the original Quran, follow it, and become the protected “one sect” Mohammad talked about.
This is rather like William Hunter of the William Hunter Commission created by the British that picked up fragments of the Manu Smrithi, Vedas and so on from Max Mueller and others and twisted them and published their own perverted versions as a central pillar of their effort to create a “Hinduism” to replace the People of Dharma by eradicating Brahmanism, and the talking, walking Libraries of Aryan History, Law, Traditions and so on, The Brahmins.
Post 1857, the British took a page from Titus Flavius to create a “Hindu” lumpen in the vacuum comprising all who were not the Deen e Kitabi with Sgt Khilafart Gandhi, MBE, leading the charge to emasculate the natives and lobotomize the People of Dharma.
Sufism is a similar confection that attempted to disarm pockets of resistance that could not be overcome with violence through a form of “bribery”. It began with the need to motivate the enslaved architects, masons, artists, musicians and others to remain creative and productive though enslaved under the iron heel of Moslem tyranny.
The British began the eradication of Brahmins and Brahmanism post 1857. Part of the project was to create a tame Hinduism that went by the Book as trans created and approved by the British. The William Hunter Commission was entrusted with this project of creating a :”Hinduism” that would include all those who were not Deen e Kitabi as the “Hindu” lumpen independent of Brahmins and dependent on British made books. From this distortion sprang the pratings of Ambedkar, Periyar, Narayana Guru, Khilafart Gandhi and the great veneration of the Gita which is but an excerpt from a literary masterpiece that contains far more sagacious passages and has no canonical significance whatsoever other than in India’s grotesque British made courts and the lectures of latter day God Men.
Great article. Every Hindu would benefit by reading the free PDF booklet from Shankara Digvijayam (Adi Shankaracharya life story) that is available in Sringeri Sharadha Mutt website. It shows or clearly gives reasons why Buddhism did not flourish in Bharat as it did not stand the test of time and it crumbled under Vedic scholar’s logical arguments -Adi Shanakarcharya.
The important idea to remember is that in Buddhism -there is no GOD. The logic does not extend and say there is a concept of GOD. In Vedanta – it is karya-karana sambanda -concept of GOD. But Vedas (Shruti and Smriti) revealed or proved that there is a GOD that Rishis have experienced and proved.
Remember Science cannot explain Super Science (GOD). Please use these below
1. Vedanta says that there is energy in space – Science says, prove it to me. Vedanta says -rays of aditya (Sun). Water vapor when it condenses is ice and it came from Akash (or atmosphere). So how can you say that there is no energy in space?
2. Some Islam or Christians say (to ridicule us) – Hindus are fools to worship Sun as God. We (hindus) should say, you idiots, we worship, the lord or energy source, behind that Sun as God. People call this God / Lord Vishnu or Shiva / Adi shakti. And we should also say that this fact was observed by Sages / Rishis in deep meditation. And we Hindus see paramanu (Atom) and also brahmanda (universe) as one at the same -as manifestation of God.
3. Some Islam or Christians will say – Hindus worship idols. We say (Hindus) that we need rituals, faith and knowledge (gnana) to clean our body mind intellect to even ascend higher (gnana and bhkati are two wings of aircraft) to the next level of spirituality. It can take 1000s of lives of different yonis.
Hindus do vigraha upasana (Idol worship) because great master (including Adi shankara) proved that idols when properly invoked can get energized. Ask this concept to a good learned Hindu priest or scholar – he will explain. Shiva, Skakti, Ganesha – the energy can be invoked using right mantras (vibrations).
4. A physical thing can be obtained or measured using science. But paramatma or God (super science) cannot be obtained or measured or seen using science. It has to be experienced. This is what a Yogi (hindu Sadhu or muslim fakir) will say. A yogi has no religion.
