Thank you for an almost perfect reply, illustrating the points I originally made. Thoughts, views, no detailed reading, merely aggressive assertions: I shall highlight each as it occurs.
Joe Shearer said:
It is encouraging to see that so many of us have thoughts and views on these subjects. Of course, if these had been based on some detailed reading, that would have been so much the more encouraging. Still, we cannot be pompous about it; it is nice to have enthusiastic amateurs seeking to contribute, and they need encouragement.
Kinetic said:
Enthusiastic amateur? Are you talking about yourself? How do yo know who is amateur and who is not?
A professional historian would have had a grip on his subject, and been able to quote sources and references. An amateur, with no connection to either subject or source, makes assertions. Please go through my posts on this and earlier threads. Wherever possible, or necessary, I have quoted extensively from the concerned references.
Joe Shearer said:
An interesting observation. It is not clear, however, how the first two comments lead to your conclusion that our ancestors killed two birds with one stone by making the Buddha an incarnation of Vishnu.
Kinetic said:
By making Buddha incarnation of Vishnu they not only adopted nonviolence which was gaining influence over common people but also removed an obstacle from their path.
That assumes, of course, that the sole, or even the primary teaching of the Buddha was non-violence. Let me illustrate the fallacies involved in this glib and ignorant formulation by quoting from an elementary text-book; the point being that it is not necessary to go to advanced texts or to advanced comparative religious theory to disprove the points made, even a cursory reference to an elementary text-book can achieve this.
A note: I don't quote this text very often, because one of the authors, a close relative, has a somewhat archaic attitude towards Muslims and Islam. Here, however, this elementary text, which students majoring in History use as a vade mecum, and students with History as a pass subject and an adjunct to their main Honours subject use extensively.
(The) Buddha taught his followers the four "Noble Truths" (Arya Satya), concerning
- suffering;
- the cause of suffering;
- the destruction of suffering; and
- the way that leads to the destruction of sorrow.
No mention of non-violence; this belongs to the fiction of Buddhist non-violence having weakened the strong Indian nation (which did not exist in the first place) and allowed hordes of barbarians to invade. To continue:
That way (the way referred to as the last item in the list above) did not lie either in habitual practice of sensuality or in habitual practice of self-torture. There was a "Middle Path", called the "Noble Eight-fold Path", that is to say,
- Right Views
- Right Aspirations
- Right Speech
- Right Conduct
- Right Livelihood
- Right Effort
- Right Mindfulness, and
- Right Contemplation.
This was the path that "opened the eyes, bestowed understanding, led to peace of mind, to the higher wisdom, to full enlightenment, to Nirvana". Nirvana literally means the "blowing out" or extinction of craving, of the desire for existence in all its forms, and the consequent cessation of suffering. But it is not mere extinction. It is a tranquil state to be realised by one who "from all craving (or) want was free".
STILL no non-violence; tsk, tsk, tsk.....Hang on, maybe he'll get to it soon.
In his last exhortation to his disciples just on the eve of his death, the Buddha said,"Decay is inherent in all component things. Work out your salvation with diligence (apramaada)."
Hmm. Sarsanghchalak, we have a problem.
The Buddhists shared with their fellow-countrymen of other persuasions, including the Brahmanical Hindus and the Jainas, the belief in Samsaara (transmigration) and in Karma (retribution for the deed done). Like the Jainas, they rejected the authority of the Vedas, condemned blood sacrifices, denied or doubted the existence of a supreme creative spirit, and inculcated reverence for saints, who, from their point of view, attained to supreme knowledge. But unlike the followers of the Jnatrika teacher they did not acknowledge a permanent entity or an immortal soul, were not convinced of the efficacy of discarding garments, and considered rigid penance to be as useless as indulgence in sensual pleasure. The disciples of Mahavira on the other hand, endowed even plants, metals, water and air with souls and gave a wide extension to the doctrine of non-violence.
"Aha, here we are!! Non-violence!!! QED. They said it, like we've been claiming all along. WE WON!"
Yeah, right.
The Buddha mentioned avoiding taking life and abstention from the mass sacrifices of Brahminical rites as part of his moralities, but it was not the key to his teaching. The key to his teaching was the achievement of salvation by release from desire, the desire for worldly things. Not non-violence. So much, then, for his inspiration from the endemic wars that were wracking the country. This disconnect is not difficult to understand if we examine the record once again, rather than taking the example of the isolated War of the Ten Kings to prove a point without any foundation whatsoever.
Joe Shearer said:
Further, your second comment is surprising; Buddhism swept the land, and made masses of converts.
Kinetic said:
Nope. Buddhism was relatively much smaller than Hinduism. There was no mass conversion nor that swept the land. Do you think these people converted to other religion and Hinduism accepted them later? NO. Otherwise that mass number didn't just vaporized.
Bad logic. And even worse history. Let us see what the texts say.
From the beginning of the period, Brahmanism had to reckon with the heterodox creeds of the Ajivikas, Jainas, and Buddhists which obtained a firm hold on certain sections of the people, especially in Oudh, Bihar and Orissa. Tradition says that Chandragupta and Samprati of the Maurya dynasty were Jainas. The epithet Vrishala, applies to the first Maurya by a Brahmanical playright, makes it likely that in his later days he swerved from strict orthodoxy. An undoubted Jaina king of this period was Kharavela, who, strange to say, engaged in sanguinary conflicts with his neighbours in spite of the quietist teachings of the Arhats and Siddhas, saints and perfect beings, whom he invokes at the beginning of his inscription.
