Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!data.nas.nasa.gov!news
From: david@star2.cm.utexas.edu (David Sigeti)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Buddhism and Brahminism
Message-ID: <1990Dec31.003738.13819@nas.nasa.gov>
Date: 31 Dec 90 00:37:38 GMT
References: <1990Dec18.004932.9293@nas.nasa.gov>
	<1990Dec19.010154.7728@nas.nasa.gov>
	<1990Dec20.032046.8221@nas.nasa.gov> <5656@rossignol.Princeton.EDU>
Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,soc.religion.eastern
Organization: University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 274
Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov


In article <5656@rossignol.Princeton.EDU> 
rks@cs.Princeton.EDU (Ramesh Sitaraman) writes:

   While I do agree with David that there are some differences
   between Buddhism and certain forms of "Hinduism", I must
   correct many errors which consistently keep propping up due to
   a gross western misunderstanding of Indian history. Many of
   these blunders have to do with completely mixing up Indian
   societal practices (castes, marriage rites etc) with Indian
   religion. Some of this is due to the fact that India has had
   NO CONCEPT OF ORGANISED RELIGION. So it has been habitual to
   clump all practices social and religous of Indians as
   "Hinduism" (the word itself is foreign), unless it has better
   names (like Buddhism).

I am sure that Ramesh is better informed than I am about the
doctrine and practice of Brahmanical religion and about Indian
social practices so I look forward to learning from him on these
topics.  I ask several specific questions in my comments below.
I *do* know a fair bit about Buddhism and especially about the
practice of Buddhist meditation, so I think that I will have
something to contribute to the discussion.

Before I get started with Ramesh's points, however, I have a
couple of gripes.  The first concerns Ramesh's repeated use of
the word "Hindu" in quotation marks.  In fact, I used the term
only twice in my posting.  I did not use it until I felt that I
had established pretty clearly what I was talking about and that
was in the paragraph where I acknowledged (but did not enumerate)
the good points in the "Hindu" tradition.

I really don't think that I am a terribly hostile or ignorant
critic of Indian religion or society.  As I said above, I am sure
that Ramesh knows more about Brahmanical religion and Indian
social practices than I do but, as educated Westerners go, I
really think that I am pretty well informed.  After all, I do
practice an Indian form of meditation and espouse (at least in
part) an Indian philosophy/religion.  I have also had a lot of
contact with Indian students since coming to graduate school ten
years ago and have made several good friends.  In particular, one
of my closest friends, a real intellectual soul-mate, is a
(non-believing) Brahmin who returned to Bombay to teach a few
years ago.  I really don't think that Ramesh has any right to
presume that I am ignorant (or hostile) without some more
evidence than was found in my posting.

My second gripe is that Ramesh, in his criticism of my posting,
has rather carefully avoided most of my "meatiest" points.  In
particular, he has avoided most of the points where I wrote about
how Buddhism is different from Brahminism *in practice*.  Thus,
Ramesh responds to my description of the Buddha's theoretical
rejection of the superiority of the Brahmins but not to my point
that the Buddha rejected the *practices* of caste purity and the
Brahminical rituals of purification, and that he sought to
replace caste based morality with a "universalist" morality.  A
theoretical rejection of caste superiority wouldn't have meant
much if it hadn't come down to some important differences in
practice.  Similarly, Ramesh responds to my point on the Buddha's
rejection of the Brahminical doctrine of the Atman, but not to my
point about the differences in meditative practices that followed
from this.  I discuss both these points at greater length below.

That's about as hostile as this posting is going to get so y'all
can relax now.  On to Ramesh's comments.

   In article <1990Dec20.032046.8221@nas.nasa.gov> 
   david@star2.cm.utexas.edu (David Sigeti) writes:

   >1. Buddhism is not Vedantism, that is, Buddhists do not accept
   >   the authority of the Vedas. ...

   ... Sankya the popular atheistic orthodox school is very very
   different from Vedic philosophy and disagrees with it on every
   major point. However they do accept in principle Vedic
   revelations purely due to tradition. On the other hand,
   Buddhism (along with Vedanta an orthodox school) is very very
   close to Upanishadic (the final philosphical portion of the
   Vedas) philosophy and is most certainly a logical extension of
   these ideas.

