Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Was Lord Buddha a Radical philospher

  1. #1

    Was Lord Buddha a Radical philospher

    Pranams Namaskara Dear Respected Learned Sages.


    Amongst many Buddhist thoughts, and with the Theravadin Tradition mostly in mind, they consider that Lord Buddha was an opposed to the Vedas, and say that Lord Buddha was a radical and he taught something that had never been heard or taught before, the teaching of annata ( no self )

    In parts of the upanishads, vedanta, yoga sutras and espcially samkhya, the teachings of annata is certainly included. But also in the teachings the inclusion of brahman is also there, so they cannot fully be considered as a teaching of no self.

    We understand from past sages and sadhus that the Vedas are all inclusive, nothing is outside of the Vedas.

    So was Lord Buddha anti Veda, was his teaching unique. We can see many similarities, likee the use of dharma, the teaching of rebirth, the cosmology was similiar and many other things, but in the final analysis he seemed according to the Pali suttas to reject all the doctrines and practice of the Vedic Brahmins.

  2. #2

    Re: Was Lord Buddha a Radical philospher

    Namaste,


    Whether the concept of Brahman(as Absolute) existed or not,Lord Buddha considered 'Brahma' as 'supreme'.According to Brahmanavagga of Dhammapada,Lord Buddha states that the one who has reached the final goal(i.e attained Nirvana/Moksha) could be termed as Brahmana.

    Lord Buddha also praised 'the ancient Brahmanas' who were 'protected by Dhamma' and were 'invincible' as opposed to the corrupted Brahmanas of his time(read Brahmana Dhammika sutta of Sutta Nipata)
    "Only one is the fire,which is inflamed in numerous ways.Only one is the sun, which pervades the whole universe.Only one is the dawn,which illuminates all things. Similarly,all that exists is The One and it has manifested into everything here.”

    ~ Rg Veda 8.58.2

  3. #3
    Join Date
    March 2014
    Posts
    554
    Rep Power
    1405

    Post Re: Was Lord Buddha a Radical philospher

    From what I have understood,it is the context that is important.The period when Buddha appeared was not very positive.Mere ritualism was considered to provide salvation.Therefore the Buddha opposed hollow ritualism and therefore the Vedas.The Buddha was both a radical and a reformer.His path can be said to non-theistic rather than atheistic.

    The Buddha believed in spreading knowledge through vernacular languages rather than Vedic Sanskrit. Sanskrit became difficult to comprehend even for the performers of rituals.Hence you see the antagonism to the Vedas,which by then were far from being available to the common people.This same opinion is voiced by the Upanishads too.They place speculating and mediating on 'Brahman' as the most important idea on the path of salvation than indulging in rituals without comprehending their significance.The difference between Buddha and the Upanishadic Sages is that,the former emphasized on realizing the nature of the mind,impermanence of phenomenon and purifying oneself( which is Nirvana here and now),whereas the Wise Sages of Vedanta explained that liberation from samsara is attained when the individual realizes that he is indeed divine and realizes the presence of that 'Absolute Divinity' present in everything.

    There are certain differences in their metaphysics but I think it is all a matter of interpretation because from what I have read the historical Buddha was more into practice than indulging in hairsplitting debates.
    You can interpret his words in either ways.

    He was radical in the sense he opposed some practices that were prevalent in his time but you must remember that the people of period were in a low not the Vedas themselves.In fact there are many instances as our friend gave above.The Buddha praised the Vedic Brahmins whenever they followed Dharma and encouraged others to learn from them and cautioned that their downfall was due to their disregard for what had been said by the Noble Sages of the past.Some of the most beautiful interpretations of Vedic rituals,for ex. like the Vedic daily Triple fire was given by the Buddha.

    The Buddha didn't say he invented a new path to liberation he only said that he discovered what was forgotten for a long time.The Buddha's philosophy is all about getting rid of attachment,so is Vedanta.The difference being one sees himself devoid of 'I' and the others see that 'I' indeed is to be known.

    The Buddha didn't believe that Vedic rituals could grant salvation so he is considered as not being favorable to the Veda Dharma.But we can learn good things from Buddha Dharma,ex the Sigalovada Sutta.And many others from the Veda Dharma.


