Introduction
The excellent Jaffna (indirectly) inspired this post: don’t ask me how.
The purpose of this post is both self-education as well as an examination of one of the biggest myths: that Buddhism was (is?) a revolt against Vedanta. I shall try to show that Buddha’s teachings are no different from Vedantic teachings. The difference if any, lies in the medium not Buddha’s message itself. I shall essay this over the course of a few posts. My primary source is from the preface of a (yet-to-be-published) Kannada work on Buddha as well as my own readings on the subject.
History
Buddha is called the Light of Asia for a variety of profound reasons, and he well deserves all the accolades heaped on him although he is beyond them. At the same time his teachings have been mostly misinterpreted based on the need of the hour, which in modern times, have mostly been political. And he as a person has been reduced to a little more than a tool for mass manipulation: the Dalit movement is the most glaring example of this mass manipulation using Buddha. This is worrisome given the growing division within the Hindu society. Gautama Buddha stressed on integration while modern Buddhist champions seem to drive the “Buddha versus the rest of India” message deeper and deeper into people’s minds.
At the root of instilling this wedge lies an irrational dislike of the Vedas. Consider this “accepted fact” of History: the Buddha was a rebel against Brahminical tyranny. This is purely a Marxist construct of history which sees Brahmins as the “oppressing” class and lumps the rest as the “oppressed” class, which has no basis. There might be a grain of truth saying that the Buddha opposed a set of powerful priests who monetarily exploited people. Such a class of people have existed at all times in all societies. But grouping all Brahmins into this class hardly makes sense. Further, it is genuinely suspect that this priestly class could be termed “Brahmins” in the real meaning of the term: if they monetarily exploited others, they automatically fell from Brahminhood, which also means voluntary acceptance of poverty. At the other end, it does egregious injustice to those real Brahmins who contributed immensely to enrich India’s spiritual traditions. Taken to its logical conclusion, Yagnavalkya becomes an oppressor and Buddha, the one who rebelled against him/his teachings.
This will be clear when we examine Buddha’s message in his own words. Gautama Buddha reformulated Vedanta and made it accessible to the common man who couldn’t quite cope with complex philosophical treatises. I shall examine these in detail in the forthcoming posts.
A History of Misinterpretation
I daresay most of those who proclaim Buddha’s “supremacy” (so to speak) over the “Vedas” fall into a few broad categories:
- Those who have read only Buddha’s teachings but not the Vedas
- Those who have read both but have a superficial understanding of the Vedas
- Those who have not read the source material of both and rely mostly on translations
- The rest pursuing whatever agenda they see fit (this is where the selective quoting/misquoting/quoting out of context etc comes in)
Neither is the debate is new. Pitched–scholarly–battles have been fought over hundreds of years between the Buddhists and Vedantins and the victor was usually one whose scholarship/breadth of learning was greater than the vanquished. It is noteworthy that the debate was mostly over the supremacy of one philosophy over the other, not on the philosophy itself. Over the centuries, this debate waned because Islam all but wiped out Buddhism from India–another myth that evil Brahmins forced it out.
Currently, the sudden resurgence of Buddhism is chiefly due to a mixture of its global popularity and (within India) the Dalit movement, which is gaining solid momentum. The latter phenomenon owes a lot of Ambedkar who converted to Buddhism towards the end of his life.
Although a welcome sign, the brand of Buddhism being marshalled is based upon a hatred for Sanatana Dharma–it looks at Sanatana Dharma as its historical oppressor. This hatred again as I stated above, is rooted in the Western and Marxist (mis)interpretation of Sanatana Dharma and the Vedas. Therefore, it needs to be said, unequivocally, that Buddhism is one of the very many nectars that sprung from the fount of Sanatana Dharma. And this need is urgent before the chinks in Indian society give way and rip it apart beyond repair.
And I think a good starting point is to examine both philosophies and see how well they blend with each other.
Tags: History, Indian Philosophy, Indian Politics, Society & Culture
I look forward to the series of posts.
Just so as to give you an inkling of what the moderately read common man (e.g. myself) knows/believes about these things:
1. Buddhism does not accept the authority of the Vedas. This distinguishes it from other “Vedic” schools such as Sankhya, Yoga, Vedanta, etc.
It still adhers to many “vedic” concepts such as karma, reincarnation, etc.
2. Buddhism was pre-dominant throughout South Asia for almost a millenium (around the time of Asoka).
Its wane started with Adi Shankaracharya.
3. The predominance of the brahmin as a spiritual intermediary, and his consequent power over the others, was the reason Buddhism got popular with the common man, which in contrast allowed him to have a direct and personal interface with spirituality.
