The Buddha is thought to have realized enlightenment at Bodhgaya, today a city in northern India. The site of the enlightenment is marked by the 1,500-year-old Mahabodhi Temple, a UNESCO World Heritage site.
It is also the site of controversy. Today monks are on a hunger strike to leverage their demand that Buddhists be in control of the ancient temple. As it is, the temple is the property of the Indian state of Bihar and managed by a government-appointed Temple Management Committee (TMC). By law, the TMC consists of four Buddhists and four Hindus.
This arrangement was amicable for a time, but in recent years Hindu nationalists have attempted to use the Mahabodhi temple as a place to worship the Hindu god Shiva. Buddhism died out in India many centuries ago, and as it faded Hinduism absorbed what was left of it by declaring the Buddha to be an incarnation of Shiva. But this is, of course, unacceptable to Buddhists. Further, Buddhists interpret the Hindu nationalists' actions as a means to assert the dominance of Hinduism in India and deny religious liberty to Buddhists.
Even as this drama is taking place, Bodhgaya is preparing for a week-long visit by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, who will give a five-day program of teachings.
In fairness to Hindus, I wonder if Hindu nationalism is in fact Hinduism. I’m no expert on Hindu culture, but it seems to me that Hindu nationalism’s methods of emphasizing certain scriptures as if they were absolute holy writ as well as certain deities over others represents a perverse mirroring of Muslim nationalism, a distortion in response to the face-off with Pakistan and the eternal struggle over Kashmir. Pity that now they are trying to force Shiva worship into a Buddhist shrine. What a stupid way to use their energies. I remember how, when last year I went to a kosher Indian restaurant with an Indian friend of mine, I enjoyed seeing both a mezuzah (the scroll with the “hear oh Israel” Bible passage placed on doorposts by traditional Jews) at the entrance and, right after that, a niche with a statue of Ganesh, the elephant-headed god who removes obstacles. It seemed very much in the spirit of Hinduism to me–the more the merrier, a cheerful chaos. I’d be willing to bet that the so-called Hindu nationalists represent a small minority of Hindus. Hope so, anyway.
Can this conservative sock puppet sound any more self-righteous? Of course this is probably the same advice The Family gives one of the C streeters that gets caught philandering.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/03/brit-hume-to-tiger-woods_n_409720.html
My understanding of what is going on is if the Buddha is seen as a avatar of Shiva, then Buddhism is just a another branch of Hinduism and should be controlled by the current Hindu religious structure. Therefore, Buddhism is not deserving of being recognized as being a separate religion by the Indian government. That is why this is such an important issue.
If he Hindus trying to pull this off succeed, Buddhism may disappear as an official religion in India.
I don’t really believe in “isms” per se. But according to many Hindus, Buddha is very much a manifestation of the Divine, right up there with Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna, Ganesh, etc.
I personally regard Buddha in this way, and treat his teachings every bit as seriously as Buddhists do, and every bit as seriously as Shiva, Vishnu, etc.
That’s fine, but Buddhism and Hinduism have some fundamental differences, and Hindu understanding of Buddhist teachings is not the same as Buddhist understanding of Buddhist teachings.
This is true – Hindus see Buddha’s teachings differently than the Buddhists do.
Many Hindus – especially followers of Vedanta – see Buddhism and Vedanta as much more of a single system than two completely separate systems. The gulf between them is not nearly as much as is made out to be, in my opinion. After all Buddha was a Hindu, and while he was trying to reform and add perspective to it, he was not trying to obliterate the old religion and start a new one.
I agree that Advaita Vedanta and Buddha Dharma can feel quite similar, in many ways.
I recently read, however, this description of their difference, in relation to the final goal and outcome of the two paths:
The analogy often used for Advaita-Vedanta’s “Liberation” is that of a single drop of water which – after years, decades, lifetimes making its way through inland streams, lakes and rivers – at long last merges, loses itself completely, in the vast ocean.
In contrast, Buddhism’s “Enlightenment” is more like the appearance of the entire vast ocean within the drop. In other words, the paradoxical tension between unique manifestation (the countless drops) and oneness/unity (the ocean) is maintained.
Indeed, and feeling is what it’s about isn’t it?
More than studying scripture, or books, etc.
But it’s still kind of fun to have discussions such as this, every once in a while.
