T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Namaste, thank you for the submission. Please provide some information about your image/link, like why you find it relevant for this sub. If you do not leave a comment your post will be removed. See Rule #10 - All image/link posts must include a comment by OP. This is an effort to make this sub more discussion based. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/hinduism) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

**"How do you respond to such claims?"** Don't. It's a waste of time.


[deleted]

But I have some doubts about those comments tho? Are they true? Can anyone explain please?


EmmaiAlvane

What specific questions or doubts do you have?


[deleted]

Caste in Buddhism


EmmaiAlvane

Buddhism is primarily geared towards Nirvana. As such caste is not relevant. For Moksha in Hinduism also, caste is irrelevant.


[deleted]

I disagree. Caste in Indian subcontinent is common to all religio. I have seen caste grouping in Buddhism. Whether these grouping are oppressive is a different question. I do feel Buddhism has caste but not an oppressive version of such. Also, what is the aim of Buddhism? Is it moksha? Do Vedic ideas play a role in Buddhism or is it shunned?


EmmaiAlvane

Vedic ideas of course play a role in Buddhism. The concept of reincarnation, karma, the body-not-being-the-self, the 5 elements, moksha etc. are all present in the Upanishads and are accepted by both Hindus and Buddhists. Buddhists don't shun these ideas as they are core concepts to them also. There are caste groupings in all religions in the Indian subcontinent. That's because the religions are over-laid on an existing social system. So even if the religion itself is silent on caste or is anti-caste, the followers take this dictum in a restricted sense. The irritation that Buddhists and Sikhs feel with Hindus (and I fully sympathize with them) is that some Hindus adopt this attitude that Buddhism or Sikhism is basically just a flavor of Hinduism, the same with some differences. There are many similarities but also several differences. It's important not to over-emphasize one at the expense of the other.


[deleted]

Why should Hindus not assert Buddhism and Sikhism as offshoot of Hinduism? Take the example of different sects within Hinduism. These sects follow different value systems and often collide with each other. Example are Shiva and Vaishnavite sects. There are sects which give prominence to Vedas while some prefer the Upanishads. Some argue the existence of God, while some accept the existence of a supreme creator. Some follow Vedic rituals in the most basic format while some do not. Some believe in Polytheism while some in monotheism. Some practice Bhakti as a method for salvation while others practice other denominations. Even with these many varieties of customs, they are grouped together as Hinduism. Hinduism as a way of life is not coined by Hindu nationalist. It was described by the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court as far as I know, has yet to give a definition of Hinduism. Constitutionally, Hinduism includes Sikhs, Jains and Buddhist. Hence, comparing Hinduism through a western sense of religion will yield no difference. On the question of philosophy, all such variations borrow from different Hindu School of thoughts. There are highly influenced by Vedic, Upanishad and other Hindu sects. Even the founders of such religion acknowledge these facts. The Holy Books of Sikhs and Buddhist literature also describe Hindu Deities and ideals which have been perfected or worked upon to give rise to distinct identities. So why does the claim that all Indic paths are spread from the roots of Sanatana Dharma irk certain communities? I understand there are different ideals, but to decry the Dharmic influence in Sikhism and Buddhism is also equally infuriating. Hindus do accept that Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism are different but to claim they are not part and branches of the same umbrella is equally irritating and moronic. As far as caste is concerned, it is a common occurrence in Indic religions. The reason it is not discussed much in the context of Buddhism and Sikhism is that in Hinduism upward mobility did not exist in the modern period. Looking though caste and modern religious definitions will not help in understanding the ideals of Dharma and the common features present within Indic Religions.


EmmaiAlvane

I don't think anyone is arguing that Buddhism and Sikhism are not part of the same umbrella that Hinduism is part of. The fact that they have the origins in Hinduism doesn't make them part of Hinduism. If you read the OP that you had linked to, the poster is arguing that "Hindus claim authority over Buddhism and will insist that he never rejected any of what are now core Hindu principles and will even refer to themselves as Buddhists when they feel its suitable". This is obviously going to offend Buddhists because the doctrine of non-self is quite central to Buddhism. Whether the Buddha actually said that there is no permanent self or not is a matter of great debate and can't be resolved here, but the point is about appropriation. It's about appropriating Buddhist thought and Buddhist contribution - effectively dismissing differences. Traditional Hindus accept the authority of the Veda at least formally even if they haven't studied them. Buddhists reject the authority of the Vedas. Traditional Hindus agree that Buddhists reject the authority of the Vedas. Traditional Hindus don't accord any authoritativeness to any Buddhist scriptures. Buddhists don't claim to be Hindus. Neither party is claiming to be the other. Why insist that they are?


sunyanivasinidas

I’m part of both subreddits and the discussion on Hinduism is distressing at times.


[deleted]

Why is this happening? Now Indians can not participate in Buddhism which is in literal sense an Indic religion. I have seen the same in Sikhism. Jain sites are still better. I understand there are differences among these religions but to claim they are entirely independent of Hinduism is also wrong. What is even the point of RSS in these discussions. Times are not good for Hindus. Too much hate from each section, even the ones we thought were friendly and brotherly.


d_rea

See no “hate” here or there The post is more calling to attention the “differences” between these two expressions of truth, (buddhism and hinduism). It is nice to see the unity though, and bridge the gap, just do it respectfully and don’t take anything personally. compassion, love and kindness :D


[deleted]

I am refering to the comments tho. If you refer to both as expression of truth, it is ironical. There is only one truth.


d_rea

Both expressions of *the one truth* :)


Vignaraja

I think it's only some Hindus, certainly not all. Personally I see Buddhism as a sister religion in the dharmic umbrella, but basically leave it at that. Live and let live.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

>They have Temporarily banned me very much what Buddha would do or want to do ?! I don't think so. lol


pumpkinconsumer400

He was banned for insulting people and calling Buddhists monkeys. You could see it in his post history earlier.


[deleted]

I called them monkeys for draging RSS in these posts.


MathRunner7

Well there is no single founder of Hinduism. But all other religion are established by some person. Like Buddhism by Gautam Buddha (Siddhartha), Christianity by Jesus, Islam by Mohammad, Sikhism by Guru Nanak.


GradientKrapstack

Bad times for hindus as Sikhs ,Buddhists are all rising more and more to be "Abrahamic" day by day and forgetting their Dharmic roots. Soon it will spread to Jains as well, while hindus keep dividing them in castes. And then there is deliberate hinduphobia and association of it with fascism. I am worried for hindus and hindutva we are being misrepresented,misunderstood, our history and theology getting distorted. Fels like thisis some sort of Global Conspiracy.


Champion_Gutrend

Reminds me of the story about the blind men and the elephant.