Adi Shankaracharya, in addition to showing the philosophical supremacy of Vedanta, and bringing together disciples of other schools,
most importantly popularized the Bhakti movement to take care of Brahmanic spiritual intermediary situation.
In particular, he gave spiritual levers back to the hands of the common man which thus reduced the attraction of Buddhism.
With regard to the concentration of spiritual authority in the hands of the Brahmins: while the disaffection of the people in India might have had to do with earlier Vedantic times when they did have a personal handle with spirituality;
it should also be noted that this rebellion for a personal spirituality handle is universal. It was there against Christianity too with the bubbling of various Gnostic sects all of which were squashed ruthlessly by the Church.
Ultimately they could not stop the Reformation and the Protestants from coming about: now in the US, you have many
Christian “denominations” who have their own spirituality handle.
This situation was exactly the case with the pre-shankaracharya period. There were many Indic Schools (incl. Buddhism) that seemed to rebel against the traditional Vedantic school due in main part to peoples’ expression for a personal spirituality.
Adi Shankaracharya gave them just that within the framework of the Vedantic school (with the popularization of the Bhakti path) which resulted in a re-popularization of Vedantism.
Buddhists and followers of the Veda should go along harmoniously. Both have the right to believe in the supremacy of their own respective systems, while respecting the beliefs of others. Trying to disqualify Buddhists, just because they believe in the supremacy of their own system, as the Author of the above article does, is a great shame. So behaving, the Author disqualified him or herself as a credible and serious writer, and should be thoroughly dismissed by any intelligent and peace loving person.
Julio,
It is pretty obvious from your remark that you’ve misunderstood what I’ve written.
>>Trying to disqualify Buddhists, just because they believe in the supremacy of their own system, as the Author of the above article does, is a great shame.
Show me just ONE line of my article which says I disqualify Buddhists. I’m open to debate.
7*6,
You’re bang on all the (interesting) points you’ve raised–that pretty much sums up a lay person’s understanding of Buddha(ism). I hope you’ll find some answers as I my series progresses.
>>Adi Shankaracharya, in addition to showing the philosophical supremacy of Vedanta, and bringing together disciples of other schools…
Actually, Indian philosophy before his advent was scattered in the sense that there was no one unifying thread to hold it together although almost all accepted the authority of the Vedas. Shankara’s finest achievement was giving to the world Advaita, which is also what the Upanishads say (e.g. Brihadaraynaka, Chandogya, Katha etc). It was also the clearest expression that nothing was sacrosanct or exclusive to the Vedas: the concept of paapa (not the Christian “sin”) was but another face of punya.
>>In particular, he gave spiritual levers back to the hands of the common man which thus reduced the attraction of Buddhism.
Agree on the first but not the second remark on Buddhism. What destroyed Buddhism was excessive sectarianism and their utter unpreparedness to face Islamic barbarians. Admittedly Shankara defeated them thru philosophical arguments but taking that as the sole reason for Buddhism’s erasure is oversimplification, even a half-truth. It is not as if majority of the Buddhists “reconverted” to Sanatana Dharma (conversion doesn’t exist in SD, right?) or that they just mass-migrated from India. The rot had set within and Islamic barbarism wiped them out physically.
Because I’m pressed for time now, I shall answer your other point later.
Thanks
Sandeep
Hinduism and Buddhism share the intellectual concepts of dharma, karma, samsara, moksha and dhyana. The philosophic premise was the same. This can be compared to the link between Judaism and Christianity that shared the bedrock of the Old Testament.
Buddhism disappeared from India because, unlike Hinduism, it was not rooted in peasant society. It was largely mercantile in inspiration. The religion was based on monasticism. The advent of Islam destroyed the monastic institutions and the religion died with that. Conversely, Buddhism was rooted in peasant society in Sri Lanka, Burma and Tibet.
Ambedkar’s understanding of Buddhism was flawed to begin with. The neo-Buddhist movement is a movement of social protest but to claim that it represents the philosophy of Buddhism is incorrect.
Let me quote from the Buddha direct:
“Him I call indeed a Brahmin whose knowledge is deep, who possesses wisdom, who knows the right way and the wrong, and has attained the highest end”.
“Him I call indeed a Brahmin who without hurting any creatures, whether feeble or strong, does not kill not cause slaughter”.
Dhammapada verses 403 and 405.
“Cattle are our friends, just like parents and other relatives, for cultivation depends upon them. They give food, strength, freshness of complexion and happiness. Knowing this, Brahmins of old did not kill cattle “.