Buddhism, as is well known, secured the imperial patronage of Asoka and became, mainly through his efforts, a world religion.
In the early centuries of the Christian era, Buddhism spread to China, and to several other parts of central, eastern and southern Asia. Thsae Nagarjunikonda inscriptions make mention of the fraternities of monks who converted Kashmir, Gandhara, China, Chilata, Tosali, Aparanta, Vanga, Vanavasi, Yavana, Damila, Palura and the island of Ceylon.
Buddhism had powerful exponents during the Gupta age in the famous sages and philosophers Asanga, Vasubandhu, Kumarajiva and Dignaga. In the succeeding centuries, it gradually lost ground. The Hun invasions must have led to the destruction of numerous monastic establishments in the north-west as well as in the east of India. With the deification of the Buddha and his admission into the Vishnuite pantheon as an incarnation of Narayan-Vishnu, there was little to distinguish the Buddhist laity from their Brahmanical neighbours. Intermarriages between Buddhists and Saiva or Vaishnava royal families illustrate the absorption and assimilation of the votaries of the reforming cult by the followers of more orthodox creeds.
Both Jainism and Buddhism had eventually to yield the palm to the more orthodox forms of Hinduism in most of the provinces where they had once enjoyed popularity and prosperity.
I hope that these brief mentions suffice for you. If required, more evidence can be supplied; please do not hesitate to ask for additional detail or clarification.
Joe Shearer said:
Are you sure that the dates of the War of the Ten Kings influenced the Buddha? Are you saying that the dates were close, that there was a causal relationship, and that there were no other wars which might have influenced the Buddha's thinking?
Kinetic said:
You didn't got what I mean, the War of Ten kings was just an example of war mania of that time. Violence and war was common. The over all scenario influenced Buddha's thinking.
OK, now I get it. Sometime before 1400 BC, the end-date of the Rig Veda, there is the battle of the Ten Kings; this influences the Buddha, who was born eight hundred years later around 566 BC, to preach his doctrine.
Further, on the Buddha's thinking, to say that he sought to teach people the peaceful way of life, and love for every living being does not seem very accurate. Are you sure that this was his teaching? a kind of fifth century BC pacifism, or was he outlining a way of life that would progressively free humans from the chains of desire and elevate themselves progressively until they attained freedom from re-birth and a permanent release from the cycle?
What you talking is just another part of His teachings but the main purposes of Buddha's works were making people living peacefully and love for every being. These two were issues at that time. First one was against war and second one against mass sacrifice of animals by the Aryans for religious purposes.
We have already seen from an earlier summary of the Buddha's actual teachings what his main purposes were. Nowhere does he come out and condemn war. Mass sacrifice was indeed one of his dislikes, and he came out forcefully against it. Opposing war was not on his agenda; he was wise enough to realise that it would be impossible to eliminate war.
This is even more astonishing. Do you know the dates of Jayadeva and of the Buddha, and did you know that Jayadeva was born after Buddhism had been all but wiped out by the Hindu revival?
Now I couldn't stop laughing!!!! What do you think of yourselves and others? My maternal side was strict followers of Vaishnavism, there was many books about Vaishnavism and Git-Gobinda was one of them. Morning chanting of Gita, Vaishnav Padabali and Git Gobinda was common. I have studied almost all of them as well as Kalidas. Jaydeva (more commonly known as Jaydev Goswami) was a 13th century sage and a great poet. So naturally he has born much after Buddha. lol
did you know that Jayadeva was born after Buddhism had been all but wiped out by the Hindu revival?
First try to understand my view, before posting comment. I said incarnation of Buddha was there in the Puranas but as far as sages or historical people are concerned its found first in the writing of Jaydeva where he is praising Buddha as Avatar of Vishnu and I have cited why Gaudiya Vaishnavism and Buddhasim came close because of their commonality of non-violence. Buddhism was alive in Bengal in a major way compared to other parts of India.
Right; you meant to say that the Buddha had been acknowledged as a major avatar "in the Puranas" (that is as vague as it can possibly get), but you mentioned Jayadeva to show that Buddhism and Gaudiya Vaishanavism come close together.
That's what you meant to say; what you actually said was strange:
Another reason was Buddhist 'non-violence' theory was a popular belief amongst number of Hindu traditions, mainly Vaishnavism. As per recorded history one of the influential sage and poet of Vaishnavism, Jayadeva Goswami was first found praising Buddha as incarnation of Vishnu. Though he might not be the first. Buddha was mentioned as avatar in Puranas as well.
Ah, yes, there it is, Gaudiya Vaishnavism and Buddhism. Clearly there, connection logically established.
About divinity, it was added substantially as well like killing demons or bringing them to the right path which is always duty of Vishnu's incarnations. It was also said that he had all signs to be the Avatar of Vishnu like having 'Shankh, Chakra, Gada, Padma' markings on his feet etc etc.
Do you have any Buddhist references to the Buddha being born with the shankha/chakra/gada/padma markings? I would like to know the source of this statement.
Joe Shearer said:
Kinetic said:
What Hindu revival? Shankaracharya and other sages were mainly religious reformers, no one revived Hinduism. It was always the main and primary religion of subcontinent.
A casual reference to the citations about the Buddhist rise in India and elsewhere will give you the answer.
