Was Buddism convoluted with Hindu beliefs?

[VincentRJ]

Hi Rocky,

I don't find some of these arguments convincing. Gautama didn't have the benefit of the Dharma whilst he was searching for 'Enlightenment'. He presumably worked things out for himself, presumably using the same principles that he later taught to the Kalamas after he'd attained enlightenment.

Why don't you find some these arguments convincing?

Isn't the fact that, Guatama didn't have the benefit of Dharma, irrelevant to our path?

If you think in terms of a bell curve graph illustrating probability of "developing and successfully practicing a path to Awakening", Gautama turned out to be the most probable (succeeded) in our human sample.

I suspect the probability of you or I duplicating his performance would be infinitesimally improbable.

I'm only speculating here of course, but isn't it quite possible that thousands of individuals, perhaps millions, throughout the ages, and including the present times, have achieved the same, or similar states of enlightenment as Gautama did?

Isn't it possible, and even likely, that Siddhartha Gautama of the Shakya clan, was the one chosen to be promoted into a new religion later, after his death, because he had been persuaded during his lifetime to try to teach his techniques of reaching enlightenment, something he was initially reluctant to do, and as a result gained some fame and some followers during his fairly long life?

Isn't it also likely that Gautama's social status as the son of a king, or ruling chieftain, would have had some bearing on the decision of later rulers to promote Gautama as the founder of a new religion?

That Gautama is reported as being initially reluctant to teach his methods, possibly because he didn't think his teachings would be understood and therefore might result in his wasting his time, and possibly because he realised his innovative teachings might be too much in conflict with the existing Hindu beliefs of the times, is an interesting aspect to contemplate.

If it's really true that Gautama was initially reluctant to spread his teachings orally, through travelling on foot presumably, throughout the region, then how many other enlightened people, within that Hindu context, have decided that they will not be persuaded to teach their methods?

If you remove Hindi/Brahman tainting, according to Bikkhu Buddhadasa, you'll also only have one crack it it (this life).

Phew! That's a relief! If I don't become 'awakened' in this life, then never mind. When I die, that's the end. No need to worry about it.

However, joke aside, such thoughts lead me to the realisation of how important the concept of Karma and Reincarnation is for Buddhism. If one removes such concepts, surely one weakens the religion, just as removing the concepts of everlasting heaven and hell in Christianity would weaken the power and effectiveness of Christianity as a religion.

[AYJAYDEE]

Hi Rocky,

I don't find some of these arguments convincing. Gautama didn't have the benefit of the Dharma whilst he was searching for 'Enlightenment'. He presumably worked things out for himself, presumably using the same principles that he later taught to the Kalamas after he'd attained enlightenment.

Why don't you find some these arguments convincing?

Isn't the fact that, Guatama didn't have the benefit of Dharma, irrelevant to our path?

If you think in terms of a bell curve graph illustrating probability of "developing and successfully practicing a path to Awakening", Gautama turned out to be the most probable (succeeded) in our human sample.

I suspect the probability of you or I duplicating his performance would be infinitesimally improbable.

I'm only speculating here of course, but isn't it quite possible that thousands of individuals, perhaps millions, throughout the ages, and including the present times, have achieved the same, or similar states of enlightenment as Gautama did?

Isn't it possible, and even likely, that Siddhartha Gautama of the Shakya clan, was the one chosen to be promoted into a new religion later, after his death, because he had been persuaded during his lifetime to try to teach his techniques of reaching enlightenment, something he was initially reluctant to do, and as a result gained some fame and some followers during his fairly long life?

Isn't it also likely that Gautama's social status as the son of a king, or ruling chieftain, would have had some bearing on the decision of later rulers to promote Gautama as the founder of a new religion?

That Gautama is reported as being initially reluctant to teach his methods, possibly because he didn't think his teachings would be understood and therefore might result in his wasting his time, and possibly because he realised his innovative teachings might be too much in conflict with the existing Hindu beliefs of the times, is an interesting aspect to contemplate.

If it's really true that Gautama was initially reluctant to spread his teachings orally, through travelling on foot presumably, throughout the region, then how many other enlightened people, within that Hindu context, have decided that they will not be persuaded to teach their methods?

If you remove Hindi/Brahman tainting, according to Bikkhu Buddhadasa, you'll also only have one crack it it (this life).

Phew! That's a relief! If I don't become 'awakened' in this life, then never mind. When I die, that's the end. No need to worry about it.

