5 ms·

Buddhism is not that different from Hinduism. Both coexisted and debated with each other for centuries until islamic invasions started. Buddhism being a pacifis

Buddhism is not that different from Hinduism. Both coexisted and debated with each other for centuries until islamic invasions started. Buddhism being a pacifist sect fell first.

random314 4y ago
Buddhism is very distinct from Hinduism. In particular, there aren't multiple deities to worship and there is no caste system. Buddhism, the dominant religion of India circa 400AD (as per Chinese travellers), was already under attack from Brahmins who made it a key strategy to get royal patronage, set up the religious rules for society which heavily favored themselves and also focused on acting as confidantes to kings, leading to the elimination of Buddhism(focused on monastic life) from much of the Indian subcontinent even before Islam was founded.
- raincom 4y ago
  Nah, the so-called 'isms' of India ('Buddhism', 'Jainism', 'Saivism') are called agama traditions. The question scholars face or faced is this: what was earlier? Indologist story that both left wing and right scholars accept is that: there was Vedism, corrupted to become 'popular' hinduism, later Indian Martin Luther (Buddha) fought against the veil immorality of Hindus (because caste system forces immoral obligations on everyone), thereby Buddhism emerging. This is the standard story.
  - random314 4y ago
    It is not clear that Vedism was created before Jainism, which has a strong archeological presence in South India. There is also speculation that Shaivism is much older and was merged in to Hinduism quite late, some what contemporaneous with the elimination of Brahma (Brahmism) as a deity to be worshipped. Also, it is weird to talk about left/right wrt history. History is just history, not left or right. In the Indian context, left has come to mean the actual history by historians, while right implies pseudohistory of PN Oak, out of India hypotheses and various other fantasies.
    - sudhirc 4y ago
      Anything that doesn't suit Western framework of looking at India can't be considered pseudo history. Most revered river in Vedas is Saraswati which disappear more than 10k years ago. Vedas describes river Saraswati in it's fully glory so they have to be much older than. Not every evidence is going to come from archeology and some evidence is yet to be found like chariots from Rakhigadhi which were also considered a fiction.
  - dartharva 4y ago
    Well explained. Came here to say this.
  - pankajdoharey 4y ago
    Any archaeological evidence to prove the existence of Hindu (Brahman) dharm older than 1000 yrs? ANy written manuscript , stone inscription etc ..?
- kamaal 4y ago
  Buddhism from its very history exists because Prince Siddhartha walked out of his palace and saw people dropping dead like flies out of disease and hunger. Apparently the sheer scale of suffering drove him to quit everything and become the Buddha. This whole narrative of rivers of milk and honey flowing in Indian history obviously appears cooked up to drive political narratives(propaganda?) to anybody who can do basic analysis of history.
  - sudhirc 4y ago
    > milk and honey Could you please provide some references? AFAIK rivers of milk and honey in afterlife are claimed to be offered by certain non Indian religions.
- sudhirc 4y ago
  >there aren't multiple deities to worship and there is no caste system. There are multiple deities [0] and Buddha didn't oppose caste system. He advocated it on deed and not birth which is not very diffrent from Hindu views of caste. Could you point to some instance from ancient Indians history when discrimination was made on the basis of caste, color, or gender? The Buddha:– "Not by birth is one an outcast; not by birth is one a brahman. By deeds one becomes an outcast, by deeds one becomes a brahman." (Vasala Sutta 27 ) Mahabharata says the same thing. Listen about caste, Yaksha dear, not study, not learning is the cause of being "twice-born". Conduct alone is the basis, there is no doubt about it. (M.Bh. Aranya-parva 312. 106.) Birth based caste is an acquired taste from the Muslim invaders who had and still have a system of discrimination in the form of Islamic doctrine of Kafaat (Al-Hidaya, Book VI, Chapter 55.1). This system is still in practice across middle East[1]. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_deities https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_deities [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafa%27ah https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafa%27ah
  - finfrastrcuture 4y ago
    As a counterview, my interpretation is that Buddah is not advocating for a literal caste system, rather, that one's proactive choices shape their spiritual progression.
  - random314 4y ago
    Buddhism has no concept of caste. Gita has caste by birth as a central theme. In particular, Gita makes it loud and explicitly clear that even if a person is better at the birth caste duties of a different caste than his own caste duty ( which he is not any good at) he should only perform his own caste duties. Caste lines cannot be crossed. There is absolutely nothing like this in Buddhism. https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/18/verse/47 https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/18/verse/47 "It is better to do one’s own dharma, even though imperfectly, than to do another’s dharma, even though perfectly. By doing one’s innate duties, a person does not incur sin." Next verse "One should not abandon duties born of one’s nature, even if one sees defects in them, O son of Kunti. Indeed, all endeavors are veiled by some evil, as fire is by smoke." The whole set of verses before and after this verse is worth a read https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/18/verse/41 https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/18/verse/41 The website adds the phrase "and not by birth" in the translation that is not present in the original Sanskrit verse to mitigate modern sensibilities, but the following verses go on to contradict the additional phrase added in the translation. There are other verses that shame intercaste marriages as well.
braindead_in 4y ago
This topic came up in the Sam Harris and Sw Sarvapriyananda podcast recently. Sam mentioned: while the Hindus and Buddhists kept debating, the Muslims won.
- sudhirc 4y ago
  India is still a Hindu nation so Hindus have suffered but they are still standing. Hindu mashal spirit never surrendered to the invasion otherwise like persia India would also completely vanished.Muslims invaded Sindh in 711 AD. For next 500 years they struggled to move past sindh and never conquered India until Turko Mughal succeeded in 12th century. Even when they ruled they faced continue challenge from the Hindu. For example when Aurangzeb tried imposing zaziya tax on Hindus, shivaji dared him to collect it from Mewar. Hindus men performed saka (fighting to the last man) and women performed jauhar by burning themselves alive in the fire. Buddhism on the otherhand suffered due to being non violent and practically vanished.
pankajdoharey 4y ago
So you must first tell what is the actual name of this religion, and its not "Hinduism" the origin of teh word Hindu is in Persian language. The persian dictionary define "Hindu" as "Thief", Also Buddhism is a Nastik Darshan (Atheist philosophy). Hinduism whose actual name is Brahman Dharm is Theistic philosophy worshipping gods etc. Also no evidence exist that Brahman dharm ever existed at the time of Buddhists, At best it was created after 11th century, which is why none of the chinese, korean, or greek travellers to India ever mentioned the existence of "Hindu" , "Brahman" or Hindu religion. All of them mentioned Buddhists and Jains. Only Al'biruni in 11th. century first mentions something called "Brahman" but even he translated the Buddhist texts, but did not get have any access to Hindu literature because the Brahman priests he met said they have not written it yet.
- sudhirc 4y ago
  > So you must first tell what is the actual name of this religion Names are not that important. But since you asked it's called Sanatan Dharma. It's also called Hindu Dharma. > The persian dictionary define "Hindu" as "Thief", References from pre Islamic Persia please. Don't give the usual Sindu to Hindu explanation. If Persians don't have a S sound then why salaam didn't became halaam? What about Persia itself? Why not Perhia? Word Hindu is a thoroughly Sanskrit word. It define the region from Himalaya (हिमालय) to the Indian Ocean(इंदु सरोवर). > Brahman priests he met said they have not written it yet. Vedic tradition is called श्रुति (heard). It's transmitted for thousands of years through the oral method. I have replied you else where on the importance of oral method in Vedic tradition. So what exactly is your fascination with writing down? Writing down makes it authoritative? Then respond to the clear defence of birth based caste and discrimination against women in Buddhism. Refute this please. https://www.jstor.org/stable/29757366 https://www.jstor.org/stable/29757366

