Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!data.nas.nasa.gov!news From: chee1a1@jetson.uh.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Buddhism and Brahminism Message-ID: <1991Jan1.001942.8566@nas.nasa.gov> Date: 1 Jan 91 00:19:42 GMT Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov Organization: University of Houston Lines: 178 Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov Rames Sitaraman writes: >Suppose I were to give you the 9 or so philsophical schools of India, >including Vedanta and Buddhism, WITHOUT the surrounding cultural >baggage and the assumptions that people, especially westerners, seem >to make. A classification based only on the philosphical standpoint >would be very very different from classifications such as "Hindu", >"Buddhist", "Brahminical" etc etc, which in fact have no historical >precedence in India itself ! >A broad classification by doctrine would see a continous stream of >thought starting at the upanishads (the metaphysical portions of the >Vedas) flowing through Buddhist teachers like Buddha and Nagarjuna >and to Vedantic ("Hindu") teachers like Sankara and Ramanuja. Your statement is quite general and vague yet your claim seems to be strong. According to this view of Buddhist teachings, buddha did not attained enlightenment by himself, rather studied upanishads, vedas etc. and taught a new version of upanishads. Where did the four noble truths, eightfold path, various analytical teachings of mind, three signs (impermanence etc. ) come from? According to buddhist practice they really cannot be understood by learning books only, but to be realised by oneself ("Foundations of mindfullness", experiences of other buddshits recorded etc.) >Many scholars would agree that the teachings of the Buddha can be >thought of as logical extensions of the Upanishads. To give a couple I am sure no buddhist 'scholar' who is a practicing buddhist (this does not mean a particular culture, but principally) will agree with this. If you were to arrive at a strong conclusion as you mentioned earlier, you have to understand very well the version of practicing buddhists and mere statements are not enough. >Many scholars would agree that the teachings of the Buddha can be >thought of as logical extensions of the Upanishads. To give a couple >of quick examples, consider Mayavada (the world as illusory) of the >Buddha. Or the "not this, not this" (neti neti) argument of Nagarjuna. >Or the conversation between Milinda and Nagasena (Milindapanha). >All of these analyses and concepts can be seen in the upanishads (1300 BC) >and could infact have been written by later day Vedantic teachers !! I've read in a book an explanation, where someone was saying the Jesus's life story has a gap of several years becasue he was in India, and he was practicing "Hindu" meditation methods etc. Some even say the word Christ is a derivation from the word Krishna. Ramesh, I do not know how you feel being born to a country which could boast about thousands of years or may be millions of years of history and civilisations. So for Ramesh (I think an Indian) it is a great thing to see Buddha also as a Hindu or part of that indian civilization, or buddhism as an extension of the indian civilization. I do not mean to hurt your pride in anyway. Before getting into the big picture, I have a doubt about a specific as you wrote in the following: >Or the conversation between Milinda and Nagasena (Milindapanha). >All of these analyses and concepts can be seen in the upanishads (1300 BC) >and could infact have been written by later day Vedantic teachers !! Which conversation between Milinda and Nagasena are you refering to here? Milindapanha contains more than one conversation on buddhist teachings. Milindapanha I am refering to records conversations between an Indian king (Milinda of Greek origin?) and a buddhist bhikkhu - an arahant or enlightened monk who was born to a brahmin family before he became a buddhist and an enlightened person. Which was studied and preserved by buddhist teachers and later written in black and white. Going back to the overall idea, the attempts to prove that Buddhism is part of other religions or the attempts to show Buddhism is something revealed by a God is nothing new. Therefore, Ramesh's writing was not a suprise. For example, as I remember, earlier someone had to describe why there is no concept of Maya taught in buddhist teachings (which Ramesh was trying to show again as an example of Buddhism being a logical extension of Upanishads). Upanishads, Vedas were written long time ago and they contain great philosophical concepts. But I seriously doubt that there is any need to say buddhism as a logical extension of these. As I know ancient Vedas were written by Irshis. But a person who had learnt vedas, who later heard,or learnt and practiced buddhism realised