However, joke aside, such thoughts lead me to the realisation of how important the concept of Karma and Reincarnation is for Buddhism. If one removes such concepts, surely one weakens the religion, just as removing the concepts of everlasting heaven and hell in Christianity would weaken the power and effectiveness of Christianity as a religion.

except buddhadassa didnt say that

[Brucenkhamen]

I'm only speculating here of course,

Of course.

but isn't it quite possible that thousands of individuals, perhaps millions, throughout the ages, and including the present times, have achieved the same, or similar states of enlightenment as Gautama did?

Don't you think then the world would be a better place?

Isn't it also likely that Gautama's social status as the son of a king, or ruling chieftain, would have had some bearing on the decision of later rulers to promote Gautama as the founder of a new religion?

As he wasn't a Brahmin, therefore not destined for a religious life, then I'd imagine this would count against him.

That Gautama is reported as being initially reluctant to teach his methods, possibly because he didn't think his teachings would be understood and therefore might result in his wasting his time, and possibly because he realised his innovative teachings might be too much in conflict with the existing Hindu beliefs of the times, is an interesting aspect to contemplate.

If it's really true that Gautama was initially reluctant to spread his teachings orally, through travelling on foot presumably, throughout the region, then how many other enlightened people, within that Hindu context, have decided that they will not be persuaded to teach their methods?

Not really, anybody contemplating a huge undertaking is going to pause and consider whether that's what they really want, ask any parent.

How many people do you think contemplated developing a computer operating system but decided against it? perhaps we should install one of those systems. It's only relevant if you want to follow the teachings of one of those teachers that never taught, and how would you go about that?

[rockyysdt]

I'm only speculating here of course, but isn't it quite possible that thousands of individuals, perhaps millions, throughout the ages, and including the present times, have achieved the same, or similar states of enlightenment as Gautama did?

If it's really true that Gautama was initially reluctant to spread his teachings orally, through travelling on foot presumably, throughout the region, then how many other enlightened people, within that Hindu context, have decided that they will not be persuaded to teach their methods?

I think you missed my point (difficult in a 2 dimensional forum).

What I meant was that "the probability of you or I duplicating his performance would be infinitesimally improbable", includes developing Dhamma as well as practicing it successfully.

If we developed the teaching then we would know what the original teaching was.

This is the whole point of my OP.

The teaching is tainted and most have false view.

One can speculate, but it's presumed Guatama was the first.

It's easy to see why quite a few Awakened under his tutelage.

They would have been receiving the untainted Dhamma teaching.

My original question to you still holds.

You said: I don't find some of these arguments convincing.

Why don't you find some of these arguments convincing?

Edited June 30, 2015 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

except buddhadassa didnt say that

I value your input AJ.

What didn't Buddhadasa say?

[AYJAYDEE]

except buddhadassa didnt say that

I value your input AJ.

What didn't Buddhadasa say?

he didnt categorically deny rebirth

[VincentRJ]

except buddhadassa didnt say that

I value your input AJ.

What didn't Buddhadasa say?

he didnt categorically deny rebirth

The impression I get, from references to his teachings, is that he redefined the concept so that 'rebirth' might apply, more sensibly in the minds of some, to the arising of new thoughts within a current life.

However, I suspect you are correct that he didn't categorically deny that the same term could also apply to a literal, physical rebirth into the beginning of another physical life form. To deny that possibility would not only have been very contentious, but also irrational.

It's generally impossible to prove that something cannot exist, within a very large context like the universe, without having the accompanying knowledge and certainty of absolutely everything that can and does exist in the universe. This is why it's impossible to prove there is no Creator God.

[VincentRJ]

I'm only speculating here of course, but isn't it quite possible that thousands of individuals, perhaps millions, throughout the ages, and including the present times, have achieved the same, or similar states of enlightenment as Gautama did?

If it's really true that Gautama was initially reluctant to spread his teachings orally, through travelling on foot presumably, throughout the region, then how many other enlightened people, within that Hindu context, have decided that they will not be persuaded to teach their methods?

I think you missed my point (difficult in a 2 dimensional forum).

What I meant was that "the probability of you or I duplicating his performance would be infinitesimally improbable", includes developing Dhamma as well as practicing it successfully.

If we developed the teaching then we would know what the original teaching was.

I find the term 'duplicating his performance' a bit off-putting with too much implication of servility and servitude. I tend to think that because each individual is different, with a different background and different conditioning and formative experiences, the path to enlightenment will also be different, at least to some degree, although the goal might be the same.

Gautama's path and methodology would unavoidably have been strongly influenced by the Hindu traditions of the times. Nobody lives in a vacuum.

[AYJAYDEE]

except buddhadassa didnt say that

I value your input AJ.

