Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00646)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Koshek Swaminathan" 
<arasophia@y...> wrote:
> From my understanding and independent research, I'm not sure if we 
really know 
> what the Buddha actually taught.

The validity or non calidity of Buddhism comes from experiencing 
results or not. If the techniques, which are unique to that system, 
are beneficial, then the system itself satisfies the operational 
definition of "valid" and must therefore have originated with someone 
of deep insight.

> If we believe that he 
> was against the Brahman tradition, it appears that he may have been 
actually 
> promoting it from an esoteric standpoint.

That is what Blavatsky said in ISIS UNVEILED.

My understanding is, Gautama did not deny the existence of the Hindu 
deities, merely that they were enlightened, and that if they were not 
enlightened they could not take responsibility for anyone else's 
enlightenment. So you are left to work out your own salvation.

Interestingly, Judaism also did not deny the existence of the gods of 
their neighbors. They merely wished their own god to be preeminent 
among his own people. Later, the Christians as heirs of the Jews 
also believed in the gods but proclaimed them to be devils, just as 
Zoroaster demonized some of the Hindo gods.

Buddhism never said anything negative about the Hindu deities that I 
am aware of, but some of the stories they preserved were satirical.

> The Buddhism of Ashoka's time does not seem to reflect the same 
religion we 
> have today. For a Buddhist kingdom, there seems to be much worship 
of 
> tradtional Hindu gods.

Everywhere Buddhism went the ancestral religions were respected and 
in some cases syncretized into the local flavor of Buddhism.

> We also need an explanation for why there is no written record of 
the Adi 
> Shankara ever criticising Buddhism.

Actually he was himself criticized for being a "crypto Buddhist."

> Was Adi Shankara another Esoteric Buddhist?

That was one of Blavatsky's ideas.

It should be pointed out there is a character in the VISHNU PURANA 
mentioned who is called Budha, and who is not the same as Gautama, so 
not every reference in Indian literature may be to Gautama.

> It would also indicate that the Mahayana school in Tibet may be 
closer to the 
> original teachings than the Theravada.

Actually, Zen is said to be the closest of all the Buddhist schools 
to the original, and it is a Mahayana school, albeit of China and 
Japan.

The phrase "the Mahayana school in Tibet" is a little too broad, 
since there are scores of them.