Gotama the Buddha (Suttna-nipata, 295-6).
Jaffna,
Insightful comments as always. But I have one small issue with this:
>>The neo-Buddhist movement is a movement of social protest but to claim that it represents the philosophy of Buddhism is incorrect.
Agree. However, my issue is with the so-called champions of neo-Buddhism in whose hands–as I said–Buddha has merely become a tool. It’s foolhardy to say this movement has anything to do with Buddhist–or any other–philosophy! I’ve attended some of these meetings out of curiosity and the only “philosophy” they talk about is non-violence and peace and avoidance of war at any cost.
Sandeep,
I have clearly understood what you wrote, but obviously you are unable to understand the import of your own words.
The meaning of the four “broad categories”, under which you wanted to subsume those who proclaim Buddha’s supremacy over the Veda, is that they are either ignoramuses or dishonest.
In other words, instead of showing why you believe that Buddha is not supreme over the Veda, which is itself a legitimate opinion, you resorted to the easy method of trying to disqualify those who oppose such opinion.
This is a classical case of ad hominem fallacy: those who uphold the opinion you oppose are wrong, because they lack authoritativeness, either on account of their lack of knowledge or of their lack of honesty.
Your own lack of seriousness in making your point, concretely shown as above, does not itself detract from your opinion about the status of Buddha’s teachings (which would an ad hominem fallacy), but does detract from your worth as a debating partner.
In other words, whether or not Buddha’s teachings are supreme over the Veda, the fact remains that, for as long as you do not change your attitude, you qualify merely as a cheap anti-Buddhist propagandizer.
Sandeep, you wrote:
“Shankara’s finest achievement was giving to the world Advaita, which is also what the Upanishads say (e.g. Brihadaraynaka, Chandogya, Katha etc).”
This may be your own opinion, but projecting it as a settled fact does no good to your credibility. Are not Ramanuja and Madhva vedantins? Shankara’s is not the final word on vedanta. And if someone claims to know “what the upanishads say”, then I think he should have studied the commentaries on those by at least the 3 major schools of vedanta. Have you done that?
You also wrote:
“It was also the clearest expression that nothing was sacrosanct or exclusive to the Vedas: the concept of paapa (not the Christian “sin”) was but another face of punya.”
Can you please provide more details? Where has Shankara (or any other vedantin) said this?
> [Jaffna:]
> This can be compared to the link between
> Judaism and Christianity that shared the
> bedrock of the Old Testament.
Please point to one Vedic scripture accepted as authoritative by Buddhists, as the Old Testament is accepted as authoritative by Christians. Maybe the Kamasutra.
The mere fact that words such as dharma, karma, samsara, moksha, and dhyana are found in both Vedic and Buddhist scriptures does not show that the “philosophal premise” of both systems is the same, as the meaning and the implications of such words is not necessarily the same. At best it shows a commonality of vocabulary.
> [Jaffna, quoting the Buddha:]
> “Him I call indeed a Brahmin whose
> knowledge is deep, who possesses wisdom,
> who knows the right way and the wrong,
> and has attained the highest end”.
Far from showing that the Buddha accepted the Veda as authoritative, this and similar sentences ascribed to the Buddha merely show his own defintion of a term also used by the followers of the Veda.
Actually, the mere fact that the Buddha found it necessary to give his own definition to the term “Brahmin” shows that it differs from the definition given to it by the followers of the Veda, and thus that Buddhism is everything but rooted in the Veda.
Krishna,
>>And if someone claims to know “what the upanishads say”, then I think he should have studied the commentaries on those by at least the 3 major schools of vedanta. Have you done that?
I have done that, and that’s what makes me state this. Does that answer you? And now it’s my turn to ask you a question…make that two.
>>Shankara’s is not the final word on vedanta.
1. What makes you say that?
2. By your own logic, you should’ve studied Shankara’s commentaries. Have you done that?
Followers of the Veda have all the rights to believe themselves that Buddhism is an offshot of the Vedic teachings, no matter how objectionable this opinion may be.
However, if they want to go along with Buddhists, they should respect the latter’s opinion that Buddhism is not an offshot of the Vedic teachings.
Trying to characterize Buddhist as “Sanatana-Dharma haters”, just because they refuse to acknowledge that alleged affiliation, is an attempt to impose on Buddhists, through demonization, a view they reject.
Such a mistaken attitude, engaged upon by immature people such as the writer of the article above, confirms exactly the point he wanted to disprove, that followers of the Veda have been historical oppressors of Buddhism.