Since I don't know much in detail about the "orthodox" schools, I
just have a couple of questions here.  Can you give a brief
outline of the Sankya school and how it differs from Vedic
philosophy?  Can you explain in some detail how Buddhism is "very
very close" to the Upanishadic philosophy?  I often hear this
latter notion bandied about quite loosely, usually by people who
are pretty ignorant of Buddhism (and probably of the Upanishads
too, for all I know).  Since I get the impression that you
actually *do* know a fair bit about the "orthodox" schools, we
might have an interesting and educational exchange here.

   >2. The Buddha decisively rejected the caste system.  He was
   >   particularly vehement in opposing the notion that the
   >   Brahmins were fundamentally superior to members of other
   >   castes.

   Let me note first that the caste system is basically a social
   Indian tradition and does not play any key role in a purely
   religous sense in either "Hinduism" or Buddhism. The caste system
   in India did not spare people of *any* religous beliefs.
   Buddhists in India had the caste system too which existed in
   India for social, feudal and other reasons. How else will you
   explain the term Brahmin-buddhist (famous philosphers like
   Nagarjuna and Buddhagosha were Brahmins and the conversion of
   Brahmins to buddhism is historically significant as it led to the
   use of the Brahminic langauge of Sanskrit in Sutras at the later
   period and also made the metaphysics more complex.)

   Of course there are many religous apologists for existing social
   traditions. And Hinduism is no exception. But then there are
   apolgist for caste in heterodox schools in India as well eg, in
   Jainism. One may also be interested in knowing that christians in
   India today have caste too !!

Here, I think that Ramesh has some good points (and one bad one).
As for the bad one -- observance of the rules of caste purity and
rituals of purification related to the rules play a major role in
almost all the forms of Brahminical religion of which I am aware.
The major exceptions are (tradionally) many of the "orthodox"
ascetical schools and (recently) Gandhism.  Please correct me if
I am wrong.

Ramesh's good points are connected with the fact that the Indian
caste system is (at least) two different things.  On one level,
it is the basic form of organization of Indian society.  Here,
the fundamental units are not "castes" but "sub-castes" or even
"sub-sub-castes".  The sub-castes are the basic endogamous units
of Indian society -- usually based at least partially on
occupation but really much more than occupational groupings.
Sub-castes are often partially or even largely self-governing.
Their members share a common language, religious rituals,
marriage customs, etc.  And, of course, people traditionally
married within the sub-caste.  In this sense, the sub-castes are
basically *tribes* and it might be sensible to say that Indian
society is a unique example of the maintainence of a tribal form
of organization in a great civilization.

To the best of my knowledge, the Buddha never rejected this basic
form of social organization.  On this level, his criticism of the
caste system took the form of a rejection of the practice of
caste purity (especially the practice of separation from
"unclean" individuals and groups) and of the espousing of a
morality that was "universal" both in the sense that it was taken
to be incumbent on all human beings, independent of caste, and in
the sense that one's basic moral obligations to other people were
not fundamentally dependent on the others' caste.

The other aspect of the "caste system" is the organization and
hierarchical ranking of the sub-castes into the classical
"castes" -- Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, etc.  Here, the Buddha
was much more critical, especially of the hierarchical ranking.

All this explains how there could be "Buddhist Brahmins".  These
individuals remained members of their sub-castes -- which
happened to be included in the Brahmin "caste" -- to the same
degree that they remained members of their families.  I don't
know how many of the characteristic practices of their sub-castes
that people like Nagarjuna and Buddhagosa retained.  I doubt that
they changed their bathroom habits, for example.  In any case, an
acceptance of the sub-castes on this level has little to do with
an acceptance of the "caste system".

In practice, Buddists made all sorts of compromises with the
caste system although its force tended to be substantially
moderated in many areas that were mostly Buddhist.  For example,
the Sinhalese in Sri Lanka have a caste system but it is
moderated by the fact that the highest caste includes the
majority of the population.

   >4. The Buddha rejected all sorts of extreme ascetical practices
   >   that were pretty much the stock in trade of the Brahmanical
   >   ascetics.  This is, of course, the famous doctrine of the
   >   middle way.

   Well, again so does the Bhagavad Gita which you would consider a
   "Hindu" text !!! In fact, this is among the most important
   messages of the Gita. It is fallacious to think of the Buddha as
   revolting against "Hinduism" (whatever that means). This is
   essentially a western bias, perhaps with analogies to Middle east
   traditions. The accurate picture is that Buddha reformed some
   Indian practices of the time.  And was in fact in great agreement
   with many others. Not very different in this respect from other
   "Hindu" reformers of India like Sankara and Ramakrishna.