What didn't Buddhadasa say?

he didnt categorically deny rebirth

The impression I get, from references to his teachings, is that he redefined the concept so that 'rebirth' might apply, more sensibly in the minds of some, to the arising of new thoughts within a current life.

However, I suspect you are correct that he didn't categorically deny that the same term could also apply to a literal, physical rebirth into the beginning of another physical life form. To deny that possibility would not only have been very contentious, but also irrational.

It's generally impossible to prove that something cannot exist, within a very large context like the universe, without having the accompanying knowledge and certainty of absolutely everything that can and does exist in the universe. This is why it's impossible to prove there is no Creator God.

from what i've read, he pointed out that literal rebirth was something not worth worrying about. if its true and u practiced correctly, all good. and if it isnt and u practiced correctly, all good. therefore, not worth the time and effort to dwell on it

[rockyysdt]

from what i've read, he pointed out that literal rebirth was something not worth worrying about. if its true and u practiced correctly, all good. and if it isnt and u practiced correctly, all good. therefore, not worth the time and effort to dwell on it

If we were to agree that holding wrong views will impede the outcome of ones practice (deep and inconspicuous effect), then from this, can we say "u can't practice correctly", and therefore will never find out if it is true or not?

[AYJAYDEE]

from what i've read, he pointed out that literal rebirth was something not worth worrying about. if its true and u practiced correctly, all good. and if it isnt and u practiced correctly, all good. therefore, not worth the time and effort to dwell on it

If we were to agree that holding wrong views will impede the outcome of ones practice (deep and inconspicuous effect), then from this, can we say "u can't practice correctly", and therefore will never find out if it is true or not?

and buddhadassa said it doesnt matter if its true or not, just get on with your practice. dont have views on things until YOU have seen the truth for yourself.

[rockyysdt]

and buddhadassa said it doesnt matter if its true or not, just get on with your practice. dont have views on things until YOU have seen the truth for yourself.

I sort of get it.

You're suggesting that disbelief in literal re birth is also holding a view.

It seems we are all at a disadvantage.

Those being trained directly under the guidance of the Buddha could practice, confident that they held correct view.

Hence the high percentage of Awakenings.

[Brickbat]

As was pointed to all of us, it is neither the flag that moves , nor the wind. It's the convoluted mind. Ascribes to be-lie-fs. Is so ego driven, wants to know with all its convoluted me-mory. Steeped in illusions. Heaped in delusions.

Follow the simple advice given by Gautama. Gone, gone, gone to the shore, gone beyond the shore. To bodhi swaha.

Is it that difficult? You bet ya it is. Mind is a very cunning animal. Hence so much flag waving and wind blowing. Does not want to leave the boat!!

Close your eyes and you will see clearly. Cease to listen and you will hear the truth. Be silent and your heart will sing. Lao Tzu . To me, another Buddha .

[AYJAYDEE]

and buddhadassa said it doesnt matter if its true or not, just get on with your practice. dont have views on things until YOU have seen the truth for yourself.

I sort of get it.

You're suggesting that disbelief in literal re birth is also holding a view.

It seems we are all at a disadvantage.

Those being trained directly under the guidance of the Buddha could practice, confident that they held correct view.

Hence the high percentage of Awakenings.

Not really. Buddhadassa is simply saying that actual rebirth is unimportant. What is important is the work of mindfulness. That is what will lead to understanding of the way things truly are and the elimination of dukkha.. And at some point we will actually be reborn or we wont. Buddha specifically instructed his followers NOT to just believe what he said. They must see it for themselves. Until they do, they should not be confident that they hold correct view.

[rockyysdt]

But doesn't incorrect view lead to incorrect practice?

[AYJAYDEE]

But doesn't incorrect view lead to incorrect practice?

no. according to Buddhadassa, correct practice is no more complicated than simple mindful awareness, acknowledging that your views and those of your teacher may or may not be correct. If we follow this path, we will arrive at awareness of the correct view. He was adamant that people spend too much time worrying about correct dogma and not enough time just looking!

[Brickbat]

To understand Buddha is to realise that this is a concept beyond reason and logic. Without desire or we only see our own manisfestations. Without desire and hence judgement, we can get in touch with our divinity that connects everyone and everything. Otherwise it's just Maya. Illusions, delusion and confusion.

And our mind constructs does not like its annihilation. So it manifests. And we have suffering.

So Simple. Let go, let go, let go. Or as the Buddha said, ' Jhate, Jhate, Para Jhate. Bodhi Swaha

[spidermike007]

Thailand was predominately Hindu prior to the Angkor king assuming control of most of this area in about the 10th or 11th century. Out of respect for him, most people converted to Buddhism. So, many aspects of Hinduism remain.

[VincentRJ]

but isn't it quite possible that thousands of individuals, perhaps millions, throughout the ages, and including the present times, have achieved the same, or similar states of enlightenment as Gautama did?

Don't you think then the world would be a better place?

Isn't it also likely that Gautama's social status as the son of a king, or ruling chieftain, would have had some bearing on the decision of later rulers to promote Gautama as the founder of a new religion?

As he wasn't a Brahmin, therefore not destined for a religious life, then I'd imagine this would count against him.

That Gautama is reported as being initially reluctant to teach his methods, possibly because he didn't think his teachings would be understood and therefore might result in his wasting his time, and possibly because he realised his innovative teachings might be too much in conflict with the existing Hindu beliefs of the times, is an interesting aspect to contemplate.

If it's really true that Gautama was initially reluctant to spread his teachings orally, through travelling on foot presumably, throughout the region, then how many other enlightened people, within that Hindu context, have decided that they will not be persuaded to teach their methods?

Not really, anybody contemplating a huge undertaking is going to pause and consider whether that's what they really want, ask any parent.

How many people do you think contemplated developing a computer operating system but decided against it? perhaps we should install one of those systems. It's only relevant if you want to follow the teachings of one of those teachers that never taught, and how would you go about that?

Sorry for this late response to your comments about mine, Bruce. I felt at the time it might be pointless engaging in yet more speculation, something which Gautama would, reportedly, not have approved of.

However, I recently came across the following reference to Ashoka in a Wikipedia article, which rather shocked me, and got me thinking again about Gautama's initial reluctance to teach his methods.

"The ancient texts Ashokavadana and the Diviyavadana mention that the Buddhist king Ashoka ordered killings of several nirgranthas or Jain monks after being informed that two (only two) nirgranthas had drawn pictures depicting the Buddha bowing at the feet of Mahavira."

If this is historically accurate, it provides an insight into the barbarity of the times. Mahavira and Gautama Buddha were contemporaries, although Mahavira might have been senior. Jainism and Buddhism seem to have much in common, including the principle of non-violence. Ashoka's grandfather, King Chandragupta, was apparently a Jain by faith.

In view of this great sensitivity about religious matters in India at that time, and the potential dire consequences for anyone who promoted a view which was different to that held by those currently in power, it seems reasonable to suppose that Gautama's initial reluctance to teach his views was not only due to an awareness of the practical difficulties of getting his teachings understood through the use of the current terminology of the times, but the potential counterproductive consequences of violence and killing during arguments about whose views are right.

I therefore deduce that Gautama's status as a prince would have had some bearing on his decision to teach his own views on such religiously sensitive matters, and would have given him a degree of confidence that others of a lower status in society would not have had, despite their possibly achieving a similar degree of enlightenment.

I don't find your counter-argument convincing, that the world would be a better place (than it currently is) if it is the case that countless other individuals throughout history have achieved a similar degree of enlightenment as Gautama did, but through other methods, each slightly different at the individual level.

This is where matters become pure speculation. The world might indeed be a better place than it otherwise would have been, as a result of the relatively minor influence of countless thousands of individuals who reached enlightenment in the past, but decided not to teach their methods. The influence of such enlightened people might have been rather subtle, and their influence unidentifiable as a result of their anonymity. Therefore we can never know what the world would have been like if such enlightened people had never existed.

I rest my case.

[Brickbat]

Shakyamuni Gautam basically taught psychology . His solution to suffering was exactly the same as Lao Tzu. All desire is our own manifestations and the cause of suffering. So get out of the Head, through the Spirit ( breath) and into the Body. Resulting in meditation. The absence of the meditator.

Ashoka arrived 300 years later and created a national religion with the same aim as the Romans who did similar , 300 years after Jesus. Religion is a great way to control people.

[rockyysdt]

All desire is our own manifestations and the cause of suffering. So get out of the Head, through the Spirit ( breath) and into the Body. Resulting in meditation. The absence of the meditator.

When speaking at a high level very few can truly understand.

If one lives in the body, there may be escape from the disadvantages of head, but one might also deny access to 1 or 2 critical attributes.

Edited July 4, 2015 by rockyysdt

[Brickbat]

There is nothing to understand when we get out of our heads. Our logic and reasoning is the only obstruction to connecting with the divinity that connects all things. We become the ocean in the drop. Not a separate drop in the ocean. Going to the centre is tough for any " mind" . It is the promise of redemption over that scary abyss do Nothing.

