Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00653)

Pedro wrote:

One of the ironies about the relationship
> between Hinduism and Buddhism in India is that
> Buddha's teaching represented a very definite
> challenge to the Brahmanical system, then dominated by
> exoteric ritualism. 

This is the traditional beleif of the historians. But from learning 
about local traditions and having the oportunity to look at temple 
archives, I wonder what the real challenge was. We don't have the 
original Dharma Padma, only a translation. Why does Buddha call his 
path, The Way of the Aryan? these days translated as the Noble Path.

There is also a question whether a rigid caste system existed at the 
time of Gautama. At the time castes were not a matter of birth, 
according to some evidence, but of learning. This is thoroughly 
proved (though still questionable) by the past Sankaracharya of 
Kanchipooram in his work Sanatana Dharma which is a rich source of 
information culled by much erudite scholarship of Kanchipooram.


That Buddhism did not flourish in
> India and had to go to Tibet and South-East Asia,
> China and Japan, where it became established as a
> tradition with many tributaries, seems to speak for
> itself.

In some esoteric level, Buddhism seems to still flourish in India. 
It's is just that it is not called Buddhism. (where and when was this 
title first given for this system?)Is it possable that when it 
traveled outside the country, the central ideas had to be separated 
from the local traditions of Hinduism, and therefore developed into a 
unique religion?

In South India, many of the Muragan temples are run by priests who 
consider themselves "Buddhists" in that they hold Gautama Buddha as 
the founder of an esoteric system that united the Aryan and Tamilian 
traditions. In Sri Lanka, the oldest and most important Muragan 
temple is run exclusively by Buddhists who hold this temple in the 
highest regard.

We are in a position to learn more from these ancient cultures then 
ever before when historians drew up there conclusions on scanty 
evidence.


Then, later on, Buddha was made by the Hindus
> into an avatar of Vishnu! Incidentally, Koshek, Adi
> Sankara did refute the Buddhist doctrine of sunyavada.
> You can find the refutation in Sankara's
> "Dakshinamurti Stotra", chapter 6.

Are you sure that sunyvada was a doctrine of Buddhists before the 
time of Adi Shankara? There was supposedly a conference of Buddhists 
held near Kashi where there was a definate disagreement about 
doctrine. This is when the Buddhist priesthood split into the 
Mahayana and Therevada schools.

We have no way of knowing what the Buddha really taught as we don't 
have the original source material, and in fact, we don't even have 
much in the original language. Translation, as you know, can lead to 
misinterpretation. So we should tread lightly and study carefully. 

It was only quite recently (in the last 40 years)that it was 
discovered that the manuscript The Laws of Manu was in fact a 
forgery that is only a couple hundred years old. The sanscrit uses 
Urdu grammatical structures and only four pages seem to be genuine 
and these come directly from the Brahmanas of the Vedas. Before this 
discovery, even Hindus believed this was a genuine manuscript! 

I think the real keys of Buddhism can be discovered in studying the 
traditions of the Kashmiri Pandits and found in the caves of 
Afghanistan. This Buddhism, which is inclusive and not a separate 
religion, which may have had a different orientation, and was common 
to these regions and the region of Tibet, can very well be the 
Buddhism of the time of Ashoka and before.

Koshek