Is Buddhism a branch of Hinduism

[Shantanu]

Buddhism teaches us how to live and acquire knowledge: Is Buddhism then a branch of Hinduism?

 

[SomeRandom]

It's a Dharmic path. One could probably argue that Hinduism predates it, therefore Buddhism is then a branch of it. I don't know enough of Buddhism to make that statement though.

 

[SalixIncendium]

**MOVED TO DHARMIC RELIGIONS DIR**​

 

[Spirit of Light]

Buddha Sakyamuni did have two teachers that we know of (from the suttas ) The names we do know about is Alara Kalama, Uddaka Rāmaputta, both this teacher was meditators and was teaching Sakyamuni very advanced meditation practice. And it was from this teaching Sakyamuni later did reach Enlightenment, And to you Shantanu, Yes Both the teachers did come from forms of Hinduism and Brahmaism, But what Buddha Sakyamuni did teach is known as Buddhism, why? Because when Buddha Sakyamuni did become a Buddha and chose to teach, it is his wisdom and his knowledge from his enlightenment he was teaching, he did not refuse his past teachers but did no longer follow their path, he founded his own path after enlightenment. He did not call it Buddhism he only called it Dharmacakra or buddha law. Nor did Buddha call it a religion and Buddhism is not a religion it is actually a cultivation path, but some people do follow it as a religion

Just to give a note, I do not say or have any reason to say Hinduism is a wrong path/teaching.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Buddhism teaches us how to live and acquire knowledge: Is Buddhism then a branch of Hinduism?

To call it a branch of Hinduism would have to mean Gautama Buddha was a Hindu before he founded what was later coined as Buddhism. This does not appear to be the case. While he was born into a Hindu Kshatriya family...

"Early texts suggest that Gautama was not familiar with the dominant religious teachings of his time until he left on his religious quest, which is said to have been motivated by existential concern for the human condition."
Gautama Buddha - Wikipedia

Based on this, I would say that while there may be Hindu influences in Buddha's teachings, it is not a direct spin-off or branch.

 

[Shantanu]

Buddha Sakyamuni did have two teachers that we know of (from the suttas ) The names we do know about is Alara Kalama, Uddaka Rāmaputta, both this teacher was meditators and was teaching Sakyamuni very advanced meditation practice. And it was from this teaching Sakyamuni later did reach Enlightenment, And to you Shantanu, Yes Both the teachers did come from forms of Hinduism and Brahmaism, But what Buddha Sakyamuni did teach is known as Buddhism, why? Because when Buddha Sakyamuni did become a Buddha and chose to teach, it is his wisdom and his knowledge from his enlightenment he was teaching, he did not refuse his past teachers but did no longer follow their path, he founded his own path after enlightenment. He did not call it Buddhism he only called it Dharmacakra or buddha law. Nor did Buddha call it a religion and Buddhism is not a religion it is actually a cultivation path, but some people do follow it as a religion

Just to give a note, I do not say or have any reason to say Hinduism is a wrong path/teaching.

I am confident that you are an authority on Classical Buddhism and so have given us the full background to the issue. I do not follow the teachings of Sakyamuni Buddha but describe my 'Buddhism' as Existential Buddhism. I believe in the 4 Noble Truths and the Eightfold path. This is closer to what perhaps Buddha's teachers taught him on advanced meditation practices.

In the other thread I alluded to the fact that the meditation I practice is on thought control to think of the actions that one undertakes that will alleviate suffering as mindfulness. Is this what Buddha taught? Mindfulness means to think about all the matters that affect one in one's daily lives and not to meditate for a blank mind that some forms of Hinduism and Buddhism prescribe. In this Form of Buddhism, sleep is very important to still the mind, and when the mind has become passive by sleep, one rises into permanent meditation to focus on the things that affect one in one's daily lives as far as one's health and well being is concerned. So if your weight goes too far up, one will fast for one day a week to reduce one's weight. One will also drink alcohol in small amounts because it releases one free to think without hesitation. Alcohol inhibits the inhibitory nerves before it inhibits the excitatory nerves. One will also take other mind altering substances like medications and cannabis including hallucinatory substances if one feels like doing so. One also eats meat in small amounts to maintain good health, but one practices total ahimsa which is non-violence and will not even hurt a mosquito sucking ones blood, merely flick the mosquitoes away. One controls craving and is detached from everything including God, who one seeks to provides guidance. So in this respect too Existential Buddhism is distinct from your Sakyamuni Buddha's Buddhism. We do not reject God, but have genuine conversations with God. Buddhism is merely to end ones suffering or dukkha of living in the samsara. Further we do not believe in reincarnation and karma accruing into another life.

For these reasons I can say that Existential Buddhism is nothing but an offshoot of Hinduism, and for the same reason all Forms of Buddhism must be regarded as off-shoots of Hinduism.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I am confident that you are an authority on Classical Buddhism and so have given us the full background to the issue. I do not follow the teachings of Sakyamuni Buddha but describe my 'Buddhism' as Existential Buddhism. I believe in the 4 Noble Truths and the Eightfold path. This is closer to what perhaps Buddha's teachers taught him on advanced meditation practices.

In the other thread I alluded to the fact that the meditation I practice is on thought control to think of the actions that one undertakes that will alleviate suffering as mindfulness. Is this what Buddha taught? Mindfulness means to think about all the matters that affect one in one's daily lives and not to meditate for a blank mind that some forms of Hinduism and Buddhism prescribe. In this Form of Buddhism, sleep is very important to still the mind, and when the mind has become passive by sleep, one rises into permanent meditation to focus on the things that affect one in one's daily lives as far as one's health and well being is concerned. So if your weight goes too far up, one will fast for one day a week to reduce one's weight. One will also drink alcohol in small amounts because it releases one free to think without hesitation. Alcohol inhibits the inhibitory nerves before it inhibits the excitatory nerves. One will also take other mind altering substances like medications and cannabis including hallucinatory substances if one feels like doing so. One also eats meat in small amounts to maintain good health, but one practices total ahimsa which is non-violence and will not even hurt a mosquito sucking ones blood, merely flick the mosquitoes away. One controls craving and is detached from everything including God, who one seeks to provides guidance. So in this respect too Existential Buddhism is distinct from your Sakyamuni Buddha's Buddhism. We do not reject God, but have genuine conversations with God. Buddhism is merely to end ones suffering or dukkha of living in the samsara. Further we do not believe in reincarnation and karma accruing into another life.

For these reasons I can say that Existential Buddhism is nothing but an offshoot of Hinduism, and for the same reason all Forms of Buddhism must be regarded as off-shoots of Hinduism.

I can't help but think you're just fishing for answers here to justify the nomenclature you wish to use for your practice and belief.

While you are free to practice and believe whatever you wish, and while I personally am unconcerned with what label you apply to your belief structure (but only because I'm familiar with you and your worldview), there are those that might take exception to you applying labels to your practice that are contradictory to their worldviews. Bear in mind, labeling your beliefs as such may muddy the waters in a comparative discourse of beliefs.

 

[crossfire]

Buddhism comes from the non-Vedic Shramana movement, which arose parallel to the Vedic movement. There has been interaction and adaptation between the movements, but they are separate.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Mindfulness in the teaching by Sakyamuni means to be aware of every moment, every action, thoughts and words. So to be fully aware of how we live in every moment of a day and night. What is know today as mindfulness meditation (insight meditation) do highten the awarness about all around us and within us. So when well practiced in the meditation the thoughts do no longer arise if not needed. one become silent and calm within.

Because om practicing meditation the need for sleep will reduce it self, and for my self i sleep 3-4 hours a night. But my mind is not at sleep fully, it is aware of what happens within me and outside of me.

When it comes to alcohol Sakyamuni teach that it clutter the mind and we lose ability to be fully aware and concentrated. so no i do not drink. And no use of other intoxicating substances

As a follower of Sakyamuni i do not reject that there are gods but i do not follow other teachings then Sakyamunis, and there is no teaching of a creator God in Sakyamunis teaching. and i have not found evidence of it in my own practice

Both karma and reincarnation within the samsara is a big part of buddhism.

All i write is my understanding of Sakyamunis teaching seen thru Theravada teaching

 

[Vinayaka]

Personally I view Buddhism as a sister religion (path) within the dharmic fold.

 

[LuisDantas]

Buddhism teaches us how to live and acquire knowledge: Is Buddhism then a branch of Hinduism?

