Buddha in Hinduism (I know, subject probably beaten to death, but...)

[ratikala]

namaskaram poeticus ji:namaste

...me quoting me ....
''look at the noncence out here on the internet''

I think it is everywhere

I was refering to the internet in general , youtube , wickipedia .... lots of places ....and yes RF ....

but what can we do except gently try to put forward the right understanding ...

as I think many here try to do ...but it needs to be above personal oppinion it needs to be inteligent .

the videos I refered to were in amongst a lot of zen meditation vidios ???

so to me yes , it is a bit new age'ish , ....mix it all up is all cool , .. but it can also be missleading to some ?

 

[von bek]

I'm truly sorry you feel offended, but I think you should read my o.p. more throughly. You will see that the focus is on Srila Prabhupada's explanation of why the Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu.

You'll see that no one denigrated the Buddha or his teachings. Rather several of us said that the business of "deluding demons" is not the truth. Again, I am sorry you feel disrespected and offended, but again I think you should read the entire thread in context.

You don't need to apologize to me. The offense does not come from you. I just have a strong reaction to that passage from the Bhagavatam Purana, a passage I was already familiar with. I am also familiar with Srila Prabhupada and what he says about Buddhism.

On the passage itself, I wonder what the purpose of it was. Is it meant to draw Buddhists back into the Hindu fold? Is it similar to what Muslim apologists do when they pour through the scriptures of other religions, claiming various persons as really teaching Islam? Or, is the purpose to reinforce to those who are already Hindu, not to follow the Buddha's teachings? I don't know...

 

[von bek]

ratikala,

We may not agree on everything; but, I think you're pretty cool.

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

namaskaram fireside ji :namaste



Please please do not take this wrongly , but how could Buddha divert from Hinduism ..? ...Hinduism or the term Hindu did not even exist at the apperance time of lord Buddha , ....

therefore he appeared to re establish Sanatana Dharma as did all avatars ....

Jaganath is a self manifesting form of Svayam Bhagavan as is Vitobha , ...the Dasavatars are manifestations of Visnu .


with all due respects , then you have not made a painting of ''all the avatars of visnu''

excuse me if I sound abrupt , but this attitude is indicative of kali yuga ....oh I forgot ...nevermind I'll just explain it away ....we canot do this without making a mockery of Hinduism which is fast becoming the ...anything according to my whim ism !!!

I apologize for offending you. It was not my intention. I'm admittedly under-educated about the avatars. My understanding was that Buddha did not acknowledge the Vedas and therefor was diverting from (what would eventually become) Hinduism.

But clearly I am mistaken. I will bow out of this thread before I do more damage.

:camp:

 

[Jainarayan]

You don't need to apologize to me. The offense does not come from you. I just have a strong reaction to that passage from the Bhagavatam Purana, a passage I was already familiar with. I am also familiar with Srila Prabhupada and what he says about Buddhism.

Ah, I see. Then we are good.

On the passage itself, I wonder what the purpose of it was. Is it meant to draw Buddhists back into the Hindu fold? Is it similar to what Muslim apologists do when they pour through the scriptures of other religions, claiming various persons as really teaching Islam? Or, is the purpose to reinforce to those who are already Hindu, not to follow the Buddha's teachings? I don't know...

I think the problem is, was and always will be translations and commentaries. Very few people read Sanskrit, so most of us have to rely on the translations and commentaries. Even for those who do read Sanskrit, the very nature of the language with its inflections, lends itself to ambiguities at times, which is ironic for such a highly inflected language. Maybe because it's so poetic?

An example is J. Robert Oppenheimer, who helped develop the atomic bomb (what the heck does the atomic bomb have to do with Sanskrit!? you may ask). Well, when the Trinity test bomb was detonated, he is quoted as saying "I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita... 'Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds'." Oppenheimer taught himself Sanskrit and read the Bhagavad Gita in the original Sanskrit. Most translations I've read are "Time I am, destroyer of the worlds, and I have come to engage all people" and " I am the mighty world destroying Time, engaged here in annihilating all beings", and such.

