Comment

Comment by rhuru

Yes. Buddha himself was pretty much a Hindu. Most of his teachings perfectly consistent with the previous Vedic thought and where he differed again, it was perfectly within the framework where all other Munis or rishis would disagree with the established beliefs. Buddha's "dhamma" is basically just a different pronunciation of "Dharma". Buddha's primary teachings was around "nirvana" a concept which existed long before Buddha in the form of "Kaivalya", "Moksha" or "Apagraha". Hinduism itself does not have the concept of "other", it has wide body of work and it is also tolerant to a wide array of ideas under its umbrella and Buddha was pretty much under that Umbrella.

Hindus for example believe Buddha to be the 9th Avatar of Lord Vishnu. Their homes are full of Buddhist insignia and they name their children after Buddha. There is a parity in praxis.

"Pure Buddhism" is mostly a political issue and a much later addition to the discourse. One of the reason it happened is because a prominent caste based politician Ambedkar publicly declared that he is going to quit Hinduism because it did not treat his caste well. While Islamists and Christian missionaries rejoiced at the idea and try to court him he declared both the religions to be of foreign origin and harmful for India. He decided to become a Buddhist. This is the first time someone prominent tried and succeeded in drawing a clear line between Buddhism and Hinduism which since has become a bit thicker. The new converts however get called "neo buddhists" and aren't really seen as authentic buddhists by both non buddhists and original buddhists.

parent rhuru 3 years ago

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton