Intrafaith Dialog - Hinduism, Buddhism And Jainism

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Re: [hc] Are Buddhists and Jainas Hindus?

Dear Harikrishna,


1. What I provided was not merely the etymological origins of the word
Hindu. As early as the 6th century BCE, the Behistun inscriptions use this
tag for the people that lived in the land where the Sindhu flowed.
2. Historically, the word Hindu has encompassed every Indian
tradition. Even Babur called those that were not Muslims and Christians
Hindus. There is no evidence that the Buddhists and Jainas, until recently,
differentiated themselves from the Hindu identity any more (or less) than
any other Hindu sect.
3. You are arbitrary relying upon the colonial definition of the word
Hindu, and insist that it should accepted as historical.
4. You bring up the straw man of the VHP when nothing that I have
stated has anything to do with the VHP. There is strong evidence that the
term Hindu is geographic in its origins. So, it includes the Buddhists and
Jainas.
5. I merely stated that the Buddha did not rebel against the Vedas or
the Varna system as you claimed. Now you demand evidence that he accepted
the Vedas! Where did I say that in the first place? Why set up a straw
man?
6. The Buddha displays no knowledge of the Vedas. Buddhism merely
condemned the Vedic sacrifices – something anybody that has observed a
sacrifice could do. Beyond that, the Vedas were irrelevant to Buddhism. If
you claim that the Buddha opposed the Vedas, the onus of proving is upon
you!
7. It is very arbitrary to define Hinduism as something that accepts
the authority of the Vedas. You have to show me traditional – i.e.,
before the Islamic period, when Hinduism was thus defined. I have pointed
out that the early Hindu orthodoxy such as the Mimamsakas would have
considered all Vedantic schools of Hinduism as a deviation from the Vedic
path because the Mimamsakas used only the mantra as pramana. They would have
seen the Vedantic usage of the Upanishads and Vedanta Sutra, and later the
Gita, as pramana as deviation from the Vedic tradition.
8. You cannot just wish away the Mimamsaka argument. If you can deny
the Buddhists and Jainas a Hindu identity based on colonial definition, I
can use the Mimamsaka definition as basis to deny all Vedantic and Bhakti
schools a Hindu identity.
9. The Buddha did not leave any writing behind. His teachings were
recorded by his disciples. I have cited (in the old IC list) many cases
where the Buddha praised his Kshatriya Varna as number one, and even
advocates incest to preserve the purity of the Kshatriya blood! Rhys Davids
is a very good starting point. I am surprised that you have uncritically
absorbed the colonial propaganda regarding this.
10. Varnashrama is central to Hinduism. It started as a bipartite
system and evolved into a four-fold system. But you are going into a tangent
making accusations of revisionism when I have not even made any claim to the
contrary!
11. Nanda Chandran has shown that Advaita is a continuation of
Buddhism. One does not require Advaitins to accept that. If that were the
criteria, one should then wait for the Christians to concede that the Sermon
on the Mount is an almost word to word borrowing from the Buddha's
teachings! Other two major Vedantic traditions – Visishtadvaita and Dvaita,
use the Advaita as a standard to differentiate themselves. So, the
dependence on Buddhism – either to agree or differentiate, is obvious.
12. I gave the example of Manimekhalai and Nagarjuna to prove that
terms like nastika or vaidika have had different meanings over times.
13. Many schools of Buddhism, that of Bhutan for example, are tantric.
Tantra is an inalienable component of the Veda mantras. If the author of the
Manimekhalai claimed that the Buddhists are vaidikas, he was correct. After
all, mantras are very central to Buddhism.


Regards,
KV<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->