Dharma is Sanskrit, Dhamma is Pali. There is not difference otherwise.
Otherwise, agree completely. Nicely put.
So as to deny Buddhism is a separate religion, and co-opt Buddha among various Hindu avatars. This is how Buddhism was decimated by Brahminism in India, co-opting Budhha as their own.
What has been done to Buddhism in India is inflammatory, not my take. The story of extinction of Buddhism is told proudly by Hindu seers too. So "absorbing stuff" is weird way to put it.
> Such was the slaughter of the Buddhist priesthood perpetrated by the Islamic invaders. The axe was struck at the very root. For by killing the Buddhist priesthood Islam killed Buddhism. This was the greatest disaster that befell the religion of Buddha in India. Religion like any other ideololgy can be attained only by propaganda. If propoganda fails, religion must disappear. The priestly class, however detestable it may be, is necessary to the sustenance of religion. For it is by its propoganda that religion is kept up. Without the priestly class religion must disappear. The sword of Islam fell heavily upon the priestly class. It perished or it fled outside India. Nobody remained to keep the flame of Buddhism burning.
"History of India before the Muslim invasions is the history of a mortal conflict between Brahmanism and Buddhism"
"No wonder if Pushyamitra who as a Samvedi Brahmin was the first to conceive the passion to end the degradation of the Brahmin by destroying the Buddhist state..."
"By this proclamation Pushyamitra set a price of 100 gold pieces on the head of every Buddhist monk"
This is not historically verified I think.
In modern India, the secular law gives special status to castes that have violence potential and hence has solidified its existence and yet Hinduism has already evolved the concept of caste to make it ever more useful to society.
Varna is occupation and jati is tribe. Each tribe had people with different occupations who supported the village life through activities of their professions. Inter-jati marriages were allowed, and so were inter-varna marriages. There was no discrimination within jatis, in fact, they all supported each other for the sustenance of their jati.
Untouchability was present in some cases, but it was between 2 jatis. Meaning, one jati would consider the other jati as untouchable. However, it was not between varnas.
This system became more rigid after British started classifying people into different castes, providing benefits to some and taking away some from others, and that's how the caste system evolved into what it was.
While I do not doubt the rest of your comment, I have a hard time believing this. In my experience, humans are tribal animals, and are constantly jockeying for status, as individuals and tribes (even constantly moving in and out of multiple tribes).
The British may have formalized/utilized and exacerbated things, but I imagine any group of humans anywhere is always dividing and subdividing into various tribes for various purposes. The simplest being to show you are better than other potential mates in order to attract your preferred mate.
There are examples of a Kshatriya warrior working successively as a potter, basket-maker, reed-worker, garland-maker, etc; and a Vaishya cook working as a tailor or potter without social push-back.
The rigidity of the varna-jati system started after the Mughal invasions, due to their exploitative taxation. It made the fluid system more rigid in matters of sharing food and marriages, and disintegrated due to opportunism and social stratification.
The British raised frustration several times that Indians did not know their caste, and had to be coached for their census forms. This was because varna-jati was not considered important by the Indians of that time.
Caste is not a British construct. They did not understand it properly but all evidence suggests that they in fact encouraged caste fluidity in most cases. The mapping of castes existed well before British. In fact you can look at smaller colonies such as Goa which were never under British rule and you find very strong existence of caste. Same with hindu society that moved to other countries. Even if it was a British construct it is still the failure of Indian society to continue with it if you assume it is bad.
> Varna is occupation and jati is tribe.
This is not true. There is no basis for Varna being treated as occupation. Gita and all other books are very clear that this is a qualitative classification of people where birth also played a good role.
In modern sense your definition of Varna is worthless too because people in same occupation show no solidarity along these lines. But show strong solidarity along the "jati" line.
> Jati is tribe.
