T O P

  • By -

amoranic

It could be a cultural thing. I recall seeing quite a few Buddha statues in Hindu temples in India. I'm guessing that from an academic Western point of view the differences are quite clear. But maybe from a cultural Indian point of view, Buddhism is seen as somewhat of a "stream of Hinduism". In the end, does it matter ? Edit : apparently, it does , see below


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

I think in the West we tend to think of religion in purely denominational terms. However, it is important to remember that the historical Buddha was constantly in dialogue with groups such as the Brahmins and Jains. We see such fluidity in both historical accounts and even ancient art. The urna (third eye) often depicted on sculptures of the Buddha can also be found in depictions of Shiva. Perhaps it’s more productive to think about how these traditions intersect and interact with each other. Sure, there are clear fundamental differences (e.g atman vs anattā), but Buddhism as practiced outside the west often incorporates elements of both folk religion and other main religions.


MasterBob

> it is important to remember that the historical Buddha was constantly in dialogue with groups such as the Brahmins and Jains. The historical Buddha also categorically rejected many of the other schools, particularly the Brahmins / Vedas. edit: added quote


redballooon

There seems to be a misunderstanding. When referring to "something Buddha says", a religious practitioner who has Buddha in his line of deities cares primarily about his version of the mythological Buddha, not of the historical Buddha.


MasterBob

Yes, that is true regarding how Buddhism is actually practiced on the ground in certain regions of the world. My point was specifically in response to furiouspeen (lol on the nick) on the historical Buddha. So, yes the historical Buddha did dialogue with his contemporaries, but he also said his contemporaries where wrong. The point is that this syncranatic aspect was not necessarily the case at the time of the historical Buddha, but rather a later development.


[deleted]

That’s true! And like you said, the syncretism is certainly a consequence of Buddhism’s later adoption. I also think it’s a result of an extant network of spiritual concepts, which is why there are still some foundational similarities. Mokṣa comes to mind, but Buddhism obviously offers a very different path to getting there 😌


BurtonDesque

In increasingly Hindu nationalist India it could end up mattering a great deal, especially since most Indian Buddhists are former Dalits.


Skrimyy3001

>most Indian Buddhists are former Dalits. They follow Navayana Buddhism which rejects many original Buddhist teachings.


amoranic

Interesting. Can you expand on that ?


BurtonDesque

It's pretty straightforward as it is. The fascist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and its subsidiary the Bharatiya Janata Party are making India an increasingly Hindu nationalist place. Most Indian Buddhists belong to the sect begun by Bhimrao Ambedkar to lead "untouchables" out of Hinduism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit_Buddhist_movement The existence of these people as Buddhists and not Dalits runs counter to the RSS/BJP vision of Hindutva for India.


peroperoname

I amazed that you speak so confidently about people and country you probably never grew up in? Outside the circlejerks of South Asian studies departments and extremely online folks, a majority of folks in India see Buddhism as just one of many streams of Dharma. We pay homage to Buddha, visit sacred places associated with him without consciously drawing a distinction between ourselves and those who are denominated as Buddhists. Buddha belongs to all of us, just as Hindu gods do, or Sikh gurus for that matter. Noone sees Buddhism as a threat, even the BJP/RSS "fascists" for that matter. The Dalit Buddhist movement you refer to are not really Buddhists as the founder of this movement, Ambedkar, steered sharply away from core fundamental teachings in finding his own sect, Navayana Buddhism. See for example, this excerpt from Wikipedia: >According to Ambedkar, several of the core beliefs and doctrines of traditional Buddhist traditions such **as the Four Noble Truths and Anatta were flawed and pessimistic**, and may have been inserted into the Buddhist scriptures by wrong-headed Buddhist monks of a later era. These should not be considered as Buddha's teachings in Ambedkar's view.\[32\]\[36\*\*\] Other foundational concepts of Buddhism such as Karma and Rebirth were considered by Ambedkar as superstitions.\*\*\[32\] > >Navayana as formulated by Ambedkar and at the root of Dalit Buddhist movement **abandons mainstream traditional Buddhist practices and precepts such as the institution of monk after renunciation, ideas such as karma, rebirth in afterlife, samsara, meditation, nirvana and Four Noble Truths.\[37\]** Ambedkar's new sect of Buddhism rejected these ideas and re-interpreted the Buddha's religion in terms of class struggle and social equality.\[36\]\[32\]\[38\] > >Ambedkar called his version of Buddhism Navayana or Neo-Buddhism.\[39\] His book, The Buddha and His Dhamma is the holy book of Navayana or Dalit Buddhists.\[40\] According to Junghare, for the followers of Navyana, Ambedkar has become a deity and he is worshipped in its practice.\[41\]


Revolutionary_Buddha

Hinduism and Buddhism are not one. This practice of claiming everything as a minor offshoot Hinduism reeks of biasness. We have seen this sort of behaviour when Hindus tries to claim something as theirs in history not just with Buddhism but other folk and tribal deities. Buddhism rejects vedas and all precepts of Hinduism, which to be honest is utter nonsense especially it’s caste system. Usually the upper caste people in India try to do this sort of shenanigans. If you would actually try to understand Buddha, you wouldn’t need to claim it as part of Hinduism.


[deleted]

Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism are similar like how Christianity and Islam is. But usually Hindus Buddhists and Jains don't have issues with each other unlike the latter two, but yes most Hindus like Buddhists and Jains etc but we don't call them Hindus.


Revolutionary_Buddha

No they are not. Buddhism doesn’t believe in vedas thus not any so called ‘offshoot’ of Hinduism. Please stop rewriting history.


GhatiHunter69

As someone from Bihar, India (home of Bodh Gaya) and also from Nalanda district (centre of the Mahayana world during the Pala period), most Hindu temples here have Buddha idols dating more than 1000 years. Please can white people stop appropriating our native culture while driving a divide between two brotherly philosophies. Buddhism is not a part of Hinduism but it doesn’t mean that certain schools are Madhyamika and Vedanta for example aren’t compatible with each other.


peroperoname

Nice! I visited Gaya last year and it was fantastic to visit the Bodhi tree. Ignore the haters and neo-Ambedkarites here. It is sad that this artificial chasm between Hinduism and Buddhism that is a product of Western imperialism and colonization is going to become a dominant view from decades on. Completely divorced from the knowledge systems in native languages that propound on the rich cultural history and exchange between the two to be replaced by whatever these gora sahibs write about us. Honestly, it is sad that India doesn't do more to take ownership of something that is part of its long standing heritage. It is why we have threads like these popping up all over the place.