Speaking of feeling being more important than words (though words are by no means unimportant), I feel that Vedanta’s ultimate reality of Brahman and Buddhism’s ultimate reality of Sunyata/Void are really not different at all.
Why? Because both of them are ultimately undescribable, beyond human intellect and reasoning.
To debate their differences (such as one is permanent, another is always influx and changing, etc) may be necessary at some levels, but is ultimately purely semantical.
Indeed, and feeling is what it’s about isn’t it?
hmmm … I would say — it depends … on how we define “feeling.” If we’re using “feeling” to point to emotions (anger, sadness, fear, lust, anxiety etc.) rooted in attachment, aversion & ignorance, then what these feelings “are about” is samsaric suffering.
If we’re using “feeling” to point to sensations (physical, mental (including thoughts), or emotional) merged in their arising with a realization of emptiness, then what these feelings “are about” is liberation, being awake in the world.
I feel that Vedanta’s ultimate reality of Brahman and Buddhism’s ultimate reality of Sunyata/Void are really not different at all.
Seems that only someone who has actually walked both paths to their conclusion could really speak with authority about this.
Why? Because both of them are ultimately undescribable, beyond human intellect and reasoning.
To debate their differences (such as one is permanent, another is always influx and changing, etc) may be necessary at some levels, but is ultimately purely semantical.
I agree that ultimate Truth can never be captured by words; but do feel that it can be conveyed by words, in the same way that it can be conveyed by actions and by thoughts: Body, Speech & Mind of the Buddhas. If this weren’t the case, how would the transmission of Truth ever happen?
BuddhaShiva:
“Feelings” are not at all what “it’s about.” Awakening is what it’s about. In Buddhism, it is understood that while “enlightenment” is beyond human conceputalization, it can be directly realized. So, in a sense, it can be “known,” if not by normal cognition. I reject the idea that “well, we can’t understand it so let’s just assume we’re all talking about the same thing.”
Well, if we can’t understand it by human cognition, then how do we know whether it’s same or different?
I would probably reject the idea in the way that you stated it too, if we were talking about Buddhism and, say, Islam. But I am not speaking of Allah, or Yahweh, or Gnosis.
Specifically I am talking about Brahman and Sunyata.
This is because Buddha was a Hindu, and was not trying to tell everyone “drop Hinduism in order to follow me.”
Really the whole point of this – and this is probably better to be discussed on it’s own board – is that Buddhism and Vedanta are by no means totally separate systems. They cannot be, if Buddha was a Hindu (or whatever the religion was called at the time). Sure they are not identical, but they are far more a single system of thought than this separation that some make it out to be.
In fact I think that studying Buddhism alone, without a strong understanding of it’s Hindu roots (even if some like to think that Buddhism is a total throwback to Hinduism), is a very incomplete study. Just my opinion though.
Well, if we can’t understand it by human cognition, then how do we know whether it’s same or different?
There are other ways of understanding, but it takes practice to engage those ways. Buddhism is highly mystical, which means that through practice one may directly experience reality in different ways and thereby expand one’s consciousness and understanding beyond that of mere cognition. But because people can so easily deceive themselves about what they understand, working with a master of some kind is essential to the practice.
Of course they are not totally separate systems, but that doesn’t mean Buddhism is just a funky offshoot of Hinduism. The differences are significant and should be respected. If you want to interpret Brahman as a kind of anthropomorphic representation of shunyata or the dharmakaya that’s fine (although if you perceive shunyata you don’t need an anthropomorphic representation of it) but lots of Buddhist teachers have also interpreted the creator God of Judaism and Christianity exactly that way also. In other words, if you’re going that way to argue that HInduism and Buddhism are sorta kinda the same religion, then Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity are also all sorta kinda the same religion.
This is such a sad thing. I am glad that the Buddha’s birthplace was in Nepal and not in India. What would they do. This is just one Temple and they have to control it. It is such an important place to Buddhist. Suddenly some said that Buddha is an incarnation of Shiva, then they want to put Shiva lingam in there too. The Buddha emphasized purity and celibacy, how can someone put Shiva or his lingam in there. How can the monks meditate . The energy of Shiva has to do with sexual ecstasy. People offer sacrifice as an offering to his wife. The Buddha emphasized harmlessness to living beings. How is it possible that Shiva is an aspect of Buddha. It is just one Temple and they don’t leave it alone. How dreadful. I hope future Buddha will take birth in a different country.