    ā no bhadrāḥ kratavo yantu viśvataḥ (1.89.1 rigveda) / आ नो भद्राः क्रतवो यन्तु विश्वतः / (Let good (thoughts) come from everywhere, from all the world)

  4. #4

    Re: Was Lord Buddha a Radical philospher

    Pranams Namaskara Aryavartian,

    Thank you for your reply, as a follower of the Vedas it can be understood that they predate the Buddha's teachings. But within many Buddhist schools and perhaps more prominently the Theravadin school they seem to properegate that ultimately the Buddha was distinct from Vedic truths and consider the teaching of annata as purely unique and radical against the teachings of Veda.

    I think many Indian philosophers would disagree with this and even Adi Shankara Acharya has often been called a Buddhist in disguise and his teaching covered Buddhism.

    But to my original question, was the teaching of non self annata in circulation before the Buddha.

    Ys

    Md

  5. #5

    Re: Was Lord Buddha a Radical philospher

    Quote Originally Posted by markandeya 108 dasa View Post
    Pranams Namaskara Aryavartian,



    I think many Indian philosophers would disagree with this and even Adi Shankara Acharya has often been called a Buddhist in disguise and his teaching covered Buddhism.
    Namaste Sri Markandeya Dasa,

    Actually,Sri Adi Shankara himself praised Siddhartha Gautama by calling him as sovereign ruler among Yogins(Yoginam Chakravartin).

    Also,it is said in Mahaparinibbana sutta that it was a Brahmin who divided the funeral relics of the Buddha and gave those relics to many Khattiya(Kshatriya) kings of northern India during that time.Buddha himself advised his followers to treat his body like a Chakkavatti(i.e like a sovereign king,a Kshatriya) when he has attained Nirvana.




    But to my original question, was the teaching of non self annata in circulation before the Buddha.
    According to Vedanta,Atman(self) is identical with the Brahman/Paramatman(universal self) which would mean that when we attain union with Brahman/Paramatman,there is no place for individual self because we are one with the universal self.




    This is my POV,i may be wrong.

    Regards,
    A.
    "Only one is the fire,which is inflamed in numerous ways.Only one is the sun, which pervades the whole universe.Only one is the dawn,which illuminates all things. Similarly,all that exists is The One and it has manifested into everything here.”

    ~ Rg Veda 8.58.2

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    bhUloka
    Posts
    250
    Rep Power
    358

    Re: Was Lord Buddha a Radical philospher

    Quote Originally Posted by markandeya 108 dasa View Post
    I think many Indian philosophers would disagree with this and even Adi Shankara Acharya has often been called a Buddhist in disguise and his teaching covered Buddhism.
    I'm not too sure about sha~NkarAchArya, but his guru/AchArya (gauDapAda) certainly had bauddha leanings, even going so far as to indirectly copy views expressed in (and make comparisons which are copied practically verbatim from) nAgArjuna's mUlamadhyamakakArikA

    Compare the following from gauDapAda's mANDUkyakArikA:

    svapnamAye yathA dR^iShTe gandharvanagaraM yathA|
    tathA vishvamidaM dR^iShTaM vedAnteShu vichakShaNaiH||2.31||

    To the following from the mUlamadhyamakakArikA:

    yathA mAyA yathA svapno gandharvanagaraM yathA|
    tathotpAdastathA sthAnaM tathA bha~Nga udAhR^itam||7.34||

    Just sayin'
    Last edited by Jaskaran Singh; 30 March 2014 at 03:45 PM.
    படைபோர் புக்கு முழங்கும்அப் பாஞ்சசன்னியமும் பல்லாண்டே
    May your pA~nchajanya shankha which reverberates on the battlefield, last thousands upon thousands of years...
    http://archives.mirroroftomorrow.org...anchajanya.jpg

  7. #7
    Join Date
    February 2012
    Location
    Decatur, Alabama, USA
    Age
    37
    Posts
    70
    Rep Power
    45

    Re: Was Lord Buddha a Radical philospher

    It might be a pet theory but I'm pretty sure I've heard as much a few times. I think Buddhism was a reaction to the corrupt Brahmin priesthood of the time. Buddha taught a way to enlightenment outside of established hinduism.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Suffering?
    By satay in forum God in Hindu Dharma
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 27 May 2014, 12:41 AM
  2. Shri Rudra - Sankarshana Moorti Swaroopo ??
    By giridhar in forum Shaiva
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10 July 2011, 06:27 AM
  3. Adi-Buddha vs Gautama Buddha
    By Sahasranama in forum Buddhism
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 30 December 2010, 06:02 AM
  4. Lord Buddha was an Avatar of Vishnu
    By Sri Vaishnava in forum Hare Krishna (ISKCON)
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 10 March 2009, 12:34 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •