Removing The Sheen From Buddhism

[Husky]

2/n



Returning to

www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/item/51148-fighting-over-bodhgaya.html?tmpl=component&print=1

(the original link above is available again, but if not, a copy is also at bharatabharati.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/mahabhodi-temple-sc-opens-temple-reclamation-door-sandhya-jain/)



Sandhya Jain wrote:

By admitting the plea on the Mahabodhi temple, the bench has taken a narrow view of the oceanic nature of native Indian tradition. In the 1920s itself, renowned archaeologist R.P. Chanda noted the Indus roots of Yogic tradition (possibly India’s most significant spiritual dimension), particularly the meditation forms that came to be associated with Bauddha and Jaina practice. He observed that the discoveries at Indus sites show that both traditions are indebted to the Indus civilization for some of their cardinal ideas. Scholars now believe that what were later identified as distinct Hindu, Jaina and Bauddha spiritual streams, had common roots in the Indus civilisation.



Prince Siddhartha (6th century BC) said there had been many Buddhas before him; Buddhist theology has rich genealogies of past Buddhas and the previous lives of Sakya Muni. [...]

The 2 paragraphs above are related in that they follow on. This choice of construction is important in intended meaning.



The notion is that Buddhism - or at least a precursor independent of the Vedic religion (the "religion of the Vedas", i.e. what is called the "Hindu" religion now) - goes back to the "beginning". Where the beginning here is at least as far as the IVC.



Moreover, there's no reason why the reference which Buddha is to have made to Buddhas before him ought to be taken in the (later) Buddhist theological sense: it admits to no more that self-perfected beings had existed before him (of whatever pre-existing Indic religion).

However the choice to bring in Buddhist theology of past Buddhas implies that Buddha was referring to self-perfected *Buddhists* before him. That is, that Buddhism existed forever. This is *late* Buddhist theology, forget having anything to do with fact.





1. koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/books/wiah/ch7.htm

Elst writes that Sandhya's father Girilal Jain wrote:

“Though not to the same extent as in the case of Sikhs, (…) neo-Buddhists and at least some Jains have come to regard themselves as non-Hindus. In reality, however, Buddhism and Jainism have been no more than movements within the larger body of Hinduism.”8

If that is to be disregarded as unclear or open to interpretation, the following is not.



Below is the Buddhist Dharmapala again - from some late part of the colonial period. He does not appear to contend that Buddhism predated the Upanishads (or the Gita) but the reverse, and that Buddhism's starting point was from (considering the ideas in) these Vedic materials. (Though some - core - Buddhist principles were set up in specific denial of certain affirmations made in Upanishadic thought, which does not make Buddhism a "progression" as much as a distinctive branching-off.)

Dharmapala went a step further and said that Buddhism went deeper into the mysteries of life than either the Gita or the Upanishads.

To underscore this point, Dharmapala quoted a well-known contemporary authority on comparative religions, Justice Telang of the Bombay High Court, to say that Buddhism had concepts, which had appeared in "less thorough-going manifestations" in the Upanishads and the Gita.

"The Upanishads, with the Gita and the Precepts of the Buddha, appear to be the successive embodiments of the spiritual thought of the age," Telang had said.

But it is understandably hard to deny chronology. (E.g. hard to deny that the Buddhist "anatman" was developed in particular rejection of the Upanishadic "atman". Formulation of anatman presupposes conceptualisation of atman - not in the mere formation of the word, but the whole conception which it sought to deny.)





2. Points of relevance/interest in Encarta 2002 on Buddha. Gives you an idea on what western and eastern perceived experts on Buddhism/Buddha believed about a decade ago (meanwhile a century ago, the western experts on Buddhism still insisted that Buddha/Buddhism opposed the ritualism of the Vedas rather than argue it was caste that the Buddha/Buddhism was opposed to):

BUDDHA

Buddha (563?-483?bc), Indian philosopher and the founder of Buddhism

[...]

All the surviving accounts of Buddha's life were written many years after his death by idealizing followers rather than by objective historians.

[...]

Wandering as a mendicant over northern India, Buddha first investigated Hinduism. He took instruction from some famous Brahman teachers, but he found the Hindu caste system repellent and Hindu asceticism futile.

[...]

Not only did he establish a great new religion, but his revolt against Hindu hedonism, asceticism, extreme spiritualism, and the caste system deeply influenced Hinduism itself. His rejection of metaphysical speculation and his logical thinking introduced an important scientific strain heretofore lacking in Oriental thought.

[...]

Contributed By:

Wing-Tsit Chan

Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2002. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

- "revolt against Hindu ascetism" contains admission not only of some sort of ascetism in pre-existing Hindu religion, but also alludes to Buddha's choice of a middle way (hence his rejection of "Hindu hedonism" too - generally explained as a reference to Hindus' pursuit of happiness even in life/this world).

- "rejection of metaphysical speculation" is a reference to Buddhism's rejection of certain concepts that the Upanishadic line of thought took for granted/as a given and for the inquiry itself

- "his logical thinking introduced an important scientific strain heretofore lacking in Oriental thought" is a bit of a stretch. VaisheShika is (or at least was, not so long ago) apparently dated to 600 BCE and Nyaya to the 6th century BCE too, and I've not heard either of these accused of being strangers to Logical thinking. But when Buddhism is credited as originating so much else, why not Logic too, nah.

BUDDHISM



INTRODUCTION

[....]



Originating as a monastic movement within the dominant Brahman tradition of the day, Buddhism quickly developed in a distinctive direction.

[...]

No complete biography of the Buddha was compiled until centuries after his death; only fragmentary accounts of his life are found in the earliest sources.

[...]

Renouncing earthly attachments, he embarked on a quest for peace and enlightenment, seeking release from the cycle of rebirths. For the next few years he practiced Yoga and adopted a life of radical asceticism.



Eventually he gave up this approach as fruitless and instead adopted a middle path between the life of indulgence and that of self-denial.





B2 Anatman



Buddhism analyzes human existence as made up of five aggregates or “bundles” (skandhas): the material body, feelings, perceptions, predispositions or karmic tendencies, and consciousness. A person is only a temporary combination of these aggregates, which are subject to continual change. No one remains the same for any two consecutive moments. Buddhists deny that the aggregates individually or in combination may be considered a permanent, independently existing self or soul (atman). Indeed, they regard it as a mistake to conceive of any lasting unity behind the elements that constitute an individual. The Buddha held that belief in such a self results in egoism, craving, and hence in suffering. Thus he taught the doctrine of anatman, or the denial of a permanent soul. He felt that all existence is characterized by the three marks of anatman (no soul), anitya (impermanence), and dukkha (suffering). The doctrine of anatman made it necessary for the Buddha to reinterpret the Indian idea of repeated rebirth in the cycle of phenomenal existence known as samsara.





C Conflict and New Groupings



As Buddhism developed in its early years, conflicting interpretations of the master’s teachings appeared, resulting in the traditional 18 schools of Buddhist thought. As a group, these schools eventually came to be considered too conservative and literal minded in their attachment to the master’s message. Among them, Theravada was charged with being too individualistic and insufficiently concerned with the needs of the laity. Such dissatisfaction led a liberal wing of the sangha to begin to break away from the rest of the monks at the second council in 383 bc.



The Mahasanghikas speculated that the human Buddha was but an apparition of the transcendental Buddha.



While the more conservative monks continued to honor the Buddha as a perfectly enlightened human teacher, the liberal Mahasanghikas developed a new concept. They considered the Buddha an eternal, omnipresent, transcendental being. They speculated that the human Buddha was but an apparition of the transcendental Buddha that was created for the benefit of humankind. In this understanding of the Buddha nature, Mahasanghika thought is something of a prototype of Mahayana.

(apotheosis)



C1 Mahayana



The origins of Mahayana are particularly obscure. Even the names of its founders are unknown, and scholars disagree about whether it originated in southern or in northwestern India. Its formative years were between the 2nd century bc and the 1st century ad.



Speculation about the eternal Buddha continued well after the beginning of the Christian era and culminated in the Mahayana doctrine of his threefold nature, or triple “body” (trikaya). These aspects are the body of essence, the body of communal bliss, and the body of transformation. The body of essence represents the ultimate nature of the Buddha. Beyond form, it is the unchanging absolute and is spoken of as consciousness or the void. This essential Buddha nature manifests itself, taking on heavenly form as the body of communal bliss. In this form the Buddha sits in godlike splendor, preaching in the heavens. Lastly, the Buddha nature appears on earth in human form to convert humankind. Such an appearance is known as a body of transformation. The Buddha has taken on such an appearance countless times. Mahayana considers the historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, only one example of the body of transformation.



The new Mahayana concept of the Buddha made possible concepts of divine grace and ongoing revelation that are lacking in Theravada. Belief in the Buddha’s heavenly manifestations led to the development of a significant devotional strand in Mahayana. Some scholars have therefore described the early development of Mahayana in terms of the “Hinduization” of Buddhism.

(And the equally self-inflicted conscious Daoisation of Buddhism, etc. depending on geography.

Note influence of pre-existing Hindu matters including Brahman - majorly copied in Tibetan Buddhist sects - and bhakti.)



Another important new concept in Mahayana is that of the bodhisattva or enlightenment being, as the ideal toward which the good Buddhist should aspire. A bodhisattva is an individual who has attained perfect enlightenment but delays entry into final nirvana in order to make possible the salvation of all other sentient beings. The bodhisattva transfers merit built up over many lifetimes to less fortunate creatures. The key attributes of this social saint are compassion and loving-kindness. For this reason Mahayana considers the bodhisattva superior to the arhats who represent the ideal of Theravada. Certain bodhisattvas, such as Maitreya, who represents the Buddha’s loving-kindness, and Avalokitesvara or Guanyin, who represents his compassion, have become the focus of popular devotional worship in Mahayana.

[...]

Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2002. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

BTW, bodhisattva is very similar in notion to the pre-existing concept of Daoist 'Immortals'... I imagine I know the Chinese word for this, but don't want to get it wrong. Statues and paintings of some of the famous ones would be familiar to many, I think. Anyway, Daoist 'Immortals' used to be Daoists - human or otherwise - who had successfully self-cultivated to rise to becoming Immortals. Thereafter, in line with Daoist Heaven, they help and guide other Daoists to similarly successfully cultivate Daoism also, just as the Daoist Gods are famous for doing. The Immortals are often revered or worshipped alongside the Daoists' Gods - rather like Hindus worship Rishis and Hindu Yogis/Siddhars along with our Gods etc. Similar to the Daoist Gods, the Immortals commune with Daoists and intervene beneficially in their lives. To this day. Compassion and loving-kindness are naturally their forte, as they do not judge failure and are a source of advice, teachings and other help - having even special powers to help. IIRC Buddhism tried to declare a few of the more famous ones as bodhisattvas later on, but appear not to have succeeded as well as they did with some other Daoist beings of Daoist cosmology.





As a point of interest, though not otherwise relevant to my posts, the above (2nd) encarta article also states:

Buddhism was first introduced into Tibet through the influence of foreign wives of the king, beginning in the 7th century ad.

Of course. (Curious, were these ones planted too?)

But generally too, happens all too often: wives following missionary religions. And the top-down missionising strategy. How much they have altered the character of nations.

It's on "trifling" matters like the choice of spouse that destinies of entire countries rest.