A Buddha appears in the world when beings have forgotten the way to Awakening. Anyone who chooses practice according to his teaching can benefit from his gift of Dhamma to gods, Brahma, and human. However, it is understandable that some will want to cling to their old ways of practicing. Some will want to add only some of what he is trying to teach to their existing practice. That is perfectly fine. There is nothing wrong with worshipping the Buddha as a deity of the Hindu faith. However, I don’t think it is a good idea for Hindu practitioners to impose their practice or Gods onto the people who want to follow the Buddha’s teaching in its original form without adding or removing anything. This prevents the teaching from becoming diluted and ineffective. There are some dire consequences occurred due to adding Hindu worship and practices to the Lord Buddha’s original teaching. For example, the mixing of the two gives rise to Tantric Buddhism. The Buddha clearly said in the Pali Canon that lust is a hindrance to meditation and wisdom.
Another issue is that many buddhist monks become burdened with performing rites and rituals that detract time from practicing meditation and studying the words of the Buddha. Lay Buddhist focus on performing rites and rituals at the temple rather than meditating to develop rapture/ joy from within, keeping precepts and practice being fully aware during daily activities in life. According to scriptures, the Buddha said that these practices much more beneficial than blind attachment to rites and rituals.The adding and subtracting from his original teaching can defeat the purpose of the Buddha coming to re-established the Way to liberation. I hope that others will understand when Buddhist monks want to remain to the Buddha’s instruction as it is without dilution. It is fine if someone wants to include worship the Buddha as a Deity. But please, show some respect to the Buddha and not impose that his disciples also have to worship Shiva in their temple or feel that it is okay to mix Buddhist practices with Shiva’s practices. They are different beings with contradictory teachings. I can go into more detail on that if someone have a question. Another thing I would like to point out is that the Buddha taught that before taking birth in the earth realm to become the Buddha, he was residing in the Tusita heaven . His name was Shvetaketu .
Buddhism did not “die out”, what happened was that the Hindu rulers upon the urging of the Brahmins massacred the Buddhist population of the sub-continent of India. It is like saying that Hitler and the Nazis did not kill Jews, it was just that Judeism “died out” in Europe. It is like saying that the Jewish population just converted to Christianity. Please get your facts right! Denying the Hindu holocaust in India is just as bad as denying the Jewish holocaust in Europe!
Most of the time people accuse Muslim armies for slaughtering the Buddhist population, so at least you’re original. Actually, there were a number of invasions and massacrues, beginning with the Huns in the 5th century, that decimated the Buddhist population. There were some acts of violence supported by Brahmins, but these were minor episodes compared to what the Huns and Muslims perpetrated. It’s also the case that Buddhism in India was gradually re-absorbed into Hinduism. So it is accurate to say that Buddhism in India “died out” from a multitude of causes over a period of several centuries. The mass slaughter of the entire Buddhist population of India by Brahmins did not happen, however.
There is no evidence that invading Muslims exterminated India’s Buddhists. Take but one example, at Maduri in Tamil Nadu circa 600 AD thousands of Buddhists were impaled. In addition there are accounts of Buddhists being saved by Muslims from being killed by Hindus. Even to this day persons who are descended from Buddhists who belong to the unseeable caste must hide themselves if Vaishnava Hindus should pass by. Sangharakshita even wrote of an example of unseeables throwing themselves into a ditch upon his approach. Hindus believe that Parashurama was an avatar of Vishnu who incarnated in order to exterminate India’s Buddhist. Some Buddhists survived by taking refuge in the Chittagong hill tracts. Buddhism did not die out, the Buddhist population were exterminated.
dude r u nuts buddhist population massacred r u out of mind,hinduism absorbed buddhism,as both religions developed side by side nd hinduism being an absorbing faith absorbed budhdist teachings nd buddhist absorbed hindu teachings until thr wer no differences b/w d 2 religions,nd morever the gold railing around bodhgaya ws built by hindu gupta king samudgragupta nd d largest buddhist vihara establshed by brahmin emperor lalitaditya,all budhdist universisties wer opened by hindu kings u need to read history man,u absolutely know nuthin