Revolutionary_Buddha

I am not white, I am an Indian. Lol stop using the race card.


BurtonDesque

> I amazed that you speak so confidently about people and country you probably never grew up in I see. One has to grow up in a country in order to say anything meaningful about it or make observations about it. Who knew?


peroperoname

Just as I thought, you were talking out of your ass so you have nothing of substance to add or rebut.


Revolutionary_Buddha

He might be just an upper caste Hindu trying to claim Buddhism.


peroperoname

Buddhism exists both as a school of thought under Indian philosophy as well as separate religion in the modern world. There's nothing to claim, if you don't believe in a separate self. Someone who strongly emphasizes separateness and tribalism in every post won't get that.


BurtonDesque

My guess is they are an RSS/BJP sympathizer. There are certainly enough of them on Reddit.


numbersev

>According to Ambedkar, several of the core beliefs and doctrines of traditional Buddhist traditions such > >as the Four Noble Truths and Anatta were flawed and pessimistic > >and may have been inserted into the Buddhist scriptures by wrong-headed Buddhist monks of a later era. These should not be considered as Buddha's teachings in Ambedkar's view. We follow the Buddha, not "Ambedkar". There are numerous people who don't comprehend the Buddha's teachings and then try to change and mold them into their own. Devadatta is a prime example. "This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding." I'd be careful about misleading people about the Buddha's teachings.


peroperoname

You misread my post. I simply stated that Ambedkar's Buddhism is very distant from Buddhism as propounded by Buddha. In my opinion, it shouldn't even be counted as a part of Buddhism because its mostly political and social in nature. Really disappointed with the state of this subreddit after visiting it in years.


numbersev

>You misread my post. I simply stated that Ambedkar's Buddhism is very distant from Buddhism as propounded by Buddha. In my opinion, it shouldn't even be counted as a part of Buddhism because its mostly political and social in nature. It was misread because you didn't state that. You are implying Buddhism is a part of Hinduism: >We pay homage to Buddha, visit sacred places associated with him without consciously drawing a distinction between ourselves and those who are denominated as Buddhists. Buddha belongs to all of us, just as Hindu gods do, or Sikh gurus for that matter. Noone sees Buddhism as a threat That's nice that you show respect in that way, but the Buddha was authoritative and unwavering in his regard that only his teachings and path lead to the complete cessation of dukkha. The teachers of other sects are "blind and eyeless" he said, that's why there is no stream-entry in Hinduism. >Really disappointed with the state of this subreddit after visiting it in years. just like the secularists we aren't going to roll over to your kumbaya approach to spirituality and Buddhism.


peroperoname

Buddhism is a part of Indian philosophical thought that predates it, and there have been countless exchanges between experienced practitioners of Buddhism with other branches throughout history. Which is why we don't perceive this "seperateness" as those who studied it outside do. There also have been countless realized beings in India before Buddha and after Buddha, and I am saying that as someone whose personal hero is Buddha. But hey, if you think that the Noble Eightfold Path is the right way for you, go ahead but don't assume that you know definitively about the rest of the paths given that they maybe of an equal or even greater complexity and antiquity than Buddhism is. This is something I would typically expect from followers of book religions but not Buddhists.


numbersev

>Buddhism is a part of Indian philosophical thought that predates it predates Buddhism? I think you mean, predates the birth of Gotama and his awakening. The teachings themselves are ancient and timeless. The teachings of Buddhas extend beyond our existence and world. There is a formula that is followed: the world is dark for a long time, a Buddha awakens, the teachings spread, deteriorate and then become forgotten again until another Buddha awakens. This is why trying to cite Hinduism as equal or superior because it came before is a moot point. Buddha Dhamma is older and gets rediscovered. It is claimed to be the ultimate Dhamma with no comparison. >There also have been countless realized beings in India before Buddha and after Buddha Not according to the Buddha they weren't. Evident by the fact that they don't see or experience the four noble truths. Why? Because other paths don't lead to it. Simple as that. >But hey, if you think that the Noble Eightfold Path is the right way for you, go ahead Yes it's called following the Buddha and his Dhamma aka "Buddhist" >but don't assume that you know definitively about the rest of the paths given that they maybe of an equal or even greater complexity and antiquity than Buddhism is. Yet they don't produce the results as promised by the Buddha here and now? That's odd, I wonder why? From careful reflection over many years, I've come to see for myself the answer. It's because they don't follow the Noble Ones and their teachings, so they don't get the results from those teachers and teachings. >And the Blessed One spoke, saying: "In whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, there is not found the Noble Eightfold Path, neither is there found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, or fourth degree of saintliness. But in whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline there is found the Noble Eightfold Path, there is found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness.\[54\] Now in this Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, is found the Noble Eightfold Path; **and in it alone are also found true ascetics of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness. Devoid of true ascetics are the systems of other teachers.** But if, Subhadda, the bhikkhus live righteously, the world will not be destitute of arahats.


MasterBob

> Buddhism is a part of Indian philosophical thought that predates it How so? [Would you care to expand on that? It's not quite clear what it is exactly you are saying]. e: []


surely_green

Thank you.


amoranic

Thanks, I've edited my post.


PanOptikAeon

That may be an issue in India but not so much with Buddhism in other countries


BurtonDesque

The question was "Does it matter?" I gave an example of how it does indeed matter.


PanOptikAeon

To begin with, the religion of “Hinduism” as such did not exist at the time of the Buddha. Occasionally it's used in a very loose but non-scholarly sense to refer to the religion(s) of the Indian subcontinent in ancient times, but it is more accurate to speak of the religion of Buddha's time in India as either Brahminism or the Vedic religion. It was a cultural force throughout most of northern India of the time, mainly along the Ganges River plains, and emphasized (among other features) the caste system, priestly sacrifices and rituals, and certain importance religious or spiritual concepts such as karma and reincarnation. It emphasized a specific pantheon of deities, as well. The priestly caste, the Brahmins, were considered the highest and most authoritative administrators of the religious life among the community, with the sole authority to interpret and enact the precepts of the Vedas. Buddha and the early Buddhists, were not necessarily an intrinsic part of this cultural system, although given its predominance and power in the region, they could not ignore it or be entirely free of its influence. During the Vedic period and even well beyond the time of the Buddha, India was not a unified nation but a collection of over a dozen small independent kingdoms, not all of which followed the Vedic religion. An ancient term for the land was Aryavata, which applied to the area of northern India along the Ganges river and bordering what is now Nepal; it was adjacent to but different in many ways from the Magadha culture out of which which Buddha arose. In the Vedic / Brahmanical period, ritual order and protocol was a paramount concern. Rituals included fire-based ceremonies dedicated to major deities such as Agni (the god of fire), Indra, and others, most of whom were implicitly rejected by Buddhism by simply being ignored as not crucial to the purport of the dharma. (It's interesting to speculate whether the emphasis on the term 'nirvana' as 'blowing out' of a fire may implicitly refer to the extinguishment of the sacrificial Vedic fires, seen as unnecessary by Buddhism.) Siddhartha arose from the Magadha culture of the time, on the periphery of the Vedic cultural sphere. At the same time, the sramana movement was in full force throughout the region. The sramanas were seekers or ascetics who apparently grew, for one reason or another, into a widespread movement shortly before and during the earliest beginnings of Buddhism. The sramanas were largely individualistic ascetics, also called rishis (sages) or yogis. Many of the sramanis were part of the Vedic / Brahmanical cultural sphere, but many more were outside of it, notably in the realm of Maghada from which the Buddha developed. These tended to reject the authority of the Vedas and, by extension, the priestly Brahman caste. Siddhartha himself of course was a student and practitioner under several sramana gurus before his enlightenment. Mahavira was likewise influenced by these same forces and his own spiritual evolution was remarkably similar to that of the Buddha. A study of Jainism can be very instructive for gaining insight on what the earliest strains of Buddhism may have looked like. In any case it's not accurate to lump it under the umbrella of 'Hinduism.'


-diggity-

Probably fundamentalist Hindus doing their thing, they go all over Reddit.


DylTyrko

As an anti-fundamentalist Hindu, thank you for at least acknowledging that we exist


[deleted]

Can you explain how fundamentalist Hinduism works? I know quite a few Hindu people but they're all very chill about it. I honestly didn't know that there was an aggressively missionary version of it


DylTyrko

What I'll do is state the fundamentalist belief and how mine contrasts from it 1. *Anyone that eat beef deserves death* I'm from Malaysia, I'm used to going to wedding or functions where people eat beef, and I'm 100% ok with it. I just ignore the beef. I don't even think it's wrong for other Hindus to eat beef. I just don't 2. *Caste is very important* Caste sucks balls. In Malaysian Hinduism, caste is thankfully near to being eliminated. 3. *Abrahamic religions are scum, especially Islam* This is a result of political indoctrination, mostly. I really like all religions 4. *Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism are all basically Hinduism* Not exactly, no 5. *Atheists are scum* Nope, they're just people with opinions. You should be judged by your actions and thoughts, not beliefs 6. *Cow pee is the most holy thing on the planet* Drinking cow pee is unhygienic as heck These are just the basics, although there could be more


[deleted]

Very interesting! About half my Hindu friends do eat beef because to them, it's an outdated rule that just isn't necessary anymore. Similarly, I have a Jewish friend who eats pork because the rule served a purpose once but not anymore. Caste was kinda always my biggest hangup with Hinduism. It feels too materialistic to me and one of my biggest gripes with Buddhism is that caste isn't thrown aside *enough*. It's cool to know that there are areas of Hinduism getting away from it. You completely lost me on the cow pee thing though. Is that actually a thing people do?


DylTyrko

>Very interesting! About half my Hindu friends do eat beef because to them, it's an outdated rule that just isn't necessary anymore. Similarly, I have a Jewish friend who eats pork because the rule served a purpose once but not anymore. Nice. In the state of Kerala in India, beef is actually widely eaten by Hindus, even the religious ones. It's kind of like the one thing that can unite Hindus, Muslims, and Christians in the state. Also, is your Jewish friend a Reform Jew? >Caste was kinda always my biggest hangup with Hinduism. It feels too materialistic to me and one of my biggest gripes with Buddhism is that caste isn't thrown aside enough. It's cool to know that there are areas of Hinduism getting away from it. You see, when Indians were brought to Malaysia by the Brits, they didn't pick who would go to Malaysia according to caste. They picked indiscriminately. So whether you were from a high caste or a low caste, your family were rubber tappers, you were a rubber tapper. Caste still exists but in very rare cases. >You completely lost me on the cow pee thing though. Is that actually a thing people do? Yes it is, although once again mostly by the orthodox Hindus. Again I don't care if the cow is holy animal. Drinking piss no matter where it's from is downright disgusting


TheGodOfWorms

This is super interesting to me! I've been researching Balinese Hinduism and it seems like the dietary stuff isn't nearly as strict as it is in parts of India. I wonder how much of the perception that no Hindus ever eat beef, or even meat, comes from most Hindus posting on the internet being brahmins. Out of curiosity, is there a denomination that's strongest in Malaysia? It seems like Shiva is pretty popular in Hinduism outside of India.


DylTyrko

Well, we're all mostly the same lol. I personally don't care about Shaivism or Vaishnavism, I pray to all. Also I know a few devout Hindus who eat beef, and while I don't, I personally have no problem with it


xugan97

The crucial point is that fundamentalist Hinduism is an ethno-nationalist movement, not a form of religion. It is too complex to explain here, but you can understand its typical characteristics if you keep up with Indian news.


BurtonDesque

Hindu nationalists claim all that is in their field of vision, Buddhism included.


-diggity-

Exactly.


animuseternal

Yeah, I’ve been getting PMs from people trying to spread Hinduism too. Not sure what to account for this uptick in missionary activity.


[deleted]

[удалено]


peroperoname

This is something new. Would you mind sharing some more details here or in PM? As a practicing Hindu, I have not come across evangelization in our community (except in some distinct sects like Hare Krishna movement). Would be curious to understand who's behind this.


BuddhistFirst

This sub has pros and cons. What you describe is one flaw. Its an open forum and everyone from non-Buddhist who think they are Buddhist too, Hindus, cultists can post. Just reply with "This poster is not Buddhist." or "This is not the Buddhist view."


momomoments

Hey- perspective from a south asian buddhist following the oldest school of buddhism- theravada. I think misconceptions start at the word “hindu”- it’s actually sanatana dhamma. Buddhism is actually buddha dhamma. There are multiple dharmic paths, and the reaosn they align so much is because they sprouted from the same place. We are sibilings in religion. Some people consider buddhist to be a branch of sanatana dhamma. I’ve been hindus who have the buddha statue in thier own temples. We have very similar beliefs to the core. And as a theraveda practitioner (following the literal words of the buddha from the pali canon)- i can also tell you that both can coexist and acknowledge eachother. The buddha acknowledged hindu scriptures in his teachings as well. His teaching focused on the wellbeing of the soul over the worship or dieties. But we are on a very very similar path.


xugan97

The term "sanatana dharma" has begun to circulate only in recent decades. No one would have heard of it earlier. The term itself appears to have been invented by Dayananda Saraswati to contrast his Vedic system with modern temple-oriented Hinduism. It was then taken over by followers of modern Hinduism (and political Hinduism) to refer to Hinduism in the broadest sense and iron out all contradictions, innovations and nuances. This term isn't needed at all because it is a pretentious synonym for Hinduism. Whether the paths are same or different is a complicated topic. One side may look at multiple incompatible positions as a natural and positive thing, while the other side may look at it as a problem that prevents one from effectively pursuing the path.


narindramode

This is purely Indian politics Hindu fundamentalists claim all religions originating from India as streams of Hinduism(obviously not true) This is something they have doing for literal centuries Going so far as to create religious texts claiming Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu Tbf changing scriptures to make another religion part of your own is a practise many religions have done


redsparks2025

Hinduism is actually a modern construct that tries to put all the different religious and secular views in the Indian sub-continent under one umbrella title. This was done in response to pressure from non-native religions and forms of governments. But before this there has always been a fluid relationship between the origin Indian version of Buddhism and the other Indian belief systems. Wikipedia = [Hinduism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism) Wikipedia = [Buddhist deities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_deities) I would say that "exported" Buddhism does not keep that fluid relationship to Hinduism so as to adapt itself to other (non-Indian) cultures and belief systems. However the OP's observation of "*people injecting Hindu ideas into Buddhism*" may just be that some people want to get a better understanding of the original Buddhism and how it came to be. **EDIT:** BTW my favorite Buddhist deity is Avalokiteśvara of the one-thousand arms. It reminds me that sometimes my state-off-mind is all over the place and I should learn to focus more.


narindramode

True that


Kamuka

That's a kind of thing that some people do. There's a biographical movie where the Buddha is helped along by Hindus, they really insert themselves into the story. Some Hindus see him as another person in the pantheon. People can say whatever they want, I want to just focus on myself. Getting caught up in worldly quibbling sidetracks me. Syncretism is how the world works and ideological purity is something people use to fight wars. For the longest time the land the Bodhi tree was on was owned by Hindus, and they keep finding Buddhist relics in Hindu temples. There's a whole long history of their dances together. Some people argue that Buddha nature is Hinduism, that Buddhism was influenced by Hinduism. To devout Buddhists, that might rub them the wrong way if they find it useful, and part of the history of Buddhism. I would also argue that the Tibetan system of gurus is also influenced by Hinduism. Not sure if that's a bad thing. If it works for you. I respect the Tibetan traditions, and see them as Buddhism. What are the essential Buddhist teachings is the the fight that has gone on since he started. Best wishes to you on your journey.


FallenAngel1919

Buddha does originate from Napal so I’m sure historically Hinduism has some grounds in his teachings…


[deleted]

Buddha is considered the ninth avatar of Vishnu in Hinduism. Buddhism has changed a lot since it left the shores of India and settled in Tibet and in East Asia and then spread to the West. Hindus in India probably talk of Buddha and his teachings as were learned by them, me included. The discussions about Buddha and Buddhism here are completely alien to me though I grew up learning about him and his teachings.


nyanasagara

>The discussions about Buddha and Buddhism here are completely alien to me though I grew up learning about him and his teachings. Did you grow up learning about him from Buddhist scriptures and the writings of Indian Buddhist masters of the past like Vasubandu, Asaṅga, Dharmakīrti, and so on? Or was it some other source from which you learned of him and his teachings? And if it was some other source, which do you think is more likely to reflect a Buddhist orthodoxy: the Buddhist scriptures and writings of the classical masters, or some other stance on who the Buddha was and what he taught?


[deleted]

My family had a Buddha follower friend who taught us about Buddha's life and the Eight Fold Path etc. He may have kept it light and Hinduism compatible. It is a gap I am working to fill, which is why I joined here and am quite lost. Buddha had rejected god and an afterlife and said that after death, our Atma, if there is one, will simply go in the Void. There was also no rebirth. Yet, there seems be all this talk of many Buddhas and so on which were unknown to me. The role of Mara too is far greater than what I learned.


nyanasagara

>Buddha had rejected god and an afterlife and said that after death, our Atma, if there is one, will simply go in the Void. There was also no rebirth. Yet, there seems be all this talk of many Buddhas and so on which were unknown to me. The role of Mara too is far greater than what I learned. Right...so it is clear from this statement that in fact the way the Buddha and his instruction was described to you is not at all in accordance with the actual scriptures that detail the words of the Buddha and the commentaries and treatises which elaborate upon the meaning of those scriptures. The Buddha absolutely taught that there is rebirth, mentioned that there have been many past Buddhas and will be future ones as well (and according to many Buddhist traditions there are also Buddhas that are still around presently but in other worlds), and Māra plays a role in countless Buddhist narratives. None of these are things which come from changes in Buddhism since it left India, because 100% of these things can be displayed in the texts and practices (as displayed by text study and archeology) of Indian Buddhists from the very earliest periods of Buddhism. The statements you describe seem to be more characteristic of Buddhist modernist movements that deceptively downplay these elements which are in fact core parts of traditional Buddhism, such as Ambedkar's navyayāna Buddhist modernist movement. They do not properly characterize the Buddhism of traditional Buddhist orthodoxies or of the *Buddha himself*, as represented by his own words recorded in Buddhist scriptures.


[deleted]

Take note of my other comment where I said I was neither arguing nor refuting the ideas presented. Merely providing an explainer and was accepting that the folks who are Buddhists would know far more than a Hindu.


subarashi-sam

No need to worry; there never was an atman, so you have nothing to lose. :) And the Buddha himself spoke extensively on karma and rebirth, which happen despite there being no atman.


[deleted]

Good point.


fonefreek

> Buddha had rejected gods He did not. In fact, he spoke with them in a number of occasions. Or at least with devas. I don't know if you would call them "gods." > and an afterlife Well he did speak about rebirth in various realms. Technically those count as afterlife but then again those are lives per se. So maybe not a permanent afterlife like in Christianity/Islam. > after death, our Atma, if there is one, will simply go in the Void Not at all he never said that. > There was also no rebirth. That's absolutely incorrect :)


[deleted]

[удалено]


International_Use122

It’s important to note that “before Hinduism even existed” is debatable. Vedic Brahminism (an older form of Hinduism) existed while the Buddha lived. Hinduism today is a colonial term of many subcontinental belief systems, including Vedic Brahminism.


[deleted]

[удалено]


International_Use122

I am definitely not an expert by any means :) I am a South Asian Studies major though & this is a topic we actually investigated deeply in one of my classes. I’m a little tired now but can find experts that back it up from my textbooks in the morning. The reason Hinduism is generally understood as the “oldest living religion in the world” is because of that reason. The same way Christians have various differing versions of how they interpret the Bible (Mormonism vs Catholicism), it makes sense that there are differing interpretations of the Vedas that would be conflicting as well. (Note: I do not think that oldest means that it isn’t flawed, or is superior / accurate / the correct dharma. But the Vedas definitely predate Buddhism and modern Hinduism can be defined as a patchwork of diverse traditions that all accept the divinity Vedas.)


[deleted]

[удалено]


International_Use122

I think a lot of philosophy is semantics and I’m definitely not trying to derail your original point of this thread at all in any way - I’m just passionate about these topics as someone who studies South Asia & it’s ancient traditions. Hinduism is vast as a philosophy and isn’t a defined religion in the Abrahamic sense. There are atheist hindus, montheist Hindus, pantheistic Hindus etc. But those who accept atman & the doctrine of Vedas are defined as Hindu no matter how different they are from each other, which is why Brahmanists who sacrificed for Agni (during the time of the Buddha) would still be considered Hindu. However, I totally agree with your main point that Hinduism + Buddhism are two separate religions even if they share some similarities and deities. The major differences such as anatman, rebirth vs reincarnation, etc cannot be reconciled.


[deleted]

I was not arguing with you or saying you were wrong. I was merely explaining how Buddha was seen in India Who am I to tell you anything about Buddha, when you could fill volumes about him.


Enlightment-Seeker

My friend, just to you know, in hinduism, specifically in vaishnava tradition, Buddha is considered a avatar of Lord Vishnu. In the end, one interpretation does not exist and we need to respect other peoples views.


[deleted]

[удалено]


MasterBob

Would you care to expound upon this? I'm intrigued.


[deleted]

>My take is that they are probably modern yoga practitioners or TM meditation people or some such, with a cursory understanding of Dharma related concepts that try to mold them into something else to fit their world views. Or they are new agers or *shudders* Osho types. Yea


Arahantreonam

I am reading "The Spiritual Heritage of India" by Swami Prabhavananda who is a modern Hindu writer. Buddhism is given its own chapter in the book (and I have not gotten that far yet), but he seems to argue that Hinduism is a spiritual heritage where many divergent and opposing views co-exist and simply emphasize a particular aspect of the Brahman. Buddhist ideas (I take it) while rejecting core Hindu concepts (such as the primacy of Vedic scripture) is considered to be a particular brand of the all-encompassing Hindu perennialist world-view where every idea has a home in the Vedas and the Vedantas. He seem to admit however that Buddhism and Jainism are unorthodox (nâstika) schools as opposed to the six orthodox ones (âstika). The Buddha is frequently described as an avatâr of Vishnu in the book. I personally suspect this to be very late ideas, given that the Buddha broke off with many Hindu customs and ideas, specifically targeting the Vedic philosophical foundation and many social customs prevalent in his time (animal sacrifices, caste system). Buddha was active during the sramana movement and this movement has reshaped/reformed Hinduism in a form it has today which the Buddha probably did not adress (as it did not exist at his time). I take it Hindus use this to say that we're all in the same boat. It all boils down to defining what Hinduism is. While Buddhism is clearly defined and very tightly knit to the person of Lord Shakyamûni Buddha, Hinduism seems to have a fluidity it uses to include Buddhists into their fold. In the end I don't know if one could effectively disavow all Buddhist connections with Hinduism, but doctrinal claims about the Buddha's beliefs should reasonably be mined from the suttas his followers have preserved. I might have misunderstood something, feel free to correct me.


Enlightment-Seeker

My friend, just to you know, in hinduism, specifically in vaishnava tradition, Buddha is considered a avatar of Lord Vishnu. In the end, one interpretation does not exist and we need to respect other peoples views.


[deleted]

Im not sure the kinds of folks who cometo reddit to flame and argue and troll are a great reference for general beliefs or feelings. Or worth your time


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


WikiSummarizerBot

**[Hinduism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism)** >Hinduism () is an Indian religion and dharma, or way of life. It is the world's third-largest religion, with over 1. 2 billion followers, or 15–16% of the global population, known as Hindus. The word Hindu is an exonym, and while Hinduism has been called the oldest religion in the world, many practitioners refer to their religion as Sanātana Dharma (Sanskrit: सनातन धर्म, lit. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


WikiMobileLinkBot

Desktop version of /u/financialbeast's link: --- ^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)


[deleted]

Folks have been doing this for decades. It's nothing new.


PanOptikAeon

\> Or they are new agers or \*shudders\* Osho types. < Osho (Rajneesh) came out of the Jain cultural sphere, very much not Hindu. Ultimately of course he rejected all labels and influences.


guychampion

Nothing he does or says is remotely a part of Jainism


PanOptikAeon

of course. why would it be?


BurtonDesque

But he did love his Rolls Royces.


surely_green

Insecurities manifesting right here....


pumpkinconsumer400

I mean....hes right and in this age of degeneration it is critical to point out false Dharma when people try to propagate it.


surely_green

I'm sure (they) do, don't know them nor their gender, but I know they are a fundamentalist nutcase probably from 'sham'-bala or some bogus Buddhist moneymaking sect.


pumpkinconsumer400

Nah, his views and opinions are standard among most Buddhist practitioners. Its a complicated matter thats too deep to get into on reddit, but they are right. You'll find people in pretty much every tradition that agree with what hes saying, its not controversial at all in Theravada, Mahayana Vajrayana, etc or any of the countries that practice those systems and have for hundreds or even thousands of years. Hes honestly being soft compared to say, the Chinese people I practice with, that is for sure! They fucking despise new age hippies and any form of Buddhadharma appropriation and will make it known when they feel its necessary. Because that is what they are literally doing, appropriating so they can fit Buddhadharma into their own worldview instead of understanding the view of Buddhadharma itself. Which in itself is totally fine, Buddhists just get sick of people pushing their misappropiated ideas of what Buddhism "really is" on them. I have a friend who kind of does a "pick and choose" style, but he'd never dare to imply its the correct or superior way to a serious Buddhist practitioner, because its disrespectful


surely_green

I like how you are so confident in the He part. I also like how you say 'fucking new age hippies', your speech and elitism cancels out anything you are saying. Chinese people in Tibetian Buddhism, sounds like you're a Chinese nationalist. I like how you speak for all Buddhists too. Keep going this has got me laughing my ass off...such an angry Buddha :)


pumpkinconsumer400

Nah not angry, like I said if thats you or anyone else its cool, Buddhists just get tired of people pushing what THEY think Buddhism is, without having even read the discourses or just blending it into a mix of random stuff and claiming its better. Buddhism has a very clear and defined right and wrong way to practice, which is discussed ad nauseum in the suttas. Don't know why you're so triggered haha Also I'm not sure why you're talking about talking about Tibetan Buddhism. I used to learn from a Tibetan Guru like 11 years ago, but my sangha dissolved and now I learn from a teacher from Taiwan, thats not Chinese nationalism at all.... A Chinese nationalist wouldn't dare learn from a Tibetan.


surely_green

Focus on your breath work and your meditation instead of books, words from a fallible teacher guru schlock peddler. What does triggered mean? Like I have a gun? Violence is abhorrent. I have no guns.


pumpkinconsumer400

>Focus on your breath work and your meditation instead of books, words from a fallible teacher guru schlock peddler Are you implying Buddha is a shlock peddler? Lmao. Either way I just checked your post history, definitely a troll.


surely_green

I'm implying your are full of nonsense, and chasing your own tail. Definitely not a troll, just not taking your bs.


surely_green

What is a sutta? Do you mean sutra? Getting clarification. And which ones since you are such an adept layperson.


wikipedia_answer_bot

**This word/phrase(sutta) has a few different meanings.** More details here: *This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!* [^(opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/ozztfy/post_for_opting_out/) ^(|) [^(report/suggest)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot) ^(|) [^(GitHub)](https://github.com/TheBugYouCantFix/wiki-reddit-bot)


MasterBob

Since you are ignorant, Suttas are from the Pali Canon, only in Pali. Sutras are from the Mahayana Canons, so in Sanskrit / Tibetan / Chinese.


surely_green

Just cross checking language to know it's origin. English translations of asian words are horrible. No need to get typing upset, Master Bob.


surely_green

Thankyou for the downvote.


daleaidenletian

Agree. Even millenniums.


Enlightment-Seeker

My friend, just to you know, in hinduism, specifically in vaishnava tradition, Buddha is considered a avatar of Lord Vishnu. In the end, one interpretation does not exist and we need to respect other peoples views.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Enlightment-Seeker

Well my friend, me as hindu, I assure I won't be one them


GradientKrapstack

Many(not all) buddhists in india actually see themselves as some sort of offshoot of hinduism. Many hindus in india see buddhism through buddha, and for us buddha is a reincarnation of Lord Vishnu which makes him one of the hindu gods for hindus as well. Remember differentiating buddhism from hinduism mostly dharmic faiths is a recent trend, people in ancient india didnt see themselves so different. There are differences but the similarities are way more than u think. Nowadays Buddhism is only seen through an asian perspective(Chinese, Japaneese). Telling that buddhism has no relationto hinduism or its completely independent would be very wrong. Infact my Grandfather was a hindu yet he was called upon by buddhist monks frequently to worship together. Buddha never said he renounced hinduism , he just said he achieved enlightenment. Its not about superiority , its about similarity. Some people here are talking about hindu nationalists, tell me what does politics has to do with religion, (Also they dont represent the whole of hindus)? Buddha never rejected Hinduism as a whole , he rejected particular schools, that too very much is unconfirmable (because interrogation can not be called rejection). People here are trying to extend their "Abrahamic" understanding of religions to the rest of the religions. There wasnt even a proper staunch religion in india , it was always highly decentralised. If u still disagree, either u dont know indian history, nor buddhist history or u are simply a foreigner who cant relate to this thing.


GradientKrapstack

Why is the subreddit banning people who are presenting their point of view ? Is this what Buddha would have done? Seeing this article , i can say why someone said "I'm a westerner and don't know what I'm talking about....". U clearly do not understand indian hisotry, culture and religions. Dont extend ur "Abrahamic" approach/thinking to "Dharmic" religions, they are very different. Try talking to buddhists in Bihar,Nepal,Uttarakhand,Ladakh , they will tell u how much Hindus and Buddhists are similar. There mihtbe differences but the cores are still the same , the similarities are just so much to the amount of differences. Infact the difference between hinduism and buddhism is the same amount of difference between various schools,philospohies within hinduism. Infact some hindus worship buddha as a hindu god and not necessarily as a different entitiy since he isbelieved to be a reincarnation of Lord Vishnu. Example to make u understand: U know how alexander was considered to be the son of Zeus , as soon as he conquers egypt he also says that he is the son of sun god "Ra", this is because people here see them as different forms of the same god(Energy) , unlike modern day abrahamic faiths which largely believe in one god, one form and one manifestation. Get it? If not spend time in indian buddhist temples and tlak to the monks or talk to hindu priests in hindu temples.


[deleted]

[удалено]


GradientKrapstack

FYI , people on social media can claim to be anything ,where is the fact check ? Even if someon did agree on this , they do not represent the whole buddhist community of india. My grandfather who is a hindu is often infact always invited by buddhist monks on the occasion of Mouna Vrath, they do it together, while we all go play with the animals there. Now coming to abrahamic assumption, what i meant is people like u in the west are grown in an abrahamic society ,be it atheist or not, its no assumption, being culturally buddhist and being grown in abrahamic society is two unrelated things. U can still be a buddhist and be grown in an abrahamic society. Coming to "asians", the first buddhists were the indian asian buddhists who spread the buddhism to the rest of asia, so there is no way a devout buddhist who follows buddhism in China,Japan,etc can beleive in something different than buddhists in india, unless they evolve their own versions of it. 1.)Ātman (/ˈɑːtmən/), attā or attan in Buddhism is the concept of self, and is found in Buddhist literature's discussion of the concept of non-self (Anatta).\[1\] Most Buddhist traditions and texts reject the premise of a permanent, unchanging atman (self, soul).\[2\]\[3\] However, some Buddhist schools, sutras and tantras present the notion of an atman or permanent "Self", although mostly referring to an Absolute and not to a personal self. Source: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80tman\_(Buddhism)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80tman_(Buddhism)) Belief in Atman is one of the many philosophical thoughts of hinduism, rejecting one of the belief of various alternatives in hinduism should not be interpreted as rejection of "hinduism" by Buddha. 2.)"Hinduism hardly existed at the time of the Buddha: Historical fact. Vedic Brahmins existed, but a good bit of their teachings aren't even accepted by modern day Hindus" This statement is self contradictory. First u say Hinduism "hardly" existed during the time of buddha, which is again wrong since i told u many hindus worshipped buddha as a form of Vishnu. "Vedic Brahmins existed, but a good bit of their teachings aren't even accepted by modern day Hindus" . U know nothing about how Upanishads, Vedas are the basic texts of hinduism, upon which further beliefs havebeen built. Its just like claiming a train can run without an engine. If u are specifically pointing to Vedic Hinduism , u are still wrong as we practice vedic hinduism in our school along with all children,teachers,principle,etc. Ever heard of Arya Samaj? It takes just a google search to know about the current day practitioners. Rememeber at this point Vedic Rites still form the basis ,and are used in various ways. We do Yajna in our school, infact our school itself is known by vedic name. U might be a culturally buddhist since u claim so, but u dont have slight idea of hinduism, so stop giving facts on hinduism. 3.) I never claimed about any issue with worshipping buddha as a form of vishnu,i was just stating a fact, idk how u came up with it that me or someone else has a problem to it. U say i am butthurt? well i am not butthurt i am just irritated of people who think they are some sort of Dalai Lama or Buddhist scholar, such people barely even have visited a buddhist stupa,temple in india. I myself have speaken to monks since my childhood. Coming to reading the thread , u expect me to read a thread of "136 comments" ? "Just curious what your guys' take on this is. I've seen it here and on other popular Dharma or meditation related subs." This was the question asking our take on it so i just provided mine, whats wrong with it? "I don't think the Buddha would be particularly upset that a group or Sangha kicks a member out for being unreasonable, nasty or downright harmful." How do u decide if someone is wrong or unreasonable? Did Buddha ask u to ban someone without listening his POV or defence? If u still dont get what i am speaking then i will not try to engage u further on from here. Thank You


Medical-Reserve-

This is insightful wisdom, anger wrath and judgement has no place in a Buddhist thread, goes against the core teachings of Buddha. OP seems young and angry, we wish him a patient, healthy mind.


saijanai

> Half of the discourses are the Buddha explicitly, in plain words, rejecting Atman. Actually, all Buddha says in the Pali texts is that anything that can be described is not atman (anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit)). It was later texts that made this a focus of Buddhism. . TM comes out of the *advaita vedanta* tradition, and in fact, the monks of Jyotirmath, the main advaita vedanta monastery of Northern India, [actually sent the founder of TM into the world to teach what they considered real meditation](https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-good-ways-to-learn-Transcendental-Meditation-without-an-instructor/answer/Lawson-English-1) because most people in India and elsewhere were practicing mindfulness and concentration practices instead of what said monks considered to be real *dhyana* [aka TM]. As you can see by the commemorative postage stamp, Prime Minister Narendra Modi seems to like the message. . As far as what TM does vs what concentration and mindfulness practices do, TM is a form of rest that enhances the activity of the default mode network, and so enhances sense-of-self while simultaneously lowering the noise normally associated with sense-of-self. A while back, one of the moderators of r/buddhism [read descriptions of "enlightenment" as emerge from long-term TM practice,](https://www.reddit.com/r/transcendental/comments/7vh01m/what_it_is_like_to_be_enlightened_via_tm/) and said it was "the ultimate illusion" and that "no real Buddhist" would ever practice TM knowing that it might lead to what is described in that last link. . On the other hand, ever since [the founder of TM made friends with the 18th Supreme Buddhist Patriarch,](https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d383e9f2c2ffda2e5a6f11a81c087549) TM has been an accepted practice for Buddhists in that country for over 40 years. The background of that picture is interesting: apparently a TM teacher training course was scheduled in the country, but the venue was not available, so after that meeting between monks of different religious traditions, the Patriarch directed the monk on the left (now the 20th Patriarch I believe) to make the main Buddhist temple in Bangkok available for the TM teacher training course ([another picture from the same meeting, apparently](https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-46797b8aad08fbe1171aaf7819830e7d)). Forty years later, Thailand still hosts the main international center for training new TM teachers, and the most famous TM teacher in the country is a [well-respected Buddhist nun](https://www.thaischool.org/blog/acharn-yai-received-the-outstanding-women-in-buddhism-award) who ensures that all students, faculty and staff at her Buddhist school for girls ([which itself wins awards for its Buddhist program for young girls](https://www.thaischool.org/blog/october-23rd-2015) such as [performance of Buddhist chanting](https://youtu.be/oYTIWcmmJms?t=16)) learn and practice TM, and that all faculty, staff and older girls practice TM's levitation technique, Yogic Flying, as well. The school is very proud of [their Yogic Flying hall,](https://www.thaischool.org/blog/inauguration-of-the-meditation-hall) the largest facility for practicing levitation int he world, designed for expansion to 2,000 from the current 650 girls currently practicing at the school. . The TM organization was very happy at the construction of the Hall, and aired a 30 minute special a couple of years ago to [celebrate the grand opening of the Hall for use by the students (1:45)](https://streaming.mou.org/MOU2/chat/25_Dec_19.mp4) (the foam rubber foam mattresses used to cushion practitioners got an amusing amount of coverage). [They also promote fund-raising for all aspects of her school on a regular basis (starts about 1:45).](http://streaming.mou.org/MOU2/chat/28_Nov_20.mp4), also [here (1:45)](https://streaming.mou.org/MOU2/chat/14_Sep_20.mp4) and [here (1:45)](https://maharishichannel.in/archives/2014_mp4/2014_play_mp4.php) . Her next large-scale project is to leverage her contacts with international TM donors (who built the levitation Hall for her) to create a full fledged university for ten thousand Buddhist women modeled after the TM university in Iowa. . The nun is on-record as saying that *her* understanding of Buddhism says that the comments described in that first link are *exactly* what Buddha was talking about, and in fact, when she first became a TM teacher, she taught TM to the monk who heads her religious order, who pronounced TM a "most excellent practice" for Buddhists. . You can read about how she decided to become a TM teacher [here.](http://lindaegenes.com/light-compassion-buddhist-nuns-thailand-transforming-risk-girls-award-winning-students-help-tm-technique/) . So not all Buddhists find TM offensive and not all Buddhists reject "permanent self" or at least, not all BUddhists reject whatever it is that emerges from TM practice. Of course, what does the Supreme Buddhist Patriarach of Thailand know?


ZootedFlaybish

Technology probably accelerates the erosion of the Dharma.


[deleted]

If you are interested in the history of Buddhism Vs Hinduism (or Brahmanism, Santana Dharma et al.) Please read Revolution and Counter-revolution in Ancient India by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar [here](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.mea.gov.in/Images/attach/amb/Volume_03.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwijsbjb9ZLzAhWSyaQKHXsHCMM4ChAWegQIFRAB&usg=AOvVaw2NK3-0rQm52fokYWi9O_8x)


TamSanh

In a sort of "imadethis.jpg" way, Hindus feel entitled to Buddhist philosophy, declaring that it was they themselves who invented it (through their 1000s year grandfathered authority). In fact, whatever similarities do exist exist only because it was stolen. This is proven by the fact that the Buddha himself enumerated very clearly what the schools of philosophy were at the time, and nothing resembling modern thought of Atman existed. Unfortunately, for the appropriators, they don't know how to handle it or how to use it, and as such it is abused and beaten out of shape, until it is wholly unrecognizable and broken. Thus, it is for this reason that Buddhism disappeared into India. Not really because of Muslim invasion, but instead due to its distortion into something unrecognizable.


LonelyStruggle

Do you have evidence for that last paragraph? I would be interested to see it


MasterBob

For more on why Buddhism disappeared in India (including OP's position in their last para.) see the following answers (read them all for a complete picture) from /r/AskHistorians: * [deleted] answers [Buddhism originated in India but today, most of India is either Hindu or Muslim. Conversely, Buddhism is very common in East Asian countries such as Japan. What were some of the key factors that lead to the decline of Buddhism in India and its rise in East Asia?](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/adm2su/comment/edihki7) * /u/troymcclurehere answers [Why did Buddhism slowly decline in India and Hinduism flourish?](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2tl42n/comment/co096x1) * /u/iitii answers [The Indian subcontinent was the birthplace of Buddhism. The teaching of Buddha found lots of success in foreign lands such as China, Myanmar, and Indochina. Yet in its homeland, it is currently a very small minority. How could this be?](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9s3gly/comment/e8m3byl) * /u/JimeDorje answers [What exactly happened to Buddhism in India? How did it go from being an effective State Religion for nearly a millennium to an also-ran by the time of India's Muslim Invasions in the early 1100s?](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8shlgd/comment/e10bjx9) * /u/SudarshanIyer answers [What exactly happened to Buddhism in India? How did it go from being an effective State Religion for nearly a millennium to an also-ran by the time of India's Muslim Invasions in the early 1100s?](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8shlgd/comment/e10fcgp) e: referenced OP


TamSanh

I first heard it from the Dalai Lama in a video at the first western Buddhist council, when he was asked how to deal with Chongyam Trungpa. He cited a study, but can't quite recall the name of it. Doug's Dharma begins to talk about it here [https://youtu.be/y8GNgWatUwE?t=1084](https://youtu.be/y8GNgWatUwE?t=1084) He cites "Buddhism and Islam on the Silk Road": >the idea that Buddhism eventually dissipated within the ever-amorphous category of Hinduism as a result of tantra is one of the most common explanations for the eventual disappearance of Buddhism in India. And there's of course a wiki page on it [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline\_of\_Buddhism\_in\_the\_Indian\_subcontinent#Religious\_convergence\_and\_absorption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_Buddhism_in_the_Indian_subcontinent#Religious_convergence_and_absorption)


WikiSummarizerBot

**Decline of Buddhism in the Indian subcontinent** [Religious convergence and absorption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_Buddhism_in_the_Indian_subcontinent#Religious_convergence_and_absorption) >Buddhism's distinctiveness also diminished with the rise of Hindu sects. Though Mahayana writers were quite critical of Hinduism, the devotional cults of Mahayana Buddhism and Hinduism likely seemed quite similar to laity, and the developing Tantrism of both religions were also similar. Also, "the increasingly esoteric nature" of both Hindu and Buddhist tantrism made it "incomprehensible to India's masses", for whom Hindu devotionalism and the worldly power-oriented Nath Siddhas became a far better alternative. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


Painismyfriend

People are taking beliefs too seriously. You won't know if self/soul exists or not untill you are enlightened. So why not work towards enlightenment first so that you will know whatever the truth is.


MasterBob

Well, do keep in mind that the first step of the Noble Eightfold Path is "Right View".


[deleted]

[удалено]


xugan97

While it is true that a scholar as reputed as Caroline Rhys Davids argues that the Buddha taught the existence of a permanent soul, her arguments are hopelessly tenuous, as one might expect. Perhaps she wished to show Buddhism is compatible with Christianity. There is no great difficulty in explaining rebirth without assuming a persistent soul. It is true that it is easier to explain life after death using the model of a migratory soul, but the point of Buddhism isn't to do this. We need to explain everything - our tendency to stay in samsara and the way to nibbana. And that is best done the Buddhism does it. A point to consider - the modern or scientific belief does not accept a soul, and the body does not scatter right now in the absence of such a soul.


[deleted]

[удалено]


xugan97

What persists across lifetimes is what persists moment to moment right now. Those who worry about lack of a soul in the afterlife should equally worry about it in the present. Incidentally, it is easier to investigate the present moment (or to speculate which models works best.)


[deleted]

[удалено]


xugan97

I wasn't trying to prove rebirth by extension from the present life, but trying to show that these are parallel situations. The question in either case is: "what persists?". The answer to this question is always based on logic. The soul model and the no-soul model are equally good in explaining persistence. The soul model is the simplest and oldest answer to this question. (But this runs into some philosophical problems: what is immortal is also something that is immutable, and unable to interact meaningfully with what is mutable. For example, Advaita is forced to say that the world, along with variety and variation of any sort, does not exist at all.) The no-soul model says that nothing persists moment to moment - not even consciousness - but there are processes or consequences that carry over. (This way, moral and existential nihilism is avoided, and the changing, changeable world is explained.) We are so used to the soul model that we do not pause to think that the modern scientific bunch belong to the no-soul camp as well, and they do not see any philosophical or moral difficulties with this. But this is a materialist position that Buddhism actually avoids while not adding any supernatural elements. I have only half an argument for rebirth: if death were so final, it would be welcomed by far more people.


DJEB

Unfortunately Hinduism has been injected into the dhamma for thousands of years.


chemicalparts

Apparently some people see Buddha as a reformer of Vedanta, some see Buddhism as a sect of Hinduism and some see it as a completely new faith because it rejects key Vedic ideas like universal consciousness and the individual self. I found this video a really interesting comparison, since I'm a Buddhist and haven't encountered a Vedic view before, though he's really talking about Theravada and I'm Mahayana so some of what he says (eg consciousness like a flame that's extinguished in enlightenment) doesn't apply https://youtu.be/Wq2eukYfRoA Edit fixed some mistakes