5. Go to Himalayas or south Indian temples – there are people even today with one or two siddhis. (8 siddhis -see hanuman chalisa for details). A person (who knows this knowledge) can get you a fruit or an item just by invoking that mantra. This is energy and matter – no difference that vedanta has told long before any other religion existed on the face of this planet earth.
6. Lastly if somebody says all this is bogus- say good, and walkaway -they are not ready or mature enough to understand the concept of vedanta or hindu religion.
7. But defend your dharma (sanatana dharma) and not shy away. Information age – hit them back with logic and science and physics and tell them GOD is super science.
8. That atheist becomes a hindu -not by force or conversion, but by logical thinking. you want examples -there are 1000s in Hindu India. Take one example – Swami Chinmayananda.
No, while I agree with the content, I disagree with the conclusive statement. Buddhism and Jainism belong to the Shraman culture, while mainstream Hinduism belongs to the Sanatan culture. Of course all of them are Indian. Both Shraman and Sanatan cultures have been in India since time immemorial. Bauddha and Jain come from the Shraman stream, Sikh and Hindus and Aryasamajis come from the Sanatan stream. The author’s error is in that he/ she wants Hindu to mean Indian. It may be true, and as I said I agree with teh content saying the term Hindu is the result of a hasty, unnatural to India and shallow coinage. However, that clearly is the connotation in which it is used these days, and as long as we dont redefine Hindu to absolutely mean non Muslim, non Christian, Indian, we cannot call buddhists hindus. I press on this because the moment you mix the terms, the expectation becomes like, “ofcourse they know what shraadhha sanskar is, what this or that sanskar is, arent they hindus!?”. No, the shraman culture has very different practices, and to bring both shraman and sanatan dharmas under one umbrella, you will have to coin another term, say ‘bharatiya dharm’ and ‘puraana bharatiya dharm’. As a Jain, I am 100% Indian ofcourse and 100% Jain 🙂
The simplest definition of HIndu is that Hindu is member of Civilized Society or Nation. The defining character is not caste or profession but Civilization. and Civilization is just more simpler then religion….Civilization is teaching Science. Civilized society has natural division of Teacher [ seers ] and Students.
hinduism is worthless
[…] http://indiafacts.co.in/did-the-buddha-break-away-from-hinduism/ […]
Hindu by deed
If “Buddha was every inch Hindu” as claimed in this article … then those who call themselves Hindus today are not even an inch Hindu!
You are wrong , if that was the case you wouldn’t even be able to see the Buddha in the Indian museums ……think of the Taliban’s & ISIS now they destroy everything without even thinking of the value of what our ancestors have left for us…just for the sake of their ideology
Buddhists in Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Tibet will not agree with this analysis. I am yet to hear a Buddhist articulating such views. This is not to deny the civilizational parallels between Hinduism and Buddhism, but the claim that the Buddha was a Hindu, is rarely shared by Buddhists.
This is like a Child saying she is not my mother , only the mother can say authoritatively its her child or not……..anybody can falsely claim including the child but not the mother ……
Interesting read. What about Mahavira? Did he break away from “Hinduism” or Sanatan Dharma or Vedic religion, whichever name one chooses for it.
And the very nation Nepal, where all these incident happened were missed by Mr. Elst or Nehruvian dynasty. Lord Buddha is the Nineth incarnation for 80% of Nepali Hindu’s heart. Very surprised that the article didn’t mention the real country ‘Bharatha’ not even once but revered and gave credit to India for both revered religions. Nepal – was established, nurtured and governed by Ne-Muni (a Vedic saint named Ne, a son of Brahma) – where Nepal got her name where later Lord Buddha was born – before political India was even existed ! All 4 major Vedic religions were established in the foothills of Himalayas ! However – very enlightening and appropriate article for Outsiders and for those who are ignoring Nepal as one of the most profound Hindu-Buddhist-base for Insiders! In the negligence of Bharata’s non-Hindu or secular short-sighted past leaders – and now slowly being invaded by wily Outside communes and missionaries ! – A good read !
