[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Buddhism and advaita
-
Subject: Re: ARTICLE : Buddhism and advaita
-
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar@braincells.com>
-
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 02:50:20 GMT
-
Apparently-To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: Consolidated Braincells Inc.
-
References: <5077j9$rdf@news.ececs.uc.edu> <ghenDx64EK.14I@netcom.com>
santhosh@iss.nus.sg (Santhosh Kumar) wrote in article
<ghenDx64EK.14I@netcom.com>...
> I think the message of Mahabharatha is Dharma, Artha and Kama
> should be balanced and importance should be given to Dharma while
> attending to the other two.
True though there are various passages about Moksha (Bhagavad Gita being
the obvious example) in there too.
> In the entire Mahabharatha, we see
> only this, Dharma. Budhism also is preaching the same thing.
>
Not really. Buddhism at the philosphical level is almost entirely
unconcerned with worldly life.
> There is however some differences between traditional
> hinduism and budhism, budhism stood against
> the brahminical order of indian society which was widely
> accepted as Hinduism in the Indian society those days, and
> to the belief which they held that only brahmins and their
> descendents have the right to moksha(salvation).
> Budhism held the view that every person has the right to
> his/her salvation irrespective of his caste/creed/religion.
> Though Hinduism preached unity in everything(Advaita), the
> practical Hinduism was far from Advaita and it is in fact
> Budhism that made Advaita a way of life. In other words,
> I would say Budhism is practical Advaita.
>
This view while not really incorrect is awfully simplistic. It seems to
me to be more the product of the wishful thinking of people who wanted to
see an ancient ancestor for socialism. First of all, even with the
indisputably orthodox tradition there is a difference of opinion on who
can achieve moksha. While some restrict this to Brahmans and others to
the Dvija varnas, others say all can. The Puranas are said to be the
upaya for those who have no right to study the Veda. The various
Shramanic movements tended to be more open but not neccessarily. One of
the big issues in the split between Digambar and Shvetambar Jains was over
the issue of whether women could achieve the ultimate goal. These
movements did cause a great upheaval in traditional society but their
biggest threat was they did not accept the validity of the Vedic rites.
This was of greater concern to the defenders of Sanatana Dharma than their
social views.
Based on the Buddhist cultures extant today, it seem Buddhism is quite
content to accept whatever the local
religion. And the available evidence shows that in India that was
certainly the case. While the philosophers of both sides argued fiercely,
at the popular level Buddhism and the traditional religion (which can't be
called Hinduism. Hinduism did not exist as a concept at that time)
coexisted and probably intermingled a bit.
Neither Advaita nor Buddhism were "practical," Both were the affair of
Vairagis removed from the rest of society.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas [jaldhar@braincells.com] o- beable .-_|\
Consolidated Braincells Inc. / \
http://www.braincells.com/jaldhar/ Perth Amboy-> *.--._/
"Witty quote" - Dead Guy finger me for PGP key v McQ!