Jati is inherited from father. In that sense it can be seen as a tribe. But it is also a classification very similar to Varna. Tamil Brahmins have completely different gene line from say Chitpavanas and yet both are seen as Brahmins and they will quickly form a good relationship compared to say a Chitpavana and Koli (fisherman).
Calling Jati a tribe does not explain this.
The broad idea of "caste" is probably a better term as it seems to represent really well the underlying social effect everyone is more interested in.
-- Untouchability was present in some cases, but it was between 2 jatis. Meaning, one jati would consider the other jati as untouchable. However, it was not between varnas.
This system became more rigid after British started classifying people into different castes, providing benefits to some and taking away some from others, and that's how the caste system evolved into what it was. --
Most of the literature around "caste atrocities" is completely bogus and made up and does not stand close scrutiny. People might have been treated as untouchables, but it was not very different from you not willing to touch a homeless man on street of SF. Now you might find that there is very good mapping of race and homelessness but it is not the race which makes the person untouchable, it is the filthy lifestyle.
Most of the "low caste" people in India actually had very low social capital, were less civilized and had poor work ethic. Some of those castes quickly improved and suddenly became "upper caste". For example the most revered King from India is Shivaji who was from a lower class of land tillers who along with his entire tribe became one of the greatest ever "Kshatriya" (higher caste) person ever.
Once a person or tribe builds social capital they automatically transition into upper-caste. Those who do not, remain at the bottom.
> Tamil Brahmins have completely different gene line from say Chitpavanas and yet both are seen as Brahmins and they will quickly form a good relationship compared to say a Chitpavana and Koli (fisherman) Where are you getting such information from? As a person who has lived in India for several decades, I can tell you this is not true. Nobody asks which varna or jati you are from, or no one even mentions these words at least in urban parts.
> Even if it was a British construct it is still the failure of Indian society to continue with it... We never had a discriminatory system in the first place, and the only thing that remains today is the damage done by our various colonizers. India's Prime Minister Sri Narendra Modi is himself part of an OBC (other backward classes) community (Modh Ganchi) and has enormous support from Indians from all backgrounds, India's President Smt. Draupadi Murmu is from a ST (Schedule Tribe) community called Santhali. The chief of the drafting committee of India's constitution is a Dalit, as you may know, Dr. Ambedkar, who was in strong opposition of the Brahmanical patriarchy himself. Yet he was given such an important role, in a country where ~80% of the people are Hindus.
Chatrapati Shivaji's father was a Jagirdaar serving under the Nizam, so their family was pretty well off. You are right that he was from a family of land-tillers which is considered to be of a Shudhra varna. However, he employed people of all varnas in his operations.
> Once a person or tribe builds social capital they automatically transition into upper-caste. Those who do not, remain at the bottom. Now that's just... head cannon. President Draupadi Murmu being from a ST does not make any effort to hide the fact. Getting to the post of President has not changed that. Similarly, Dr. Ambedkar's achievements got him far, but he still was a Dalit. Same with Narendra Modi.
> Nobody asks which varna or jati you are from, or no one even mentions these words at least in urban parts.
It matters 100% when it comes to renting places, dating, marriage, friendship, kitchen access and so on.
> We never had a discriminatory system in the first place, and the only thing that remains today is the damage done by our various colonizers.
There are two types of discriminations. One is the ethical one. For example if you believe in free speech like US first amendment as a good principle, from it follows the principle of right of association and not association. All the discriminations the caste grifters often cite as "oppression" are actually perfectly ethical and in line with values like free speech, right of association and individual liberty. For example discrimination in marriages, dating, renting, room sharing, offering access to private areas, sharing food everything is perfectly ethical and also socially useful.
The other form of discrimination where you discriminate on behalf of someone else who expects you not to discriminate is obviously unethical, harmful and against the principles I cited above. For example government reserving government jobs for certain castes, government forcing private institutions to reserve seats based on caste or Individual employee discriminating in hiring when their employer does not expect them to.