I would be interested in seeing the relevant quotes from the
Gita or some references if the former is too much trouble.  I
don't know anything about Sankara or Ramakrishna (or any other
"orthodox" reformers before Gandhi) and would be interested in
any information that you have the time to impart.

As to the question of the "reformism" of the Buddha, it is
certainly true that the Buddha's approach was strategically,
tactically, and tempermentally "reformist" rather than
"revolutionary".  On the other hand -- as I wrote in my original
posting and as Ramesh has not really contradicted -- the Buddha
rejected the the hierarchical ranking of the sub-castes, the
notion of a caste-based morality, the practice of caste purity,
the Brahmanical rituals of purification, critical philosophical
elements of the "orthodox" tradition, and many of the common
practices of the "orthodox" ascetics (see below for more on this
last point).  All this amounts to a pretty thoroughgoing
rejection of the Brahmanical tradition -- not of Indian society
or customs generally but of those elements that are most
specifically associated with Brahmanical authority, doctrine, and
practice.

This is not to say that "orthodox" reformers may not have shared
many of the Buddha's criticisms.  I really don't know anything
about them and am honestly interested in learning more.

   >6. The most distinctive doctrinal feature of Buddhism is almost
   >   certainly its rejection of any notion of the existence of a
   >   "self" or "soul".  This contrasts sharply with the
   >   Brahmanical doctrine of the Atman or "world soul".

   The world soul is the "Brahman". Yes this is certainly a
   difference between Vedanta and Buddhism and there are some
   others. ...  But is also important to remember that two
   "Hindus" following two different "Hindu" schools are bound to
   differ much more than a Vedantic Hindu and a Buddhist.

I really think that the most important section in my "doctrinal"
points was the one on the differences in goals and methods
between "Hindu" and Buddhist meditation.  This is probably the
most concrete embodiment of the philosophical difference over the
existence of a "soul" (really a "self").  I have had several long
discussions with two aquaintainces who were seriously practicing
meditation in a couple of different "Hindu" traditions.  These
discussions definitely reinforced the impression that I had
gotten from reading and my own practice that the two are very
different.  Moreover, the longer I practice, the more I find that
it is precisely those aspects where the two traditions diverge
that seem to come to the fore.  This is certainly the traditional
Buddhist position and it is also more or less in accord with what
I have heard from Buddhist teachers.  Not that they make any
specific mention of other traditions.  It is just that they
emphasize, in discussing what practice means in the long term,
those elements where the two traditions diverge.

Ramesh didn't quote this part of my original post and sites with
a short turn-over time for news may already have deleted it --
mine has -- so I am going to put a little strain on bandwidth and
include it here.  I would appreciate hearing any thoughts that
Ramesh has on this point.

   7. Brahminism and Buddhism also have very different approaches to
      meditation.  Brahminism tends to stress the attainment of very
      deep states of *tranquillity*.  In most Brahmanical traditions,
      such states are believed to lead to (re)union with the Atman.
      Often this is believed to involve the destruction of the "ego",
      the phenomenal/individual self.  In order to achieve these deep
      states, Brahmanical practices usually stress exercises in
      *concentration* which is usually defined (in both Brahminism and
      Buddhism) as "one-pointedness" of mind.
   
      Buddhism is very different.  Here, the point is not the
      attainment of tranquillity (samatha) but the development of
      *insight* (vipassana) into the nature of the mental/physical
      "person".  The essential meditative technique for the
      development of insight is the cultivation of *mindfulness*
      (smrti), not of concentration (samadhi).  (The central Buddhist
      sutra on meditation is entitled "The Setting Up of
      Mindfulness".)  Rather than developing an ever narrower
      concentration on a particular object, material or mental,
      Buddhist meditation involves an open ended attention to mental
      and physical processes as they arise and pass away.  The
      attainment of the ultimate in insight ("awakening") is believed
      to involve a thorough seeing into the "emptiness" of the person.
      In other words, rather than seeking to destroy or subdue the
      "ego", one sees directly that there is no such thing.

--
David Sigeti    david@star2.cm.utexas.edu    cmhl265@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu