Is Buddhism for the Kali Yuga?

[Terese]

The Buddha encouraged The Middle Way, which is attainable for most people of this earth, who can not attain the strict rules of the earlier ages. Does this have a grain of truth? And when i say Buddhism, i speak of the Buddhism The Buddha himself propounded, during his life.

Apologies for lack of information.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Dharmic relegions are for all ages.

 

[sayak83]

The Buddha encouraged The Middle Way, which is attainable for most people of this earth, who can not attain the strict rules of the earlier ages. Does this have a grain of truth? And when i say Buddhism, i speak of the Buddhism The Buddha himself propounded, during his life.

Apologies for lack of information.

In Buddhism I do not think there is a 4-yuga concept. But need to check that.

 

[Terese]

Dharmic relgions are for all ages.

Of course! But there are recommended yugas.

In Buddhism I do not think there is a 4-yuga concept. But need to check that.

The Buddha was a Hindu, so i assume he did.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Buddha was very rational person.

 

[George-ananda]

The Buddha encouraged The Middle Way, which is attainable for most people of this earth, who can not attain the strict rules of the earlier ages. Does this have a grain of truth? And when i say Buddhism, i speak of the Buddhism The Buddha himself propounded, during his life.

Apologies for lack of information.

I would say the Buddhist path would work in all ages.

I am one that could never make good sense of all this Yuga stuff, but that said, I have heard from sources I respect that the devotional path is the easiest and fastest route for the average person in this Kali Yuga.

 

[Kirran]

The Buddha was a Hindu, so i assume he did.

1) The Buddha existed millennia before the emergence of the Hindu religious identity.

2) The four yuga-narrative is not universal among people who today identify as Hindu.

 

[निताइ dasa]

I don't understand the question...

 

[Vinayaka]

1) The Buddha existed millennia before the emergence of the Hindu religious identity.

2) The four yuga-narrative is not universal among people who today identify as Hindu.

Not sure about 1, unless you mean the label 'Hindu'.
As to point 2, to extend the point, thu yiga narrative (concerning timelines, where we are today, etc) also has great variety, even amongst its proponents.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

The Buddha encouraged The Middle Way, which is attainable for most people of this earth, who can not attain the strict rules of the earlier ages. Does this have a grain of truth? And when i say Buddhism, i speak of the Buddhism The Buddha himself propounded, during his life.

Apologies for lack of information.

Namaste,
Actually, I question part of the premise of the OP, i.e., that "The Middle Way is attainable for most people in Kali yuga." Oops! I mean "this day and age." The "Middle Way" is a Path of practice, a sadhana like all others. Whether it's easily attainable or not depends--no matter the yuga--on the effort one puts into it, the sacrifices one is willing to make to get to Middle. Like most Paths which have as their aim the "Peace which passeth all understanding," a big chunk of it involves vigorously eschewing voluntary rides on the Roller Coaster du jour, no matter which realm one happens to be visiting when presented with the option.

 

[Terese]

I don't understand the question...

What is unclear about the question? I could re-clarify

 

[Aupmanyav]

1) The Buddha existed millennia before the emergence of the Hindu religious identity.

That does not mean that what we know as Hindu today did not exist in Buddha's time.
ps - By Buddha's time, many knew us as Hapta-Hendu (Persians), Hi[n]dush (Greek), Intu (Chinese), and what not.

"The actual term 'hindu' first occurs, states Gavin Flood, as "a Persian geographical term for the people who lived beyond the river Indus (Sanskrit: Sindhu)", more specifically in the 6th-century BCE inscription of Darius I. The Punjab region, called Sapta Sindhava in the Vedas, is called Hapta Hindu in Zend Avesta. The 6th-century BCE inscription of Darius I mentions the province of Hi[n]dush, referring to northwestern India."
Hindu - Wikipedia

 

[Kirran]

That does not mean that what we know as Hindu today did not exist in Buddha's time.
ps - By Buddha's time, many knew us as Hapta-Hendu (Persians), Hi[n]dush (Greek), Intu (Chinese), and what not.

"The actual term 'hindu' first occurs, states Gavin Flood, as "a Persian geographical term for the people who lived beyond the river Indus (Sanskrit: Sindhu)", more specifically in the 6th-century BCE inscription of Darius I. The Punjab region, called Sapta Sindhava in the Vedas, is called Hapta Hindu in Zend Avesta. The 6th-century BCE inscription of Darius I mentions the province of Hi[n]dush, referring to northwestern India."
Hindu - Wikipedia

Exactly! A geographical term!

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Namaste,

And when i say Buddhism, i speak of the Buddhism The Buddha himself propounded, during his life.

The vaiṣṇava (specifically tattvavāda) view is that buddha taught the esoteric praśānta vidyā which was misunderstood by most of his contemporary followers and eventually completely corrupted by later ones. As for the middle way, it is most certainly a later, more social than philosophical, development considering the detachment recommended given the acceptance of utter transitoriness of the world including the self, anything less would indeed be a compromise with this outlook. I even remember reading a post (i think on this forum itself) where one poster surmised if the very idea of renunciation in vaidika traditions was borrowed from śramaṇa traditions!

बुद्धरूपात्मकश्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

1) The Buddha existed millennia before the emergence of the Hindu religious identity.

2) The four yuga-narrative is not universal among people who today identify as Hindu.

1) The "Hindu" religious identity might be a recent coinage, but Hindus did understand they belonged to a particular tradition, in this case Vedic tradition. Buddha and Mahavira diverged from that tradition, hence why they are non-Hindu. It is true Buddha was born Hindu, but he did not remain Hindu. In much the same way Jesus was born Jewish, but did not remain Jewish or Mohammed was born Pagan but did remain Pagan.

2) It might not be a universal held belief among people who identify as Hindu, but it is definitely universal across Hindu scriptures and literature.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

From a Hindu point of view, Buddhism is not any path to be followed in any case. As Buddhism is seen as a corruption of the original teachings of Buddha. The Hindu perspective, as others have already said, the easiest path in the Kalyuga is the path of Bhakti. This is what the Puranas say.

My views informed by my Advaitic thinking is Buddhism, Jainism even Christianity and Islam or that matter most religions are valid paths and will lead to the same result if followed faithfully.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Buddha was a Hindu, so i assume he did.

Buddha asked Kalamas never to assume anything (.. nor upon surmise, takka-hetu ..).
Kalama Sutta - Wikipedia

 

[Aupmanyav]

Buddha and Mahavira diverged from that tradition, hence why they are non-Hindu. It is true Buddha was born Hindu, but he did not remain Hindu.

That they spoke against the Vaidic tradition, shows that they were Hindu and indigenous. The changes that the migrants wanted to bring about were rejected by the indigenous. Later a compromise arose where the Vaidic Gods were given secondary positions. So, the yajnas were held once in a while. Hinduism was, is and will remain pagan religion, which even the Vaidic religion too was.

From a Hindu point of view, Buddhism is not any path to be followed in any case.

There is not even a sliver of difference between what Buddha considered as 'dhamma' and the way we arrive at it (Noble Eight-fold Path) and what Hindus know as 'dharma'.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Terese ji , ....

Jai Jai nice question , ...

The Buddha encouraged The Middle Way, which is attainable for most people of this earth, who can not attain the strict rules of the earlier ages. Does this have a grain of truth? And when i say Buddhism, i speak of the Buddhism The Buddha himself propounded, during his life.

What the Buddha was teaching at this point was a ballance between extreme asetacism and Material absorbtion , middle way is a path of meditation and contemplation , what Sakyamuni Buddha was doing at this time was very skillfuly leading people away from forms of vedic practices which were in many cases not fully understood by those practicing them and you are correct to say that what he taught was specificaly for this age , many practices commonplace at that time were practices more suited to previous yugas when people were purer at heart these practices are unsitable for this age and had become corrupted .....