India and Nepal are two entities only in modern times. In olden times, Nepal was very much part of Jambudweepa. Everything south of the Himalayas. They were separate kingdoms, just as they were kingdoms in other parts of India, but Nepal and India are irreversibly linked through Dharma.
The point to be taken is that Nepal as such is part & parcel of Hinduism & like you have mentioned bharatha it means the Subcontinent or even beyond Akand bharat
Ananda K Coomaraswamy was a polyglot, and his mastery over Sanskrit and
Pali were unquestionable. His knowledge of the Veda-s was extensive,
and so was his knowledge of the original Buddhist sources. So deep was
his knowledge of the latter that he wrote a long Review Article
entitled “Some Pali Words” ( Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Jul., 1939), pp. 116-190 showing the many lapses in The Pali-English Dictionary published by Pali Text Society(London, England) and authored by TWRhys Davids.
In his book entitled Hinduism and Buddhism (1943 New York, The Philosophical Library), he begins the section on Buddhism with these remarkable, almost startling, words:
(p.45)
” The more superficially one studies Buddhism, the more it seems to
differ from the Brahmanism in which it originated; the more profound our
study, the more difficult it becomes to distinguish Buddhism from
Brahmanism, or to say in what respects,if any, Buddhism is really
unorthodox. The outstanding distinction lies in the fact that Buddhist
doctrine is propounded by an apparently historical founder,understood to
have lived and taught in the sixth century BC. Beyond this, there are
only broad distinctions of emphasis… The teaching is addressed either
to brahmans …or to the congregation of monastic Wanderers…..but
nothing could be described as a “social reform” or as a protest against
the caste system. The repeated distinction of the “true Brahman” from
the mere Brahman by birth is one that had already been drawn again and
again in the Brahmanical books.”
Arguing
how it ill fits to style him a reformer, he says it can only be in an
etymogical fashion – as a re-former, one who forms something again, what
already was there, and was done anew by him again. ” If we can speak of
the Buddha as a reformer at all, it is only in the strict etymological
sense of the word” (p.45). The Buddha did not come to establish a new
order but to restore an older form. the analysis of Mrs Rhys Davids, the
celebrated scholar of Buddhism was no different. The Buddha is a critic
of Brahmanism only in external matters; the “internal system of
spiritual values”, he takes for granted, she says. See p.382 of her
“Relations between Early Buddhism and Brahmanism” (Indian Historical Quarterly, Vol 10, 1934).
The Buddha’s doctrine, Coomaraswamy categorically points out, is “original (yoniso manasikaaro), indeed, but certainly not novel (p.76).
Coomaraswamy
substantiates his thesis in over 40 pages, citing texts chapter and
verse, and exposing the hollowness of many Buddhist scholars in a
dignified manner, The reader is referred to his book cited above.
However, only one point may be drawn attention to. Mrs. Rhys Davids
finds something novel in the Buddha’s Internal Agnihotra. This with
reference to the statement of the Buddha : ” i pile no wood for fires or
altars; I kindle a flame within me … My heart the hearth, the flame
the dompted self” (Samyutta Nikaya 1.169) (Translation by
Coomaraswamy). Coomaraswamy comments: We perceive the Buddha is here
simply carrying on the teaching of the Brahmanical Aranyaka in which, as
remarked by Keith, “the internal Agnihotra is minutely described as a
substitute for the formal sacrifice”(p.56).
Coomaraswamy
cautions (p.77) how “Buddhist exegesis by scholars who do not know
their Vedas is never quite reliable”. He cites two more instances – of
IBHorner’s discussion of the history of arahat at great length without mentioning the Vedic origin (Rgveda 10.63.4) of the idea; even the PTS Pali Dictionary refers to the word as only an honorific title of high officials.