Not really, although it has inherited a lot of language and perspective from it.

You may have meant to ask whether they are both Dharmic.

 

[Shantanu]

Not really, although it has inherited a lot of language and perspective from it.

You may have meant to ask whether they are both Dharmic.

No, I wanted to know where non-violence (ahimsa) that Buddhists practice originated?

 

[LuisDantas]

No, I wanted to know where non-violence (ahimsa) that Buddhists practice originated?

Ahimsa is a self-evident enough teaching, but sure, it probably came from Hindu sources.

 

[Shantanu]

Ahimsa is a self-evident enough teaching, but sure, it probably came from Hindu sources.

I do not see how it can be self-evident teaching when we are omnivorous.

 

[LuisDantas]

I do not see how it can be self-evident teaching when we are omnivorous.

Really?

I take it that you do not few much of a rapport with domestic animals, then?

Anyone who does can easily rediscover Ahimsa.

 

[Shantanu]

Really?

I take it that you do not few much of a rapport with domestic animals, then?

Anyone who does can easily rediscover Ahimsa.

My understanding is that ahimsa dates back to when Mahabharatta was enacted:

“अहिसा परमो धर्म: धर्म हिंसा थेव च:”
अर्थात, अहिसा परम धर्म है पर धर्म के रक्षण के लिए हिंसा करना सर्वोतम है
That is to say, non-violence and not-killing is the highest dharma (do’s and don’ts), but fighting (including killing) to protect dharma is the highest form of living. So one can imagine how important this it. One needs to fight even to the point of killing in order to protect dharma including the highest dharma, namely, ahimsa or non-violence.
And the second verse to this shloka is:
धर्म एव हतो हंति धर्मो रक्षति रक्षित:
अर्थात, धर्म उसकी रक्षा करता है जो धर्म की रक्षा करता है, धर्म बिना का जीवन मृतु/जानवर/असुर/मलीच सामान है जो आप की ही मृतु करता है
This means, the person who spends his life protecting dharma, is protected by dharma back in turn; whilst the person who kills dharma is killed by dharma.
Harkik Bhatt writes: this shloka is part of a conversation between Bhisma and Yudhister before the Mahabaharatta war.

 

[SalixIncendium]

No, I wanted to know where non-violence (ahimsa) that Buddhists practice originated?

One cannot take one practice that is similar in two different beliefs systems and state that it the practice was responsible for affecting the branching off of one belief system to another. That would be like saying that Catholicism is a branch of Hinduism because of the fasting practices during Lent.

 

[Shantanu]

One cannot take one practice that is similar in two different beliefs systems and state that it the practice was responsible for affecting the branching off of one belief system to another. That would be like saying that Catholicism is a branch of Hinduism because of the fasting practices during Lent.

Of course it is possible: Christianity derives from Classical Buddhism, just as Classical Buddhism derives from Hinduism as practiced in the time of the Mahabahratta act.The reason that Classical Buddhism got into total separation is the belief of non-violence at any cost. Existential Buddhism retraces the development back to how dharma was originally practiced.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Of course it is possible: Christianity derives from Classical Buddhism, just as Classical Buddhism derives from Hinduism as practiced in the time of the Mahabahratta act.The reason that Classical Buddhism got into total separation is the belief of non-violence at any cost. Existential Buddhism retraces the development back to how dharma was originally practiced.

I'm not saying that practices within a religion are not derived from other religions; what I'm saying is taking one practice from a religion that has been incorporated into another religion does not mean the second religion is a branch of the first.

Wiccans eat cakes and drink wine in ritual. Does that mean Wicca is a branch of Catholicism?

 

[Shantanu]

I'm not saying that practices within a religion are not derived from other religions; what I'm saying is taking one practice from a religion that has been incorporated into another religion does not mean the second religion is a branch of the first.

Wiccans eat cakes and drink wine in ritual. Does that mean Wicca is a branch of Catholicism?

If I wish to place non-violence at the heart of my worldview given that fighting in order to preserve dharma (truth and justice) is justified as a last resort I can still call myself a Buddhist of some description.With the other distinctions that I elaborated above, the new label of Existential Buddhism seems to me to be entirely logical. Why should this affect the sensibilities of other Buddhists so long as I have clarified the justification for my worldview in these terms?