[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Buddhism and advaita
Jaldhar H. Vyas (jaldhar@braincells.com) wrote:
: > 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.
I have to disagree here. The entire foundation of Buddhism is
based on the need of humans to tackle misery and pain. And
anything, that involves pain, is indeed earthly, and worldly.
That was the purpose of Buddhism. To answer to the most obvious
questions of human-kind's existence. Of course, the post Buddha
Buddhists, did dabble into issues like "the reality/non-reality
of Atman" and all that.
But it is misery, that lies at the core of Buddhist thought.
: > 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.
This is true. The issue of women in Buddhist vihars, and Buddhist
aspirations also was quite controversial. It is said that Buddha
himself at the beginning was opposed to the inclusion of women in
Viharas. It was only at the insistence of Anand, that women were
permitted in, rather reluctantly. A big cause of reluctance, was
not neccesarily due to the "sexist biases", but the fact that this
movement was viewed as a potentially dangerous effect, in the sense
that it could corrupt the lives of the shramanas.
: 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.
This is again true. We see little evidence og young people turning
Buddhists. It was only in the later stages (van-prastha stage) that
people considered turning bauddha. There are several cases, where
the young folk in a family practiced the Vedic and allied paths,
while the elderly went as a reclus as Buddhists.
--
Nachiketa Tiwari
