Buddha and the Upanishads

[DreadFish]

Don't you hold he was some other kind of trickster or deciever avatar?

Only some Vaishnavas believe that.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

What do others believe? That the Buddha presented a means of Brahman realization?

 

[StarryNightshade]

What do others believe? That the Buddha presented a means of Brahman realization?

From what I gather, some Vaishnavites believe that Buddha came to reform how corrupt Vedic Dharma in his time had become. That it had become too ritualistic for the sake of being ritualistic.

 

[Aupmanyav]

See this has always caused me to wonder if there weren't early followers of the Buddha, who being Hindus (Buddhism as a separate religion didnt exist yet) held his personage to be divine. I wouldn't be surprised.

The early followers of Buddha were Hindus (from all the four classes of the society, brahmins, warriors, traders and shudras). We have been called Hindus for a period much longer than Buddha (it was the Iranian and Central Asian tribes, Aryans and others, who called us so). Yes, Buddhism did not exist as a separate religion till the time it disappeared from India in the 14th Cnetury (the Buddhists merged into Hindus, they were already a minority, acceptance of Buddha as an avatara must have helped). It was a sect, a pantha (way), a mata (opinion). Sikh pantha, Buddhist mata, Jain mata. That is how they were always known as, till around the British times when the wedges were inserted, even between Islam and Hinduism. Prior to that, what belief one followed was never a contentious issue. Muslim rulers employed Hindus in high positions, and Hindu rulers employed Muslims in high positions. Each followed their own traditions and participated in the celebrations of the other.

Don't you hold he was some other kind of trickster or deciever avatar?

Perish the thought. He is my guru. There are hundreds of thousands of Buddhas, Gautamas, Sidharthas, Tathagatas, Amitabhas (including my son) and Rahuls among Hindus. Would not have happened if we considered him to be a trickster.

What do others believe? That the Buddha presented a means of Brahman realization?

Buddha reinforced 'dharma', put the dharma wheel in motion, presented a correct way for living (which is exactly what Hinduism also believes, the noble eight-fold path, we do not differ even an iota with that), control of sorrows, and the way to enlightenment/realization/nirvana.

 

[DreadFish]

From what I gather, some Vaishnavites believe that Buddha came to reform how corrupt Vedic Dharma in his time had become. That it had become too ritualistic for the sake of being ritualistic.

Also to reform animal sacrifice.


Yeah, it's my impression that it's not appropriate to compare Buddhism from 500BC with the Hinduism of today. It's important to note that the other traditions were different then and that Buddha's teachings have really influenced how Hinduism grew to become what it is today.

This is my impression. Anyone is free to correct me if I'm wrong on it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

This is my impression. Anyone is free to correct me if I'm wrong on it.

Sure, no philosophy is an island. Hinduism influenced Buddhism and Buddhism influenced Hinduism. So too, the other beliefs in India.

 

[crossfire]

In the Water Snake Simile, Buddha refers to the (Chandogya?) Upanishad story of Indra and Prajapati searching for Atman in this part of the Water Snake Simile:

"And when the devas, together with Indra, the Brahmas, & Pajapati, search for the monk whose mind is thus released, they cannot find that 'The consciousness of the one truly gone (tathagata) [11] is dependent on this.' Why is that? The one truly gone is untraceable even in the here & now. [12]​

I guess there is also quite a bit of Upanishad phrasing in this sutta, usually in regards to describing those who are falsely accusing Buddha.

 

[crossfire]

This Sutta is said to parallel Samkhya thought:

Mulapariyaya Sutta: The Root Sequence

 

[atanu]

In the Water Snake Simile, Buddha refers to the (Chandogya?) Upanishad story of Indra and Prajapati searching for Atman in this part of the Water Snake Simile:

"And when the devas, together with Indra, the Brahmas, & Pajapati, ............​

Hello.

Does a mention of brahma, indra, and prajapati make the sutta a reference to Chandogya upanishad?

There are Hindu texts, both upanishadic and puranic, where it is mentioned that the earthly and celestial controllers fail to unravel the truth, the Brahman -- the all pervading.​

 

[crossfire]

Hello.

Does a mention of brahma, indra, and prajapati make the sutta a reference to Chandogya upanishad?

There are Hindu texts, both upanishadic and puranic, where it is mentioned that the earthly and celestial controllers fail to unravel the truth, the Brahman -- the all pervading.​

Do you have another suggestion as to what Buddha was referring to when he talked about the "devas, together with Indra, the Brahmas, & Pajapati," searching for the basis of consciousness in the mind of a Monk whose mind has been thus released?

 

[atanu]

Do you have another suggestion as to what Buddha was referring to when he talked about the "devas, together with Indra, the Brahmas, & Pajapati," searching for the basis of consciousness in the mind of a Monk whose mind has been thus released?

In Chandogya up., Prajapati-BrahmA imparts knowledge of Self to Indra (leader of devas) and to Vairochana (leader of demons). Vairochana goes back with the knowldge that self was merely the body that is seen in a reflection. Indra is not satisfied and keeps enquiring till the very end. The passage very precisely distinguishes between two classes of beings: those who take body as the self and those who know seer of the body as the Self. There is no reason, IMO, to link this to the Buddhist sutta.

Regarding your point about an alternate suggestion, I had already stated:

There are Hindu texts, both upanishadic and puranic, where it is mentioned that the earthly and celestial controllers fail to unravel the truth, the Brahman -- the all pervading

.