Now, I once thought that Oppenheimer's translation was wrong, relative to all the others. Yet someone said that he actually translated it correctly... the other translationss are "dumbed down". So, not only is there the connection between Sanskrit and the atomic bomb, but how the scriptures can be translated to suit the translator's purpose or even (mis)understanding.

I think the best thing to do is as the Buddha said in the Kalama Sutta:

“Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.”

This is usually passed around as “Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

The point of this is to listen to your heart, it will guide you.

 

[von bek]

Ah, I see. Then we are good.

:namaste

Without a doubt.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram :namaste


this is an important point ....

I think the problem is, was and always will be translations and commentaries. Very few people read Sanskrit, so most of us have to rely on the translations and commentaries. Even for those who do read Sanskrit, the very nature of the language with its inflections, lends itself to ambiguities at times, which is ironic for such a highly inflected language. Maybe because it's so poetic?

even though as you rightly say sanskrit is by its very nature extremely expressive , even those with a good knowledge of the language need to understand the principles of the concept being discussed , otherwise the words alone can still be missconstrued , as often is with Srila Prabhupada , one has to understabd his veiw of Sanatana Dharma to understand why he says some things which seem to be allmost childlike and a fraction blunt , why ? he uses some language and a directness that our sencibilities find to be a little offensive .

I will hapily admit that I didnt like his writing when I first read them ...this has more to do with our culture , and the conditioning we receive from that culture , than it has with what he is saying . ...in otherwords we have to understand the culture and values of the other person then what they say becomes clear ...the words alone are not enough how ever precice they are , or how ever elequently they are used .

An example is J. Robert Oppenheimer, who helped develop the atomic bomb (what the heck does the atomic bomb have to do with Sanskrit!? you may ask). Well, when the Trinity test bomb was detonated, he is quoted as saying "I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita... 'Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds'." Oppenheimer taught himself Sanskrit and read the Bhagavad Gita in the original Sanskrit. Most translations I've read are "Time I am, destroyer of the worlds, and I have come to engage all people" and " I am the mighty world destroying Time, engaged here in annihilating all beings", and such.

I understand perfectly your reason for raising this ....
and it illustrates perfectly what I am trying to explain

it is commonly known also that Hittler was also reading the Bhagavad Gita and apparently it is said that he consulted it regularly and took inspiration from its words , but here you have a perfect example of a delusional and controling mind using a text to support his own outlook , he used the dialogue between arjuna and Sri Krsna to justify his own meglomania and to justify vilence and oppression , then prehaps we should look at Mahatma Ghandi who also held the Gita in the highest regard , who saw in it the reason to fight through personal surrender to atain his goal of justice through non violent means .

thus in my veiw any missuse of the text has less to do with the way a text is translated , but more to do with understanding the context in which it is spoken .
this we need to be taught in the same way that a child learns at the feet of his mother , we learn at the feet of a guru .

Now, I once thought that Oppenheimer's translation was wrong, relative to all the others. Yet someone said that he actually translated it correctly... the other translationss are "dumbed down". So, not only is there the connection between Sanskrit and the atomic bomb, but how the scriptures can be translated to suit the translator's purpose or even (mis)understanding.

I could not agree more , this is so true of human nature , we use the things we read to support our own veiw , in a way this is natural , but it is a mistake , unless we surrender veiw before reading a text like the gita we will never understand its full meaning , we will use it to inforce our own preconseptions ,there is a tendancy also reject portions as distastefull when they do not conform with our understanding , this we can often do with Prabhupada's purports because we are coming to them with western sencibilities and preconceived ideas , we need to remember that he comes from a very different culture , one of total surrender , something that is allmost alien to us .