enlightenment by practice, by development of concentration and insight. Therefore, isn't it better to look at them as they are rather than trying to make vedas as everything as Jainism, Buddhism and modern sciences etc. I think that way we could do better justice to the Vedas. It is true Vedas contain a wealth of information including advices, medicine - in ayurveda etc. I am sure specially to the ancient Indians it was something very valuable which dealt with every aspect of their lives. In a way like modern science is effecting every aspect of our today's lives. If a person wants to show greatness of Vedas or Upanishads, why not show it directly without trying to associate with other things. While trying to blur the buddhist thinking why try to insult the Vedas which stood alone for several thousands of years or more. If one were to say B is logical extension of A then, A and B cannot have contradictory things. On the other hand, if we were to say A is a universal set and B is a subset of A then all the things inside B has to be in A too. As I remember, David, in his earlier postings, showed the differences between Buddhism and Brahminism etc.(which is sufficient to show that buddhist teachings are not logical extension of the other but rather contain contradictory things ), which I do not need to elaborate again. A final note, Buddhist teachings are not a way of faith (bhakthi marga) it is a way of wisdom, to be followed by developing wisdom (which comes through development of virtues, concentration and insight). It is not a mere philosophy (some people use the word philosophy to set it apart from religions which believe in a God, I am sure these were not meant to say it is a philosophy only). Therefore, to arrive at conclusions about buddhist teachings one has to think about them, understand them and practice them to gain wisdom (mere reading buddhist teachings while holding other beliefs or trying to believe in something is not sufficient). Buddhism has this freedom to come and investigate (ehi passika - or come and see). Actually, faith is not part of buddhist practice. (faith is defined as - unquestioning belief , while for a practicing buddhist questioning, reasoning, and investigation plays a major part in understanding. There is a mental quality called "shraddha" which is often translated as faith in english buddhist writings, which is not the same as faith or unquestioning belief as defined in dictionary and other religions. Actually this term faith could be a topic of another discussion; therefore, I will not go into further details here) From this sense also buddhism, not being a bhakti marga, stands apart from the Hindu practices. Going back to one of Ramesh's earlier postings he wrote: > I have seen it in a purely non-buddhist setting. Enlightenment >through insight and discrimination (viveka) is also a common >theme in Vedanta. Meditating on a koan or profound statement What is this Enlightenment, insight and discrimination (viveka) you have mentioned? Regarding the enlightenment, the term nirvana was used generally at the time of the Buddha, because that was saught by several other teachers as the goal. For example, before attaining enlightenment while seeking solution to the problem of unsatisfactoriness, bodhistva Siddharta went to several teachers who were practicing methods of concentration which led to different states of mind ,which those teachers thought as Nirvana or their ultimate goal, which Siddharata did not accept as his goal. Therefore, trying to equate things because the words used for them are the same is quite *misleading and dangerous*. Could you please elaborate on or define these terms (enlightenment, insight, discrimination(viveka) and middle path - as I remember you earlier refered to middle path as mentioned in Gita)? Greater understanding, harmony and peace can be achieved between different religious systems if they are understood properly, by their distinct characteristic and not by mere beliefs. Because mere comparisons, beleifs, biases etc. gives way to more misunderstandings and conflicts if not guided by the basic principles of non-greed, non-hate and non-delusion. Buddhist teachings are not even something to be grasped as "mine" or "belonging to me" or "belonging to a person or authority" how could you attach it to Upanishads to make it an extension of Vedanta? Bandula "Sacred knowledge in the hands of fools destroys" - The Upanishads. In buddhist teachings "sacred knowledge" is the realisation, which has to be gained by developing wisdom. Therefore a fool cannot do it. "By looking at the past lives, in previous births I was born in different forms of births, experienced every pleasures and pains to be experienced" - buddha "The builder of this house,ignorance, is discovered. The main rafter, desire or thanha, is broken. Build this house no more" - buddha