6 ms·

"Hindus for example believe Buddha to be the 9th Avatar of Lord Vishnu. " So as to deny Buddhism is a separate religion, and co-opt Buddha among various Hindu

• eklavya 3y ago
  Or a less inflammatory take, Hinduism absorbing stuff and evolving like it has for thousands of years.
  • iamshs 3y ago
    What has evolved when it cannot evolve beyond caste system? What has been done to Buddhism in India is inflammatory, not my take. The story of extinction of Buddhism is told proudly by Hindu seers too. So "absorbing stuff" is weird way to put it.
    • rhuru 3y ago
      Let us see what Amebedkar says about anhilation of Buddhism from India. > Such was the slaughter of the Buddhist priesthood perpetrated by the Islamic invaders. The axe was struck at the very root. For by killing the Buddhist priesthood Islam killed Buddhism. This was the greatest disaster that befell the religion of Buddha in India. Religion like any other ideololgy can be attained only by propaganda. If propoganda fails, religion must disappear. The priestly class, however detestable it may be, is necessary to the sustenance of religion. For it is by its propoganda that religion is kept up. Without the priestly class religion must disappear. The sword of Islam fell heavily upon the priestly class. It perished or it fled outside India. Nobody remained to keep the flame of Buddhism burning.
      • iamshs 3y ago
        Very brave to selectively quote Ambedkar, especially on Buddhism and Hinduism. Let me enlighten you with his own quotes: "History of India before the Muslim invasions is the history of a mortal conflict between Brahmanism and Buddhism" "No wonder if Pushyamitra who as a Samvedi Brahmin was the first to conceive the passion to end the degradation of the Brahmin by destroying the Buddhist state..." "By this proclamation Pushyamitra set a price of 100 gold pieces on the head of every Buddhist monk"
        • eklavya 3y ago
          Are you implying pushyamitra was driven by Hinduism to kill Buddhists?
          • rhuru 3y ago
            Note that the claim that Hindus "absorbed" Buddhism and also "put bounty on buddhist's head" is not consistent with each other, only one can be true.
        • nuc1e0n 3y ago
          And in turn the Islamic Mughal Empire of the subcontinent that destroyed this Buddhist priesthood was in turn replaced by that of the British. Indians still largely follow British ways even up to today. What do Indians themselves consider better? I don't know.
        • throwaway161718 3y ago
          Kindness. You carry hurt in you. Try not to carry that burden.
        • never_inline 3y ago
          > By this proclamation Pushyamitra set a price of 100 gold pieces on the head of every Buddhist monk This is not historically verified I think.
    • rhuru 3y ago
      The concept of caste has evolved in Hinduism over time. The roots of caste system are in teh concept of Varna and Varna system has its roots in Sankhya. In modern India, the secular law gives special status to castes that have violence potential and hence has solidified its existence and yet Hinduism has already evolved the concept of caste to make it ever more useful to society.
    • eklavya 3y ago
      You seem to have an axe to grind. If you are intellectually interested in the topic, there is no shortage of material on internet and YouTube.
    • morbidious 3y ago
      The caste was never a Hindu concept. If you said varna or jati, it would have made more sense. Caste was introduced by the British because they wanted to homogenize the different heterogeneous communities in India into one structured classification. Varna is occupation and jati is tribe. Each tribe had people with different occupations who supported the village life through activities of their professions. Inter-jati marriages were allowed, and so were inter-varna marriages. There was no discrimination within jatis, in fact, they all supported each other for the sustenance of their jati. Untouchability was present in some cases, but it was between 2 jatis. Meaning, one jati would consider the other jati as untouchable. However, it was not between varnas. This system became more rigid after British started classifying people into different castes, providing benefits to some and taking away some from others, and that's how the caste system evolved into what it was.
      • lotsofpulp 3y ago
        > There was no discrimination within jatis, in fact, they all supported each other for the sustenance of their jati. While I do not doubt the rest of your comment, I have a hard time believing this. In my experience, humans are tribal animals, and are constantly jockeying for status, as individuals and tribes (even constantly moving in and out of multiple tribes). The British may have formalized/utilized and exacerbated things, but I imagine any group of humans anywhere is always dividing and subdividing into various tribes for various purposes. The simplest being to show you are better than other potential mates in order to attract your preferred mate.
        • morbidious 3y ago
          If there was discrimination, there would not have been intermarriages. People switches profession to suit their needs. Buddhist texts themselves narrate that jatis were not tied to any particular profession. There are examples of a Kshatriya warrior working successively as a potter, basket-maker, reed-worker, garland-maker, etc; and a Vaishya cook working as a tailor or potter without social push-back. The rigidity of the varna-jati system started after the Mughal invasions, due to their exploitative taxation. It made the fluid system more rigid in matters of sharing food and marriages, and disintegrated due to opportunism and social stratification. The British raised frustration several times that Indians did not know their caste, and had to be coached for their census forms. This was because varna-jati was not considered important by the Indians of that time.
  • prabhu-yu 3y ago
    I hope, better term is "Consuming". Brahminism consumed the Buddhism to deny its existence.
    • eklavya 3y ago
      I don't want to get into a war of "isms" Hinduism is much older than these isms and will outlive it. Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism like a sect like so many others. Hinduism is a collection of many sects. I hope considering Buddha an avatar of Vishnu is not meant for offence but the highest Honor.
• rhuru 3y ago
  > This is how Buddhism was decimated by Brahminism in India, co-opting Budhha as their own. It makes no sense what so ever to me. By honoring Buddha, giving him one of the most prominent positions in the Hindu pantheon, extending Buddha's teachings and even internalizing them somehow was "decimated" ? How does reverence look then ? This is how Hinduism evolves and always have been.
  • iamshs 3y ago
    Embrace, Extend and Extinguish is what was followed by Brahmins to decimate Buddhism. If purpose was to absorb his teachings, the caste system is still present. No present day Hindu remembers or honors Buddha or his teachings. That's just laughable excuse to justify Buddhism not present in the land of Budhha. It is a cautionary tale, there's no reverence.
    • rhuru 3y ago
      > is what was followed by Brahmins to decimate Buddhism. Looks like you deep rooted anti-semitic hatred for Brahmins more than anything else. > No present day Hindu remembers or honors Buddha or his teachings. Well I do ! In fact some of the greatest Hindu philosophers spent their lifetime studying Buddhism and writing books. Even the Vipassana teachers in USA and everywhere happen to be Hindus not Buddhists. > If purpose was to absorb his teachings, the caste system is still present. Buddha himself was a proponent of basic tenants of caste. Buddha primarily took Brahmins as his disciples. Nearly 40% of his students where Brahmin and nearly all who got popular and wrote about buddhism were Brahmins. Buddha's multiple childhood friends studied at Takshashika a Hindu university that existed before Buddha and later prominent Hindu Brahmins like Aryabhatta studied at Buddhist universities like Nalanda. When the Shakya king decides to disown his wife because she was born to a low caste mother, Buddha stops him, not by citing that "caste is evil" but rather the well established Hindu rules of caste that it is father's caste that should matter and not that of mother. Not to mention Buddha also predicted the future Buddha to be "maitreya" a person born in Brahmin family. Even on the matter of "caste", Buddha is pretty much a Hindu.
      • 3y ago
• laxmin 3y ago
  You are attributing some kind of consciousness and purpose to what was a popular movement. The Hindus of that time were used to different sects within Hinduism, some denying Vishnu the supreme godhead, some denouncing the entire pantheon and vedas, etc. The pansyncretisism came quite naturally and 'brahminism' is a myth created recently to claim victimhood (woke ideology of suppressors and suppressed, very similar to the worker class and bourgeoisie of the communist thought)
• morbidious 3y ago
  You seem to be missing a key point. Brahmins are bound by rules, like: 1. They must sustain themselves by a livelihood that did little or no harm to creatures. 2. They could only accumulate minimum wealth for their sustenance, and that too only through the activities specific to them. 3. Punishments were harsher for Brahmins. For example, in instances of Theft, i. Shudra had to pay 8 times the money stolen ii. Vaishya had to pay 16 times the money stolen iii. Kshatriya had to pay 32 times the money stolen iv. Brahmins had to pay 64 to 128 times the money stolen 4. Brahmins were forbidden to make money by selling meat 5. They could not charge interest on lending 6. Could not touch weapons 7. Had to avoid seeking praise 8. Was not allowed to expect gifts from Shudras except in special circumstances. (Source: Snakes in the Ganga - Breaking India 2.0) It's their duty to perform rituals for other varnas, and if they get some money by performing those rituals, they can only use it for basic needs like food. Brahmins were ascetics who had to follow the most difficult of rules. That and in addition to the fact that they must be knowledgeable about Vedas and other scriptures is why a Brahmin's life is considered as the hardest out of all varnas. With such rules in play, it would be impossible for Brahmins to acquire wealth or military power to subdue Buddhists.
• blueprint 3y ago
  from my point of view, you are correct, that they have taken the name of Buddha in order to promote their own thoughts and ideas. If it were really true that they revered Buddha, then his special teaching should still be present within the material studied by e.g. Krishna devotees. I recently went to have around 10 deep conversations with such devotees and I confirmed that they know next to nothing about his real teaching. While they insist they know, they repeatedly describe the essence of his teaching as "non-violence". However this is virtually nothing to do with Buddha's special teaching, and as a matter of fact, only someone who already has the extraordinarily high level to differentiate true from false and, put it into practice by never telling any untruth, would be capable of even practicing non-violence. His teaching is far more profound and constructive than the idea of non-violence. In fact, saying his teaching merely amounted to non-violence and co-opting his name, portrait, and tacit approval of their usage of his name, calling him an incarnation of the deity of their choice, while he cannot come to correct them, is nothing other than blatant and dear violence against Gautama Buddha. This is while they insist that the words in the gita from Krisha to Arjuna that it is literally impossible to kill are remotely valid. It's merely delusion in order to further avoid the truth that Buddha left. It seems narcissistic at best and murderous at worst. Buddha called himself a self-born, not an incarnation of vishnu, and his teaching wasn't non-violence, but rather, he even stated once that he was here to destroy delusions. it would make sense that, for a person like him, with massively superior wisdom, to have come and tamed all those around him in debate on such matters, who also said that he is the only one who exists between all of heaven and earth, thus superseding the deities of the current religions, would have to be co-opted by those religions. misinforming people is the only way for religious people to maintain their position of influence over others and over their own subconscious. What saddened me even more was only the children I met in that large group of devotees were able to admit they had doubts about the Gita and were able to listen a bit. Buddha also was extremely clear in the Lotus Sutra that even "nirvana" is not his real teaching. He states repeatedly and very unmistakably that he used the concept of nirvana as a temporary resting spot for beings who would be too arrogant or too ignorant to accept the truth if he told them as he knew they wouldn't be able to understand without much more of his cultivating them. So he lets them play with the concept of nirvana, and when he sees them cultivated, he tells them that what they thought was nirvana was no true final resting spot and that real nirvana resides with omniscience. He claimed knowledge of the true nature of reality and was very clear in his explanation of the fundamental laws and theories of existence: reincarnation and the law of cause and effect. How a good or bad thing happens. How to live well or how to become worse. Lying, for example, is not good for people. He revealed the ways from the problems to the results. As you can see this is a far cry from such a thing as ordering people not to be violent and not explaining how they can actually accomplish it. suppose you were to hear that real nirvana is with omniscience... you'd probably have thrown it away too. or suppose you are a Krishna devotee who calls said deity to help or take control of your life - and Buddha comes and calls you "the blind who have eyes"... the main answer for people who remain in denial is to co-opt his name and deny that you're in denial. it rather reminds me of modern Christians believing themselves saved from sin just through faith in their own ideas without ever having met Jesus and having listened to him scold them on their wrong ideas and practices. why do we think humanity killed people like Jesus and Socrates? just because we pretend to be part of a gentle religion does not exempt us from the same tendency. Buddha in reality was very lonely when he was here in this world. as a matter of fact, modern Buddhism as well is not the real, living teaching of Buddha anymore - most people I met interested in Buddhism are also co-opting his name. He was very clear this would happen in the Lotus Sutra. that's why he intentionally withheld the true Dharma from people until right before he died. Buddha's teaching is not to kill your consciousness and to die forever (no more rebirths). Buddha is clear that he made up that he dies or that he won't be reborn and says in fact he is reborn many times. Buddha's real, living teaching goes in the opposite way of dying forever - he taught people how to save their lives and live forever. It's obvious when you really understand what he left but what he left has been changed so much to the point that even the higher level explanations have been polluted by words of ordinary people.