I agree with you that Indian people in general do not discriminate that much in latter harmful type of discriminations (unless law mandates such discrimination) with exception of politics. There is no evidence that TCS, Infosys, Ambanis, Tatas ever discriminating in employment either. There is no evidence that there is any economic boycott of any castes either. Caste structure for example encourages inter-caste trade.
The most discriminatory aspect of Indian life is politics. Ambedkar was precisely included by Nehru because of his caste. He was a political non-entity, Nehru used him for his personal agenda. Indian President Daurpadi Murmu is an affirmative action President who is President only because of her caste and otherwise have no other qualities that made her the first choice for that position.
> President Draupadi Murmu being from a ST does not make any effort to hide the fact.
She does it because it politically benefits her, the only reason why she is President is because she is ST.
There are plenty other examples for example Scindia royal family is Kunbi. They are tribals. So are Holkars. They are goat herders. You will rarely see them talking about their tribal identity. Daivadnya Brahmins aren't historically from the Brahmin tradition at all. They are Vaishyas, coming from goldsmith occupation, their wealth enabled them to upgrade themselves.
The British Census officers record this again and again. They note that how "Nayi" (Barbers) suddenly became "Nyayi Brahmins" (Brahmin in charge of dispensing ustice) as they acquired social capital.
British did their part in solidifying caste by accusing rebel groups such as Pindaris (Elite Special Forces of Marathas) as caste full of horrible ravaging criminals. But their impact on rest of the caste system is negligible.
If you think Indians were backward and uncivilized, there's no point in engaging further with you.
From: https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/what-can-india-of...
"While emphasizing that I do not attack and much less defend the caste system in what follows, let us look at the existing descriptions and their consequences.
(a) Caste is an antiquated social system that arose in the dim past of India. If this is true, it has survived many challenges – the onslaught of Buddhism and the Bhakti movements, the Islamic and British colonization, Indian independence, world capitalism – and might even survive ‘globalization’. It follows, then, that the caste system is a very stable social organization.
(b) There exists no centralized authority to enforce the caste system across the length and breadth of India. In that case, it is an autonomous and decentralized organization.
(c) All kinds of social and political regulations, whether by the British or by the Indians, have not been able to eradicate this system. If true, it means that the caste system is a self-reproducing social structure.
(d) Caste system exists among the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Jains, the Christians, the Muslims… It has also existed under different environments. This means that this system adapts itself to the environments it finds itself in.
(e) Because new castes have come and gone over the centuries, this system must also be dynamic.
(f) Since caste system is present in different political organizations and survives under different political regimes, it is also neutral with respect to political ideologies.
Even though more can be said, this is enough for us. A simple redescription of what we think we know about the caste system tells us that it is an autonomous, decentralized, stable, adaptive, dynamic, self-reproducing social organization. It is also neutral with respect to political, religious and economic doctrines and environments. If indeed such a system ever existed, would it also not have been the most ideal form of social organization one could ever think of?
How can we try to understand this odd state of affairs? The question of the immorality of the caste system became immensely important after the British came to India. Consequently, there are two interesting possibilities to choose from: one, Indians did not criticize the caste system (before the British came to India) because Indians are immoral; two, the Europeans ‘discovered’ something that simply does not exist in India, viz. the social organization that the caste system is supposed to be."
1. Immorality of Caste => This debate needs to happen as to why caste is immoral. It did not happen in British times nor it is happening now. I am talking about discussing the more fundamental first principles to be considered. Even today it is mostly a dog-whistle at very superficial level.
2. Legal protection to caste system.
One new thing that has happened to Caste is that Indian constitution has offered special rights to certain castes. This has resulted into a competition to be part of certain castes and then use these special benefits which come at a cost of harm to other castes.
This indicates that Indian Constitution and Law subsidizes existence and discrimination based on caste and strengthens caste system. This also alters the fundamental properties of caste system that you enumerated. If constitution offers you special benefits for being a member of caste, you will assert that identity strongly as long as constitution is in force.