Now, we practice this meditation daily, for just 20 mins , morning and night, and all attributes you can come up with are opposites that will become complimentary. And the music that will arise within will bring acceptance and compassion.

[rockyysdt]

There is nothing to understand when we get out of our heads. Our logic and reasoning is the only obstruction to connecting with the divinity that connects all things. We become the ocean in the drop. Not a separate drop in the ocean. Going to the centre is tough for any " mind" . It is the promise of redemption over that scary abyss do Nothing.

Now, we practice this meditation daily, for just 20 mins , morning and night, and all attributes you can come up with are opposites that will become complimentary. And the music that will arise within will bring acceptance and compassion.

Your words are very inspiring B.

Even those with the luxury of full time practice may struggle.

Aren't those with 40 min daily investments considerably well short of the mark?

[Brickbat]

There is nothing so disobedient as an undisciplined mind and nothing so obedient than a disciplined mind. Those full timers are obviously worshipping the fingers that point to the way rather than sweltering at the task of letting go. Nature is wordless communion. Definitions, categorising and analysing are human impediment to that place of Divine Wisdom.

[VincentRJ]

Mind is a very cunning animal. Hence so much flag waving and wind blowing. Does not want to leave the boat!!

Close your eyes and you will see clearly. Cease to listen and you will hear the truth. Be silent and your heart will sing. Lao Tzu . To me, another Buddha .

It's interesting that Gautama and Lao Tzu could have been contemporaries. Unfortunately, the historical facts relating to both of these philosopher/gurus are greatly lacking. We can't be sure if either of them really existed as individual identities during a specific period in history, as described in the earliest texts. They are quite likely composite characters, as are most characters depicted in works of fiction.

On the other hand, I suppose one could make a valid point within the context of ideas that describe the ego and personality as an illusion, that the accuracy of historical information relating to Lao Tzu and the Buddha should not be an issue. It's all an illusion, and the purpose of the teachings is to enable one to become aware of this.

[Brickbat]

Who wants to know that it is ' interesting' or ' unfortunate'? That cunning animal , the warmongering, sensation seeking programmed mind that has caused all our grief? Rather, could we not just look at the pointers , the Buddha Sutras and the I Ching , and forget about the fingers that pointed to these gems that brings us redemption by taking us into that place of silence which is Divine Wisdom, beyond all definitions, analysis and categorising?

No mind wants its annihilation. Hence all the karfuffle

[rockyysdt]

Those full timers are obviously worshipping the fingers that point to the way rather than sweltering at the task of letting go.

I can imagine many would have fallen into such a full time trap.

Yes, the mind is definitely a cunning devil.

A construct which demands & commands control.

Overcome the mind and you're there.

The big question though, is, who/what is there?

Edited July 6, 2015 by rockyysdt

[Brickbat]

This place of Divine Wisdom, the Infinite can never be reached by any Mind which is finite and full of questions and wants answers. Easier to go to the moon on a bicycle!! Like it's been said, that promise of redemption over that abyss of Nothing is scary. Either you drop it, let go and go beyond. Or suffer with desire that creates all its own manifestations. You are your mind's constructs. A part of the whole. A part will never comprehend the whole. Quit. Stop. Drop. Let go. The Heart is SILENT. Language of the Universe. We own noisy nosey minds.

[Brickbat]

This place of Divine Wisdom, the Infinite can never be reached by any Mind which is finite and full of questions and wants answers. Easier to go to the moon on a bicycle!! Like it's been said, that promise of redemption over that abyss of Nothing is scary. Either you drop it, let go and go beyond. Or suffer with desire that creates all its own manifestations. You are your mind's constructs. A part of the whole. A part will never comprehend the whole. Quit. Stop. Drop. Let go. The Heart is SILENT. Language of the Universe. We own noisy nosey minds.

[VincentRJ]

Who wants to know that it is ' interesting' or ' unfortunate'? That cunning animal , the warmongering, sensation seeking programmed mind that has caused all our grief? Rather, could we not just look at the pointers , the Buddha Sutras and the I Ching , and forget about the fingers that pointed to these gems that brings us redemption by taking us into that place of silence which is Divine Wisdom, beyond all definitions, analysis and categorising?

No mind wants its annihilation. Hence all the karfuffle

Surely the people who wrote the earliest texts expounding the principle that the mind is a cunning animal would find it interesting. Are you suggesting that the people who wrote the Pali Canon found it a rather boring task but did it out of a sense of duty?

Are you suggesting that people who take the trouble to read about Buddhism or Daoism are not reading out of interest?