So, Indra or Prajapati adoring a released monk is not unique for the Buddhist sutta. Such is also found in Hindu texts.

 

[Vishvavajra]

It's fairly accurate to see the Upanishads and Buddhism and Jainism as all coming out of the same general cultural trends in the mid-1st millennium BCE. Some Upanishads appear to predate Buddhism, some came after. You can see in the Upanishads an attempt to reinterpret Vedic thought into something that better suited the increasingly urbanized culture of the day and the philosophical and religious developments that were going on. They mark the beginning of what we might recognizably call "Hindu" thought.

Jainism and Buddhism were originally Shramana movements more or less contemporary to the development of the Upanishads. They were less concerned with reconciling new developments with the Vedic tradition and thus were freer to develop in their own directions. However, they did still exert considerable influence on the development of Hindu thought and practice, and on each other. Early Buddhist texts show this transition, as the cultural milieu and names of gods are mostly Vedic (Indra, et al.), but there are some later mentions of Brahma and other post-Vedic ideas.

Ancient Indians didn't have the same attitude towards religion that modern Westerners or even modern Indians do. The lines between groups weren't so clear or rigid, at least not until well into the Common Era, so it doesn't appear as if the various strands were strictly segregated and probably coexisted happily within the same communities.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram ,

Don't you hold he was some other kind of trickster or deciever avatar?

Only some Vaishnavas believe that.

not so much a deceiver as a pratitioner of skillfull means , ....

 

[Aupmanyav]

First time I hear of a partial avatar, although the concept fits nicely with my understanding of what an avatar is. Would you happen to have more information on that and be willing to share it with me, Aup?

This is an year old query and I notice that I did not reply to it. Here is some information:
Avatar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Alvars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - see the last column
summary of all avatars

 

[crossfire]

Before his enlightenment, but after he left his family, Buddha spent 6 years practicing extreme physical austerities, which would suggest he took up Jainism after leaving Hindu culture for the homeless life. Karma was also a concept introduced by Jainism, if I'm remembering correctly. (Please correct me if I'm mistaken.) His first description of the Middle Path:

"There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.​

Before he left his (Hindu?) family, he had a life of unprofitable self-indulgence that kept him in ignorance. After he left, he engaged in extreme self-affliction (Jains?) He awoke to a path between these two unprofitable extremes. (Dhamma.)

 

[Aupmanyav]

Buddha spent 6 years practicing extreme physical austerities, which would suggest he took up Jainism after leaving Hindu culture for the homeless life. Karma was also a concept introduced by Jainism, if I'm remembering correctly. (Please correct me if I'm mistaken.) .. Before he left his (Hindu?) family, ..

Karma is/was a part of all Indian philosophies and not just Jainism. Buddhas two teachers were Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta. They are not mentioned as Jains except perhaps in Jain literature. Gautama's family are not mentioned to follow any separate sect (as in some other cases, e.g., Bindusara, Ashoka's father is sometimes mentioned to follow Ajivakas), therefore can be taken as Hindus. Otherwise also, following one sect or the other was never a problem in India.

 

[Ekanta]

I am not sure I would say it came directly from developing Upanishadic tradition either, but could've been influenced by and vice versa. Buddhism also has notable differences such as the denial of the atman (anatta), but it could be argued the Buddha only denied certain conceptions of it that attempt to establish an absolute self separate from sense perception.

Actually we dont have to wonder about it. In every quote you can find (hinayana tradition), he said the skandhas are not the self. He never said there is no self. This is what he said and nothing else.

I can also think of Buddhism's rejection of the atman (anatta), as well as its arguably atheistic outlook, but of course there's Buddhists who would argue it isn't atheistic.

Both hinduism and buddhism say the gods and the multitude is impermanent. Buddhism (hinayana) never answer the question what the Self is (he only said what its not). Hinduism say atman is Brahman. So in what way is buddhism atheistic? Buddhism denies the eternity of gods and the creator god. But if Brahman is atman, and Buddha never denied atman... then Buddha actually never denied THAT concept of God, so its not up to us to say "buddhism is atheistic".

He didn't deny the existence of the devas, he just said that they can't give anyone salvation and they too live impermanent, conditioned existences. He did deny a creator god, though.

He denied it in the ultimate sense, as a separate permanent entity.

My goal here isn't to offend Hindus or undermine their faith, so I leave the subject of the Buddha and gods at this final statement for my part- if the Buddha thought worship of or belief in gods essential to Buddha-dharma he would have advocated for it. That he didn't shows that he didn't hold god belief essential, or even in high regard. He in effect created a non-theistic dharma, that is- a body of teaching and practice not reliant on god belief. Arguably an atheistic philosophy in practice.

Again, it totally depends on what we mean by "God". Since Buddha never denied atman (only what its not)... and if atman is brahman... we simpy cant say once and for all that "buddhism is an atheistic philosophy"

What do others believe? That the Buddha presented a means of Brahman realization?

Of course! He used the neti neti (not this, not this) method (in hinayana). I.e. he said atman is not the skandhas.... If we look at the mahayana scriptues we find that he said more, he identifies the Buddha-nature as the immortal atma.

To sum up:
Buddha never denied atman, he just said what its not (hinayana). Buddha clearly identifies atman with Buddha-nature (mahayana)
Since Buddha never denied atman, that itself is a possible God-concept (hinayana) and a definitive God-concept (mahayana) [in the sense of monism].

Think outside the dogmatic box!