Part of the reason why caste does not matter for Indians in USA (in public matters) is because the law does not offer any discriminatory benefit hence you do not benefit from asserting your caste identity in public sphere. Proposed laws like SB403 by precisely aim to change it by create "caste groups" of "victims" and "oppressors" which then benefit (or get harmed) by their identity. Such groups can then be shepherded to support other political platforms that the leaders of these groups may own.
It makes no sense what so ever to me. By honoring Buddha, giving him one of the most prominent positions in the Hindu pantheon, extending Buddha's teachings and even internalizing them somehow was "decimated" ? How does reverence look then ?
This is how Hinduism evolves and always have been.
> This is how Hinduism evolves
It is indeed how religions evolve - literally by forking. Like Christianity forked Judaism (and was itself forked by Islam), Buddhism forked from Hinduism. Sometimes some patches are retrofitted on the original tree, sometimes trees diverge so much that it's hard to see the common root. Sometimes reformers go back to the original project, once their patches get somewhat accepted (a lot of anglicans after Vatican Council II...); sometimes they don't.
Whatever the result, it's important to respect one's choice - if buddhists reject the place that modern Hinduism tries to fit them into, because they think the patch is not enough, that's their call and there is no point insisting otherwise.
So for none of them it was a fork. They all developed on the main branch, in the absence of centralized PR approvers everything gets merged.
In India this identity matters even more as the Indian constitution offers different rights to you based on your identity and you get to benefit from "unequal laws" hence everyone deeply gets sentimental about it.
One has to look how Islam treated the faiths around it when Islam obtained power. It was mostly genocide and iconoclasm at scale not seen before. Even acknowledgement of Jesus in the Koran is more to enable easier conversion into Islam. The concept of conversion for example existed in Islam.
Buddhism deals with far subtle and much more complex ideas like nature of reality. You can see a detailed discussion here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAZPWu084m4 (Note that the monk talking here is a Vedantist, talking with great respect and reverence to Buddha/Buddhism and on Buddha's birthday).
> Whatever the result, it's important to respect one's choice - if buddhists reject the place that modern Hinduism tries to fit them into, because they think the patch is not enough, that's their call and there is no point insisting otherwise.
I think that is a great analogy, but note that Hinduism has not tried to "fit buddhism" into anything, Hinduism only point out that Buddhism's fork is pretty much similar to many other forks of Hinduism which have not been identified as separate from Hinduism.
Neither Hindu nor Buddhist philosophy however cares about such distinctions or boxes as they are completely irrelevant to their objective, it is mostly for people to argue. (This is not true for Islam and Christianity, Islam denies you heaven if you havent accepted Islam before death, Christianity does the same, hence it matters deeply whether you are Christian or Muslim, mere believing in the God wont help.)
Overall "melting pot" mentality is a good thing and must be encouraged and a good thing. It helps people find common ground and love each other rather than needlessly quarrel and fight.
He (Swami Sarvapriyananda) has a lot of other interesting talks too, many of them about Advaita (Vedanta), which is the main focus of his work.
He is at the Vedanta Society of New York, which was started by Swami Vivekananda in 1894.
Looks like you deep rooted anti-semitic hatred for Brahmins more than anything else.
> No present day Hindu remembers or honors Buddha or his teachings.
Well I do ! In fact some of the greatest Hindu philosophers spent their lifetime studying Buddhism and writing books. Even the Vipassana teachers in USA and everywhere happen to be Hindus not Buddhists.
> If purpose was to absorb his teachings, the caste system is still present.
Buddha himself was a proponent of basic tenants of caste. Buddha primarily took Brahmins as his disciples. Nearly 40% of his students where Brahmin and nearly all who got popular and wrote about buddhism were Brahmins. Buddha's multiple childhood friends studied at Takshashika a Hindu university that existed before Buddha and later prominent Hindu Brahmins like Aryabhatta studied at Buddhist universities like Nalanda.
When the Shakya king decides to disown his wife because she was born to a low caste mother, Buddha stops him, not by citing that "caste is evil" but rather the well established Hindu rules of caste that it is father's caste that should matter and not that of mother. Not to mention Buddha also predicted the future Buddha to be "maitreya" a person born in Brahmin family.
Even on the matter of "caste", Buddha is pretty much a Hindu.
See this for example: https://indicworks.org/2023/05/04/sb403-is-hindu-segregation...
what is the teaching of Buddha's?
Ashoka converted to Buddhism and ruled almost the whole of the Indian subcontinent at one point. But that doesn't mean he converted all Hindus to Buddhist. Few Hindus may have converted, but 'land of Buddha' also happens to the 'land of Sanatana Dharma' where there are several other deities people worshiped and traditions people practiced.
The Hindus of that time were used to different sects within Hinduism, some denying Vishnu the supreme godhead, some denouncing the entire pantheon and vedas, etc.
The pansyncretisism came quite naturally and 'brahminism' is a myth created recently to claim victimhood (woke ideology of suppressors and suppressed, very similar to the worker class and bourgeoisie of the communist thought)
Brahmins are bound by rules, like, they cannot own any property. It's their duty to perform rituals for other varnas, and if they get some money by performing those rituals, they can only use it for basic needs like food.
Brahmins were ascetics who had to follow the most difficult of rules. That and in addition to the fact that they must be knowledgeable about Vedas and other scriptures is why a Brahmin's life is considered as the hardest out of all varnas.
With such rules in play, it would be impossible for Brahmins to acquire wealth or military power to subdue Buddhists.
What saddened me even more was only the children I met in that large group of devotees were able to admit they had doubts about the Gita and were able to listen a bit.
Buddha also was extremely clear in the Lotus Sutra that even "nirvana" is not his real teaching. He states repeatedly and very unmistakably that he used the concept of nirvana as a temporary resting spot for beings who would be too arrogant or too ignorant to accept the truth if he told them as he knew they wouldn't be able to understand without much more of his cultivating them. So he lets them play with the concept of nirvana, and when he sees them cultivated, he tells them that what they thought was nirvana was no true final resting spot and that real nirvana resides with omniscience. He claimed knowledge of the true nature of reality and was very clear in his explanation of the fundamental laws and theories of existence: reincarnation and the law of cause and effect. How a good or bad thing happens. How to live well or how to become worse. Lying, for example, is not good for people. He revealed the ways from the problems to the results. As you can see this is a far cry from such a thing as ordering people not to be violent and not explaining how they can actually accomplish it.
suppose you were to hear that real nirvana is with omniscience... you'd probably have thrown it away too. or suppose you are a Krishna devotee who calls said deity to help or take control of your life - and Buddha comes and calls you "the blind who have eyes"... the main answer for people who remain in denial is to co-opt his name and deny that you're in denial.
it rather reminds me of modern Christians believing themselves saved from sin just through faith in their own ideas without ever having met Jesus and having listened to him scold them on their wrong ideas and practices. why do we think humanity killed people like Jesus and Socrates? just because we pretend to be part of a gentle religion does not exempt us from the same tendency. Buddha in reality was very lonely when he was here in this world.
This is not true about Hinduism. It isn't one of those "take all or none" philosophies you can pick your parts without ever reading about many other parts which you still hold in high regard due to tradition. Hindus do not hold Islam and Christianity in the same reverence simply because both ideologies are outside the umbrella of Hinduism.
Now, if the claim is that someone have used Buddha's name to promote their own ideas then reverse would be true, you will find Buddha everywhere including in Gita as someone who is subservient to their favourite God. There would be fake quotes about Buddha praising Krishna and so on.
> most people I met interested in Buddhism are also co-opting his name
This is true for nearly all religions and especially for philosophies. The difference between philosophy and science is that, to understand someone else's philosophy you need to possess similar intellect. Where as average student of science can study and understad ideas of genius like Einstein.
where on earth or from who did you learn this abject nonsense?