In Buddhism I do not think there is a 4-yuga concept. But need to check that.

in some forms of Buddhism Tibetan particularly it is a widely accepted truth , you will hear them refer constantly to Sakyamuni Buddha as the Buddha of this age which they often refer to as ''this degenerate age ''

The Buddha existed millennia before the emergence of the Hindu religious identity.

Jai Jai , ....I will get a thrashing from some Buddhists for this as their focus is only on Sakyamuni Buddha ...the Buddha of this age , ........but Certainly The Adi Buddha is self existing , eternal, all knowing, all seeing, all powerfull entity , ....in exactly the same way that Krsna explains to Arjuna ''Never was there a time when you or I did not exist'' ...''it is just that I remember all my previous births and you do not'' ....this is the description and nature of a pure wisdom being which ever school it occurs in , ....

Namaste,
Actually, I question part of the premise of the OP, i.e., that "The Middle Way is attainable for most people in Kali yuga." Oops! I mean "this day and age."

No no , ...please continue to use Kaliyuga , ''this age of hypocracy and lies'' is equaly recognised by many Buddhists , ...Middle way is just a perfect way of centering one self , realising ones true nature and resisting the egos propencity to parade it self by feining practices that are incomprehensable and in efective in this age , ..

As for the middle way, it is most certainly a later, more social than philosophical, development considering the detachment recommended given the acceptance of utter transitoriness of the world including the self, anything less would indeed be a compromise with this outlook. I even remember reading a post (i think on this forum itself) where one poster surmised if the very idea of renunciation in vaidika traditions was borrowed from śramaṇa traditions!

From a Buddhist perspective this middle way is very central to true Buddhism and to the Vaisnava version in that Buddha appears to set the example of detatchment , bith from worldly life and from extreme asthetacism , self mortification and all importantly animal sacrifice , ....Sakyamuni Buddhas message was very simple ''seek your own salvation''this means no reliance on sacrifice or ritual simply contemplationand meditation , thus eight fold path is often considdered to be the middle way path , ....

1) The "Hindu" religious identity might be a recent coinage, but Hindus did understand they belonged to a particular tradition, in this case Vedic tradition. Buddha and Mahavira diverged from that tradition, hence why they are non-Hindu. It is true Buddha was born Hindu, but he did not remain Hindu. In much the same way Jesus was born Jewish, but did not remain Jewish or Mohammed was born Pagan but did remain Pagan.

Mahavira and Sakyamuni Buddha only appear to have diverged , this is simply a display of Skillfullness , what was being practiced at that point was becoming degraded and impure so new purificatory practices were put in place thus re establishing Dharma , .....

Buddha was born a Vedic Kshatriya true he did not remain a Kshatriya he renounced his Vanashram Dharma but became a warrior and defendor of Dharma in a very different way , perhaps a more meaningfull and long lasting way , much like Krsna who also refused to fight in the physical sence but likewise he fought to re establish Dharma .

From a Hindu point of view, Buddhism is not any path to be followed in any case. As Buddhism is seen as a corruption of the original teachings of Buddha. The Hindu perspective, as others have already said, the easiest path in the Kalyuga is the path of Bhakti. This is what the Puranas say.

To a Vaisnava not so as we regard Sakyamuni Buddha as Visnu himself therefore non different and equaly worthy of respect , it is just each will follow the tradition into which he falls, ....some Buddhists equaly have hearts full of Bhakti to them all Buddhas are delightfull and the way of the Buddhas glorious , ...one can equaly have Bhakti for any form of the supreme as it is the inate wisdom at the core of that being which is so delightfull , one can be Krsna Bhakta , Ram Bhakta , Visnu Bhakta , or devote if the Adi Buddha all are personifications of the same supreme infinate wisdom , ...and he who realises this is the most fortunate of souls, ...

My views informed by my Advaitic thinking is Buddhism, Jainism even Christianity and Islam or that matter most religions are valid paths and will lead to the same result if followed faithfully.

Jai Jai , ...by the grace of God by which ever name , ...this will allways be so , ...

 

[Aupmanyav]

Like the above, but with some differences, especially towards the end. ()