The Buddha did not utter a single word against the varnashrama system, frank, fearless, and outspoken though he was. Never once did words of regret over the varna system escape his lips. Neither did he mourn the varna system with the closest of his disciples even in the most intimate moments. Nor did he proffer a single word of advice to a single king to effect even the minor-most alteration to, much less supplanting of, the system. (On one occasion, he is even said to have consoled a woman, attributing her birth in a particular caste (a loose word, somewhat) to certain particular karma-s in a previous birth).
Koenraad
Big fan of yours- Great article with copious amount of knowledge spread through it.
However, it is difficult to read. A suggestion get a editor/copywriter to help better structure to this article- currently their is lot of digression from your main points. Need better organization.
Please take that as a constructive critique.
Kind regards
“Buddha himself claimed Rama as an earlier incarnation of his.” It is an eye opener. Thank you sir.
They both belong to Ikshvaku kul. descendents of Manu
Superb eye-opener. Thank you Koenraad Elst.
Great article. I will say Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, including various schools of thoughts of Hinduism and other Dharmic religions are based Guru Shishya philosophy..The thoughts and views may be different but there aim was enlightenment. Buddha would not have shared same thoughts with Shankaracharya. Guru Nanak would not have same philosophy as Ramkrishnan. But they all were great and enlightened people. Their goal was to understand supreme God in their own way.
These all schools of thoughts are within Santan Dharma philosophy ie. Karma, Dharma, rebirth, and Moksha(nirvana).
Satyakama Jabala was accepted by his Guru because his mother told him to tell the truth about his parentage. She told her son to tell the Brahmana that he was Jabala putra and did not know who his father was. Who or what Jabala was, was known. To focus on the criteria that because Jabala serviced Brahmins, and therefore her son was the son of a Brahmin, and was therefore acceptable to his Guru is taking something away from the strength of Jabala who asked her son to tell the truth; and also taking the compassion away from the Guru who lauded this adherence to truth. Her son is called Satyakama Jabala for that reason. I just love this story, and the way it is depicted in Upanishad Ganga serial is awesome. It pays to be straightforward and truthful…that is the message.
And of course, the Buddha was a Hindu.:)
Good to know that takshila existed even before the time of budha, though at a smaller size.
Buddha made less popular prevalent methodology of ‘Realization’ popular.
Honestly i did not care to know about the Buddha……for i too was under the impression that he was a Rebel…..thanking you sir for ENLIGHTENING ME
Elst just uses his perfect narrating style to counter seculars and leftists. This article should be used against them. In my view, hindus need not take this article as comprehensive and get enlightened with brotherhood. Afterall there is no way you can be dharmic(hindu) and budhist at the same time. Its like my mom telling neighbor that both her boys have same preferences in life, while the boys know that they are not. But for a neighbor who pokes his nose into the boys relationship, mom’s message is apt. Budha was indeed a rebel anti-vedic, he was called a nastik and so were all the budhists and jains. The difference is in the philosophy and ritualistic aspects. But the leftists wants to show differences in the social aspects, which was non existent. That is where this article helps. Social aspects of hindus and the budhist rebels were not different, hence leftists are wrong. Basically, you were right
Nastik in Vedic sense meant, who has not accept authority of knowledge. Please note Ved meant Knowledge….We all accept authority of knowledge, even without knowing that we honor knower and knowledge. But one who reject its authority means one is with established Religion….which meant with faith. Buddha is Religious person in Religious sense….Ambedar has accept Christin beliefs, and hate HIndu Vedic Tradition without studying its scientific quality.
Core Buddha is also known as Swayambhoo (the one who can create himself), no other than the Prajapati himself, creation of Brahmaa – who himself is the creation of HiranyaGarbha via Paramaatma ! But the beauty of Buddha is – his all actions are however non-Vedic, away from Varnashram division. He never talked about other Avatars. He appeared as atheist (Sunyabaad which however is an admired school of principles in Sanatana Dharma) but with deep values of Vedanta science.