Based on what you said, whatever you learned is not actually philosophy.
Philosophy is not someone's thoughts or ideas. Reducing it to that makes it equivalent to some random person's random ravings and trivializes the word.
The reason why you can't understand all of philosophy is because you have learned from someone who didnt really know.
Philosophy is easily defined when you actually know.
Or perhaps you think you are expert enough of all philosophy to be able to state so boldly that all of them require some level of intellect. I hate to break it to you, but that is an immensely arrogant thing to say, aside from being obviously self-contradictory and produced by someone who speaks of his thoughts rather than what is known.
meanwhile you're attempting to rob humanity of real philosophy, which is not at all apart from science. Philosophy and science are both part of the same object - two sides of one coin. Philosophy is the study of what is in the truth. We call truth that way because it's fixed and can be confirmed through literally anything.
But whatever you learned is actually a tool to deceive people who don't know any better.
There is a phrase: "buddha's teaching is so simple that can be learned by a three year old boy, but it cannot be practiced by an 80 year old man."
> This is true for nearly all religions and especially for philosophies.
Remove the word philosophy and I'll agree with you.
> This is not true about Hinduism. It isn't one of those "take all or none" philosophies you can pick your parts without ever reading about many other parts which you still hold in high regard due to tradition.
I'm wondering if you decided to completely ignore everything I previously wrote or if you've got something controlling you to be unable to correctly understand what you read of what I wrote. Chances are you are another person who does not actually want to know the truth. The best way to remain in ignorance is to falsely convince yourself that you actually do want to know.
There is blatant evidence that Buddha's teaching is thrown away. He himself says the Lotus Sutra is the one sutra that is rejected by the majority of people, even while he's alive.
Maybe if you had a basic amount of regard for him and even perhaps yourself then you wouldn't so obviously deny how deeply in denial you are.
I will explain something for you. Buddhism is not under the umbrella of Santanadharma, however much you try to neuter Buddha's real teaching so as to stay so comfortable in your own ideas. Buddha admitted the existence of Gods because they are equivalent to aspects of nature or because they don't really exist or are metaphors and he uses them entirely as such. The mere fact that you are possessed by a god justifies Buddha's using the term - because you are a servant of a dead God , it was accurate to call you one. But Buddha was clear that there are no beings. If you knew even a little of his real teaching then you would notice how silly you sound claiming that what you know even approaches his level. Buddha used words like bodhisattva or deva even though he is later clear about the true nature of those terms. You're the one who missed the point. Buddha basically intentionally trolled you.
Besides, if you really knew the nature of a real Krishna, you would see that the truth of those concepts do not originate in "Hinduism", whatever that is.
Are you aware of the fact buddha said, "in all of heaven and earth, only I exist"?
Stop changing his words if you want to convince the future humanity you actually respect him.
The fact is, for now, you are lying to people. The Gita makes repeated claims about Buddha that he either directly contradicted or which he never made. That's a sin.
The mere fact that you place his painting in the Gita and tell innocent people that you know he's an incarnation means you lied about him.
QED.
It is nibbana in Pali, nirvana is in Sanskrit.
The same is the case for many other words related to Buddhism and its scriptures.
E.g.: Sanskrit, Pali:
Sutra, sutta
bhikshu, bhikkhu
maitri, metta
ausadha, osadha
smrti, sati
trsna, tanha
drsti, ditthi
(I removed the dots and other stuff below the letters, because I was not sure they would render correctly here in HN.)
Edit: See:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pali
in the section "Conversion between Sanskrit and Pali forms".
And:
After nirvana, he felt compassion for all the countless beings who were not there yet, so he resolved to stay until everyone got it.
And that is supposed to be the difference between an arhat and a bodhisattva.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arhat
https://www.artic.edu/artworks/142512/buddha-worshipped-by-t...
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.