Buddhists and followers of the Veda should go along harmoniously, respecting each other’s disagreeing beliefs, as their unity is essential as a powerful dike countering the flood of barbaric abrahamic systems, the source of so much disgrace to humankind.
Sandeep,
I see that you have chosen to reply to only a part of my reply. In case what I said was not clear , let me rephrase. Saying ‘vedanta’ when you mean ‘advaita’ is like saying ‘christianity’ when you mean ‘catholicism’. It is in that sense that I said “Shankara’s is not the final word on vedanta”. I have no issue with your conviction that advaita gives the correct purport of upanishads. My issue is with stating that as a settled fact. I’d similarly disagree if someone uses ‘vishishtadvaita’/'dvaita’ and ‘vedanta’ interchangeably.
Krishna,
Nope, I replied entirely. Ok, just for the sake of it, here goes:
>>Saying ‘vedanta’ when you mean ‘advaita’ is like saying ‘christianity’ when you mean ‘catholicism’
Pray tell me where did I say this? My original statement is here:
>>“Shankara’s finest achievement was giving to the world Advaita, which is also what the Upanishads say (e.g. Brihadaraynaka, Chandogya, Katha etc).”
Please re-read this. I merely said the Upanishads propound Advaita. To you it might be V.Advaita or Dwaita, good for you, whatever works for you. Viewed in this light, your analogy to Christianity/Cath. doesn’t seem logical as I never meant that. Again, when you say
>>“Shankara’s is not the final word on vedanta”.
the burden of proof falls upon you to substantiate it.
Nor do I intend to go into the “dvaita vs advaita vs v.advaita” debate.
Julio,
Come on. I think that you are being defensive and overly aggressive which might indicate a lack of intellectual confidence in the views you hold.
Of course, the Buddha gave his own interpretation to the phrase “Brahmin”. The point I intended to make was that Hinduism and Buddhism shared conceptual paradigms much like Judaism and Christianity did. Gotama the Buddha borrowed and might have well redefined earlier concepts such as Dharma, Karma, Samsara, Moksha, Dhyana, Siddhi, Kalpa, Rishi etc. You dismiss this a mere common vocabulary. But the shared vocabulary in itself indicated a shared conceptual inheritance despite the differences in interpretation.
I would similarly explain the conceptual differences between Hinayana or Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism was likewise.
Judaism and Christianity shared the Old Testament but give very different interpretations to the text. Likewise with the Hindu concepts that the Buddha borrowed.
The two religions are sister Indic religions. No where did I mention that the Buddha was a Vedantist or that his philosophy was an offshoot of the Vedas. Please do not place words in my mouth.
But the shared Indic links between Vedanta and Buddhism can not be denied.
Buddhists worship Hindu deities in Burma, Cambodia, Sri Lanka and Thailand. They visit Hindu temples in Nepal and Sri Lanka. They share the same calendar. The marriage and funeral customs are alike. To argue that parallels do not exist is downright blinkered.
Best regards
Julio,
Let me add another point. Hinduism and Buddhism share a near identical cosmology and conceptual framework of time. Both religions assert that existence is cyclical and that the universe expands and contracts periodically in long aeons of time known as the kalpa of which the yuga is just one segment. The two traditions share the same concepts of multiple heavens and hells where “beings” transmigrate in keeping with their karma or moral actions committed. The concept of rebirth is a natural colloray. To argue that this is a mere shared vocabulary is downright intellectually dishonest.
Best regards
As a Buddhist, I don’t think the Brahmins are opressive, but the caste system is. What else can we call a system that has a large class of people who are literally “untouchable” (even if they aren’t called that anymore)? These “Dalits” are even sometimes murdered for trying to go places that are forbidden to them–even in modern times. Check on the web. You’ll find reports in the Indian English press about it. See http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Dalit-tribal/2004/obanna.htm (”Brutal murder of a dalit leader, Birusanti Obanna in Andhra Pradesh”). There are also other forms of discrimination as well. See http://www.dalithumanrights.com/archives.php?time=1139208900 (”If you are a Dalit, you can’t hoist the national flag in Nasik”). Despite laws banning caste discrimination, it clearly still exists. The Buddha, being anti-caste, clearly was against this aspect of the Vedic tradition. He also allowed women into his order, and women at that time were little more than property. So while I don’t believe Brahmins are evil, the caste system and other forms of discrimination clearly are.
Rinchen,
I share your pro-Dalit and pro-women activism. India’s treatment of the 15% of its population that is scheduled caste or Dalit leaves little to be desired.
But let me disagree with you on the Buddhist legacy therein.
There is caste in Sinhalese Buddhism. The institution of untouchability existed amongst the Sinhalese. Only the highest Sinhalese caste i.e. the Govigama - could enter the Buddhist monastic order. This forced those lower in the social ladder i.e. the Karava, Salagama and Durava to travel to Burma to get their ordination.
The institution of untouchability existed in pre-modern Japan and Korea as well. The only way this institution could have traveled to both countries was through the medium of Buddhism.
Hinduism traveled to Cambodia, Indonesia, and Malaya but not to Japan and Korea.
Many of the Pali texts, the Jatakas included, were patriachal in attitude and had a distinctively patronizing view of women. I exclude the Therigatha, a remarkable text from a feminist perspective, from this.
I would argue that untouchability did not exist in the Vedic tradition. It grew in the subsequent Sanskrit ritualistic and legal texts i.e. the Brahmanas and the Dharma Shastras.
The institution of serfdom in Tibetan Buddhism where serfs were literally enslaved labor to Buddhist monastic institutions or lamaseries was similarly appalling. While China’s annexation of Tibet was clearly incorrect, it attempted to legitimize its action by reference to the widespread opprssion of the serfs and lower classes in Tibetan Buddhism.
Best regards
thanks for sharing
Hello all,
After reading all the above, I wonder why the Buddhists often get so aggressive about the separation of Buddhism and Hinduism. Just because a scripture does not mention Vedas as an authority, does not indicate that its source is not Vedic.
Similarly Sects and Paths that often distinguish themselves in terms of their doctrines do not necessarily indicate that they hold a complete alien view of each other. For example, even within Buddhism there exist Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism which distinguish among themselves. Does this mean they form different Religions ?
The Sects and Paths are essentially complementary to each other and only a fool can assume that a path that has come later in time not to be influenced by a Sect or a Path earlier in time and age to it. Even if Buddhism did not accept the Vedas, the Buddha has said, “Desire is the root cause of all Suffering”. All Vedic texts have concluded the same. “Desire” is one the six enemies of man mentioned in the Vedic scriptures. So I do not see how he has differed from the Vedic teachings in any way. Dont you even see that Meditation was a part of every asectic’s life even before Buddhism adopted it ? He did not consider Vedas as the absolute authority, but even Tantric Scriptures refuse to accept Vedas as “Absolute”. Does that mean Tantrics are not Hindus ? Sanatan Dharma the Eternal Righteousness does not limit itself to narrow-minded terms and descriptions like “Vedic”/”Non-Vedic”, “Hinduism” “Buddhism” etc. The Dharma is eternally Spiritual and all Sects are mutually complementary to each other. To Buddhist Spirituality, definitely Vedic Spirituality is the mother and there is no harm in accepting this fact, which is diffilcult to digest for many Buddhists who are far from being true Buddhists themselves. Just because of personel Ego for one’s Sect and narrow minded ignorance, one should not transgress the very teachings of one’s ideal like the Dalit Buddhists, who transgress the beautiful teachings of Buddha by harboring Brahmin hatred and aggressively claiming their distinction !
[...] That brings us to conversions to Buddhism. Buddhism isn’t imperalisitic by any stretch of imagination; as I wrote earlier, it is an offshoot of Vedanta. However, the following partly explain the reason behind the sudden spurt of Dalit conversions to Buddhism: [...]
[...] A cursory reading of Buddha’s life and teachings reveals that Buddhism is simply Vedanta in a different garb and language (see my posts on Buddha and Vedanta). Contrary to what scholars like Amartya Sen and others claim, Buddhism was not a “revolt” against the caste system. The Buddha never sought to eradicate the caste system as a functioning social order. He merely opposed the priestly Brahmins who had grown degenerate because they had deviated from the spiritual foundation of rituals. This is significantly different from the Brahmins who acted as the spiritual guides of Indian society in his time. Gautama Buddha’s “revolt” was against evil men of a specific caste rather than the caste system as a whole. This makes sense logically because the Buddha wouldn’t borrow Vedic concepts, ideas and philosophy if he opposed the Brahmins who upheld, preached and practised them. [...]
Buddhism is about Pratityasamutpada or the Chain of Dependent Origination. This subject has to be studied as well as meditated upon. You cannot understand Buddhism unless you understand Pratityasamutpada. Concerning the caste system, it has been adandoned by all Indo-European speaking nations with the exception of those of Northern India. Anthropologists tell us that when a culture is scattered one at least of the nations of this culture elaborate one or other cultural aspect that the others have abandoned. The caste system has no place in the modern world. India is long past its “sell by” date and castism needs to be taken off the shelf.