Buddhism is not that different from Hinduism. Both coexisted and debated with each other for centuries until islamic invasions started. Buddhism being a pacifist sect fell first.

random314 4y ago

Buddhism is very distinct from Hinduism. In particular, there aren't multiple deities to worship and there is no caste system. Buddhism, the dominant religion of India circa 400AD (as per Chinese travellers), was already under attack from Brahmins who made it a key strategy to get royal patronage, set up the religious rules for society which heavily favored themselves and also focused on acting as confidantes to kings, leading to the elimination of Buddhism(focused on monastic life) from much of the Indian subcontinent even before Islam was founded.

raincom 4y ago
Nah, the so-called 'isms' of India ('Buddhism', 'Jainism', 'Saivism') are called agama traditions. The question scholars face or faced is this: what was earlier? Indologist story that both left wing and right scholars accept is that: there was Vedism, corrupted to become 'popular' hinduism, later Indian Martin Luther (Buddha) fought against the veil immorality of Hindus (because caste system forces immoral obligations on everyone), thereby Buddhism emerging. This is the standard story.
- random314 4y ago
  It is not clear that Vedism was created before Jainism, which has a strong archeological presence in South India. There is also speculation that Shaivism is much older and was merged in to Hinduism quite late, some what contemporaneous with the elimination of Brahma (Brahmism) as a deity to be worshipped. Also, it is weird to talk about left/right wrt history. History is just history, not left or right. In the Indian context, left has come to mean the actual history by historians, while right implies pseudohistory of PN Oak, out of India hypotheses and various other fantasies.
  - sudhirc 4y ago
    Anything that doesn't suit Western framework of looking at India can't be considered pseudo history. Most revered river in Vedas is Saraswati which disappear more than 10k years ago. Vedas describes river Saraswati in it's fully glory so they have to be much older than. Not every evidence is going to come from archeology and some evidence is yet to be found like chariots from Rakhigadhi which were also considered a fiction.
- dartharva 4y ago
  Well explained. Came here to say this.
- pankajdoharey 4y ago
  Any archaeological evidence to prove the existence of Hindu (Brahman) dharm older than 1000 yrs? ANy written manuscript , stone inscription etc ..?
kamaal 4y ago
Buddhism from its very history exists because Prince Siddhartha walked out of his palace and saw people dropping dead like flies out of disease and hunger. Apparently the sheer scale of suffering drove him to quit everything and become the Buddha. This whole narrative of rivers of milk and honey flowing in Indian history obviously appears cooked up to drive political narratives(propaganda?) to anybody who can do basic analysis of history.
- sudhirc 4y ago
  > milk and honey Could you please provide some references? AFAIK rivers of milk and honey in afterlife are claimed to be offered by certain non Indian religions.
sudhirc 4y ago
>there aren't multiple deities to worship and there is no caste system. There are multiple deities [0] and Buddha didn't oppose caste system. He advocated it on deed and not birth which is not very diffrent from Hindu views of caste. Could you point to some instance from ancient Indians history when discrimination was made on the basis of caste, color, or gender? The Buddha:– "Not by birth is one an outcast; not by birth is one a brahman. By deeds one becomes an outcast, by deeds one becomes a brahman." (Vasala Sutta 27 ) Mahabharata says the same thing. Listen about caste, Yaksha dear, not study, not learning is the cause of being "twice-born". Conduct alone is the basis, there is no doubt about it. (M.Bh. Aranya-parva 312. 106.) Birth based caste is an acquired taste from the Muslim invaders who had and still have a system of discrimination in the form of Islamic doctrine of Kafaat (Al-Hidaya, Book VI, Chapter 55.1). This system is still in practice across middle East[1]. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_deities https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_deities [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafa%27ah https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafa%27ah
- finfrastrcuture 4y ago
  As a counterview, my interpretation is that Buddah is not advocating for a literal caste system, rather, that one's proactive choices shape their spiritual progression.
- random314 4y ago
  Buddhism has no concept of caste. Gita has caste by birth as a central theme. In particular, Gita makes it loud and explicitly clear that even if a person is better at the birth caste duties of a different caste than his own caste duty ( which he is not any good at) he should only perform his own caste duties. Caste lines cannot be crossed. There is absolutely nothing like this in Buddhism. https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/18/verse/47 https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/18/verse/47 "It is better to do one’s own dharma, even though imperfectly, than to do another’s dharma, even though perfectly. By doing one’s innate duties, a person does not incur sin." Next verse "One should not abandon duties born of one’s nature, even if one sees defects in them, O son of Kunti. Indeed, all endeavors are veiled by some evil, as fire is by smoke." The whole set of verses before and after this verse is worth a read https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/18/verse/41 https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/18/verse/41 The website adds the phrase "and not by birth" in the translation that is not present in the original Sanskrit verse to mitigate modern sensibilities, but the following verses go on to contradict the additional phrase added in the translation. There are other verses that shame intercaste marriages as well.

braindead_in 4y ago

This topic came up in the Sam Harris and Sw Sarvapriyananda podcast recently. Sam mentioned: while the Hindus and Buddhists kept debating, the Muslims won.

sudhirc 4y ago
India is still a Hindu nation so Hindus have suffered but they are still standing. Hindu mashal spirit never surrendered to the invasion otherwise like persia India would also completely vanished.Muslims invaded Sindh in 711 AD. For next 500 years they struggled to move past sindh and never conquered India until Turko Mughal succeeded in 12th century. Even when they ruled they faced continue challenge from the Hindu. For example when Aurangzeb tried imposing zaziya tax on Hindus, shivaji dared him to collect it from Mewar. Hindus men performed saka (fighting to the last man) and women performed jauhar by burning themselves alive in the fire. Buddhism on the otherhand suffered due to being non violent and practically vanished.

pankajdoharey 4y ago

So you must first tell what is the actual name of this religion, and its not "Hinduism" the origin of teh word Hindu is in Persian language. The persian dictionary define "Hindu" as "Thief", Also Buddhism is a Nastik Darshan (Atheist philosophy). Hinduism whose actual name is Brahman Dharm is Theistic philosophy worshipping gods etc. Also no evidence exist that Brahman dharm ever existed at the time of Buddhists, At best it was created after 11th century, which is why none of the chinese, korean, or greek travellers to India ever mentioned the existence of "Hindu" , "Brahman" or Hindu religion. All of them mentioned Buddhists and Jains. Only Al'biruni in 11th. century first mentions something called "Brahman" but even he translated the Buddhist texts, but did not get have any access to Hindu literature because the Brahman priests he met said they have not written it yet.

sudhirc 4y ago
> So you must first tell what is the actual name of this religion Names are not that important. But since you asked it's called Sanatan Dharma. It's also called Hindu Dharma. > The persian dictionary define "Hindu" as "Thief", References from pre Islamic Persia please. Don't give the usual Sindu to Hindu explanation. If Persians don't have a S sound then why salaam didn't became halaam? What about Persia itself? Why not Perhia? Word Hindu is a thoroughly Sanskrit word. It define the region from Himalaya (हिमालय) to the Indian Ocean(इंदु सरोवर). > Brahman priests he met said they have not written it yet. Vedic tradition is called श्रुति (heard). It's transmitted for thousands of years through the oral method. I have replied you else where on the importance of oral method in Vedic tradition. So what exactly is your fascination with writing down? Writing down makes it authoritative? Then respond to the clear defence of birth based caste and discrimination against women in Buddhism. Refute this please. https://www.jstor.org/stable/29757366 https://www.jstor.org/stable/29757366