I think the best thing to do is as the Buddha said in the Kalama Sutta:

“Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.”

this expresses it perfectly , what is needed is that we stop thinking and surrender all veiws and listen afresh without being bound by any previous conceptions , ...this is very difficult to do but what Buddha s asking is that we develop sublime faith , at first it is faith in something alien to us as it is beyond this comfortable notion of self , but we must go beyond the concept of self to reach a greater understanding .

this is also very important when it comes to understanding others , we need to be able to listen to what they are actualy saying rather than what we think that they are saying . this is where the humble man winns every time against the man whos ego prevents him from hearing .

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram prabhu ji :namaste

ratikala,

We may not agree on everything; but, I think you're pretty cool.

thank you , I am honoured to accept your freindship :namaste

it is not nececary for us to agree on everything , it is only nececary for us (any of us) to listen with an open heart / mind


He He ... the day we both agree on everything is the day we both attain buddhahood .

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Fireside ji :namaste

I apologize for offending you. It was not my intention. I'm admittedly under-educated about the avatars. My understanding was that Buddha did not acknowledge the Vedas and therefor was diverting from (what would eventually become) Hinduism.

But clearly I am mistaken. I will bow out of this thread before I do more damage.

:camp:

do not worry you have not offended me , I know that no offence was ever intended ,

...there is no insult either to Lord Buddha as Jaganath was highly revered by the Oriyan Buddhists who regarded him as Buddha , but as he is lord of the universe he is more akin to Adi Buddha the primordial Buddha of whom all buddha's are eminations .

this opens a good line of discussion ...(which I will come back to this evening )

but what you say , ...

My understanding was that Buddha did not acknowledge the Vedas and therefor was diverting from (what would eventually become) Hinduism.

is part true , hindus now use this as a breif explanation as to why buddha 'appeared' to reject the vedas and 'Appeared' to reject the theistic outlook of modern day hinduism .....everything swings on the word 'appears' ....

to try to explain it simply what Lord Buddha did was to go against the practices of that day , ...we all know that things change and can become corrupted from their orriginal meaning or purpose , it is said that the Brahmin culture of Shakyamuni's day had it self become corrupt , it had deviated from its true Dharma , what Shakyamuni Buddha did was to go against a corrupt reigeim which did not serve its people well , what he did was to set the most perfect example wich gave all people the oppertunity to benifit from a new turning of the wheel of dharma , a new flowering , what Shakyamuni Buddha did was to re establish the Dharma that had become lost , which had become burried in cultural accretions , and what he had to do in order to destablish this apparently new Dharma ,( which in truth is the true Dharma re presented )...was to go against the old and clouded veiw of Dharma .

what he did was Noble he gave dharma to anyone and everyone , to who ever was ready to take it , he made it accesable and free from the confines if caste and ritual
...those that do not understand this say that he went against the vedas , where in truth it should read that it appeard that he went against the vedas .

there is no problem that Buddhism developed away from vedic culture this merely constituted a new flowering of the dharma , here from the hindu perspective we are looking at Buddhism from outside , we are looking at the history prior to his enlightenment , we are describing his family tree so to speak what led to him teaching as he did , a buddhist need only concern him self with the Buddhas life and teachings , but as hindus we need to understand why this happened , why this new and seeminglt contradictory method of teaching occured it is important that we do so in order that we do not forget that the one true Dharma needs to be constantly presented and re presented in a context fitting for that time , and there will be flowering and re flowering of the Dharma again and again ....

may I go back to one point which I fear has caused offence to Buddhists ....

in Tibet Padmasambhava apeared and defeated the demons or forces that were hostile to the spread of Buddhism in tibet , this he did with his mystical powers , it is a beautifull story and also a historical account ......
Shakyamuni Buddha is also said to have defeated demons , these demons also were the obsticals preventing the flowering of the true Dharma , one could also draw the conclusion that he defeated the corrupt bramins , he defeated ignorance by dint of realisation , he defeated the Mara's he defeated dellusion .

so please do not take offence or feel hurt , the more we discuss the place of lord Buddha in Sanatana Dharma the more all will learn to love and respect him , then also when you feel comfortable with buddhas position you will also be able to paint him from a position of loving devotion , then he will be the embodiment of Dharma and his face will smile from your paintings

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. are pejorative statements that do not give proper honor to the Buddha and his Dhamma. It is better to say you disagree with the Buddha than to (mis)appropriate him by altering his character and teachings.

And you know, Von Beck, there are Hindus who rever Buddha just like Rama and Krishna. So kindly do not go by what sectoral commentators say. We have scores of thousands of Hindus named after Buddha and his son (Gautamas, Buddhas, Tathagatas, Siddhartas, and Amitabhas, that includes my son, and Rahul Gandhi, the heir-apparent of the Congress dynasty. It is immaterial whether he would come to power or not).

"never once in over fifteen years have I ever had to give up my refuge in Buddha not even as an vaisnava initiate . I could not have taken that initiation if there were any contradiction , I promice you from the depth of my heart that a true vaisnava has nothing but the deepest love and respect for Buddha ......and that any vaisnava or hindu that says any differently must be forgiven for they are not in full knowledge."

"Or, is the purpose to reinforce to those who are already Hindu, not to follow the Buddha's teachings? I don't know ..": It is basically for not giving space to Budha and appropriating all space for Krishna.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I will bow out of this thread before I do more damage.

A sincere person does not cause any damage. Please carry on in this thread.

 

[Jainarayan]

I'm using my phone right now, so it's virtually impossible to address each point you make. Suffice to say they are spot on. Everthing must be taken in the context of the times and circumstances. I now believe this is why a teacher one connects with is necessary. If there is no connection, or his teachings don't sit well with you, move on. You have to kiss a lot of frogs before you find a prince.

As for the Hitler example, that is all too representative of twisting scriptures. The 9/11 hijackers and Crusaders come to mind. Shakespeare said "Even the devil can quote scripture to his purpose".

namaskaram :namaste


this is an important point ....


even though as you rightly say sanskrit is by its very nature extremely expressive , even those with a good knowledge of the language need to understand the principles of the concept being discussed , otherwise the words alone can still be missconstrued , as often is with Srila Prabhupada , one has to understabd his veiw of Sanatana Dharma to understand why he says some things which seem to be allmost childlike and a fraction blunt , why ? he uses some language and a directness that our sencibilities find to be a little offensive .

I will hapily admit that I didnt like his writing when I first read them ...this has more to do with our culture , and the conditioning we receive from that culture , than it has with what he is saying . ...in otherwords we have to understand the culture and values of the other person then what they say becomes clear ...the words alone are not enough how ever precice they are , or how ever elequently they are used .



I understand perfectly your reason for raising this ....
and it illustrates perfectly what I am trying to explain

it is commonly known also that Hittler was also reading the Bhagavad Gita and apparently it is said that he consulted it regularly and took inspiration from its words , but here you have a perfect example of a delusional and controling mind using a text to support his own outlook , he used the dialogue between arjuna and Sri Krsna to justify his own meglomania and to justify vilence and oppression , then prehaps we should look at Mahatma Ghandi who also held the Gita in the highest regard , who saw in it the reason to fight through personal surrender to atain his goal of justice through non violent means .

thus in my veiw any missuse of the text has less to do with the way a text is translated , but more to do with understanding the context in which it is spoken .
this we need to be taught in the same way that a child learns at the feet of his mother , we learn at the feet of a guru .





I could not agree more , this is so true of human nature , we use the things we read to support our own veiw , in a way this is natural , but it is a mistake , unless we surrender veiw before reading a text like the gita we will never understand its full meaning , we will use it to inforce our own preconseptions ,there is a tendancy also reject portions as distastefull when they do not conform with our understanding , this we can often do with Prabhupada's purports because we are coming to them with western sencibilities and preconceived ideas , we need to remember that he comes from a very different culture , one of total surrender , something that is allmost alien to us .


this expresses it perfectly , what is needed is that we stop thinking and surrender all veiws and listen afresh without being bound by any previous conceptions , ...this is very difficult to do but what Buddha s asking is that we develop sublime faith , at first it is faith in something alien to us as it is beyond this comfortable notion of self , but we must go beyond the concept of self to reach a greater understanding .

this is also very important when it comes to understanding others , we need to be able to listen to what they are actualy saying rather than what we think that they are saying . this is where the humble man winns every time against the man whos ego prevents him from hearing .

 

[Jainarayan]

A sincere person does not cause any damage. Please carry on in this thread.

I whole-heartedly agree. I am hoping to keep this on an intellectual as well as personal view level. That's why I asked for perspectives. How else can one learn?

 

[Vinayaka]

I whole-heartedly agree. I am hoping to keep this on an intellectual as well as personal view level. That's why I asked for perspectives. How else can one learn?

And I disagree ... We have sincere people posting in DIRs quite a bit. They may not be doing a great deal of harm, but they do the forum a disservice.

I think sincere people also know when to 'fold 'em.

 

[Jainarayan]

What I meant is that this thread hasn't turned into a debate; people are making good points, I'd hate to see FH leave. I was addressing that specifically, and learning, via Aup's post I quoted.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Von Beck is a wonderful person and a friend. I am sure, he understands that not many here agree with Prabhupada on this point.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram vinayaka ji :namaste

And I disagree ... We have sincere people posting in DIRs quite a bit. They may not be doing a great deal of harm, but they do the forum a disservice.

sorry this makes no sence to me , there are people that are sincere and good people but missinformed , this is the purpose of discussion ...to inform or to shine light upon a subject , it is no slur towards any person to say that they are missinformed it is the natural state of humankind , one hopes that we are here to learn , the diss service is done to oneself when one sits there nursing a fixed mind refusing to look at things from any other perspective ...

the problem is oppinion , jainarayan opened this post knowing that it is a delicate subject , one commonly missunderstood so the purpose is to discuss the details , that way we might form an understanding ...

what is the point in us just continuing to state whether we agree with prabhupada or not , we need to discuss in depth , this I think was jai's suggestion ...?

by discussing (and I hope we are adult enough to be able to do that ?) prehaps we might come to an understanding of why Prabhupada said what he did , this I think is more usefull

I think sincere people also know when to 'fold 'em.

yes usualy when they realise that no one is willing to learn and are just continuing to chuck in opposing oppinions ...?

so the real question we need to be addressing is why Prabhupada said things that on the surface appear to be contentious and what he was truely meaning to say .

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram aupmanyav ji :namaste

Von Beck is a wonderful person and a friend. I am sure, he understands that not many here agree with Prabhupada on this point.

this is exactly the point I am raising .... we do not need to agree or dissagree with Prabhupada ...we need to be level minded and calmly set about trying to understand what he is saying ....

 

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

I spent time in Orissa (by the way, you should go and visit, very nice!), and I will confirm without doubt that there are many Hindus who consider Buddha as a Divine, be Avatar or otherwise manifestation or emanation. This is found also in sects that fall under "Vaishnava".

There is strong Buddhist (that is actually not the correct word, but rather "Buddha as a Hindu") undercurrents in Puri.

It is a fact. You can find this in W.B. as well.

Om Namah Sivaya

 

[Poeticus]

Poeticus, Vinakaya:

Thank you both for your kind words. I hope my words did not cause offense to any Hindus here, that was not my purpose. My intent was to say that the verses quoted from the Bhagavatam Purana, like:
...are pejorative statements that do not give proper honor to the Buddha and his Dhamma. It is better to say you disagree with the Buddha than to (mis)appropriate him by altering his character and teachings.

I think it would be beneficial, as you said,
to simply state one's disagreement rather
than engage in such [mis]appropriation.​