literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org

Sitaram · Site Admin Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 1079

One reader writes:

In your web site, page 59, you have mentioned:

http://www.geocities.com/tulsidas_ramayan/page059.htm

(Start of excerpt):

"After 2 years of study and reading, collecting another 50 or so
books in all kinds of Buddhism, it dawned on me one day that
Siddhartha Gautama, the historical Buddha, was like a Martin Luther
of German reformation, protesting against the established Hindu
Vedic religion of his times (600 B.C.E). I thought, how can I
properly understand Siddhartha Gautama if I do not understand what he
rejected."

(end of excerpt)

But it is not mentioned why Buddha rejected Hinduism? AND whether
his rejection is proper?

I am very curious to hear your point of view in this regard.

===========================

Sitaram replies:

There seems to be little doubt that Siddhartha rejected the Hindu
teachings and practices of his time. Of course, it is important to
note that he rejected something only after he first embraced it and
mastered it.

The Vedic Hinduism of Siddhartha's day was certainly unlike the
Hinduism of today, which has incorporated within itself much which is
Buddhist, due to the influence of people like Shankarachariya.

It is also important to observe that Hinduism as it is today would
not be what it is UNLESS Buddha had rejected it in a Protestant act
of reformation, and Shankaracharya had reunified Hinduism by means
of a counter-reformation synthesis. We may say the same of the Roman
Catholic Church, that it might not be what it is today if Martin
Luther had not rejected it, and the Counter-Reformation had not
reformed it. And perhaps the counter-reformation
is an ongoing process in Vatican II of 1965 and beyond.

I am told that in many Buddhist shrines and temples, there is a
corner with various Hindu Deities so that pilgrims may perform
devotions in the fashion of their choice.

How curious it is that Jesus was born a Jew of the priestly tribe of
Levi, but laid down the foundations for Christianity, and Siddhartha
Gautama (the Buddha) was born a Hindu Kshatrya (warrior caste) but
laid down the foundations for Buddhism.

I have entitled this post "Man as the measure of all things."

This was first said by Protagoras of Abdera ( c. 480-410 BCE).

Note that this aphorism is often interpreted as a sort of radical
relativism.

I hope to make the point in my reply that it is a particular
individual's "relativism", the relativism of an Abraham, or a Buddha,
or a Jesus, or a Muhammad, which becomes the foundation for the
absolutism of the masses for many generations.

(beginning of excerpt):

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/protagor.htm

Protagoras of Abdera was one of several fifth century Greek thinkers
(including also Gorgias, Hippias, and Prodicus) collectively known as
the Older Sophists, a group of traveling teachers or intellectuals
who were experts in rhetoric (the science of oratory) and related
subjects.

Protagoras is known primarily for three claims:

(1) that man is the measure of all things (which is often interpreted
as a sort of radical relativism)

(2) that he could make the "worse (or weaker) argument appear the
better (or stronger)" and

(3) that one could not tell if the gods existed or not.

While some ancient sources claim that these positions led to his
having been tried for impiety in Athens and his books burned, these
stories may well have been later legends. Protagoras' notion that
judgments and knowledge are in some way relative to the person
judging or knowing has been very influential, and is still widely
discussed in contemporary philosophy.

(end of excerpt)

Let us for a moment consider the resemblance of Protagoras'
aphorism "Man is the measure of all things" to the theories in
Physics known as "Weak Anthropic" (WAP) and "Strong Anthropic" (SAP).

You may read up on Anthropic theories here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

(beginning of excerpt):

In 1986, the controversial book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle
by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler (Oxford University Press) was
published. In this book Barrow, a cosmological scientist, pioneered
what he called the anthropic principle in order to deal with the
seemingly incredible coincidences that allow for our presence in a
universe that appears to be perfectly set up for our existence.

Everything from the particular energy state of the electron to the
exact level of the weak nuclear force seems to be tailored for us to
exist. The existence of carbon-based life in this universe is
contingent upon several independent variables; and were any of these
variables to take a slightly different value, carbon-based life could
not exist. The anthropic principle implies that our ability to ponder
cosmology at all is contingent on all the correct variables being in
place. According to critics, this is simply a tautology, a very
elaborate way of saying 'if things were different, they would be
different'.

(end of excerpt)

In a very simple-minded way, the various Anthropic principles seem to
be saying that humans perceive the physical to be in a certain way,
but what we perceive is very much a function of our nature of having
5 senses (and not two senses or 10 senses), and having minds which
process information and logic in a certain way (and not in some
other, radically different, way).

We have sayings such as "what you see is what you get" and "you are
what you eat", but I feel that, in an odd way, "what we see (out
there) is seen as it is because of what we are (in here, in our
hearts)."

Please bear these things in mind as you
read below, where I have written: "The outer turmoil of religious
reformation is but a projection and shadowplay of the inner turmoil
and chaos of the human body and spirit. We look outside ourselves
for some absolute unchanging rule or law from a God or an avatar or
prophet, when what we should really be looking at is our own
lawlessness and fickle fluctuation. Our desire for authority and
rules arises from our own unruliness and the suffering which it
causes us."

Below, I have posted a good summary of Buddha's life. But let us
make one curious observation. Before Buddha's birth, there was a
wise man or seer who prophesied the coming of Buddha to save
mankind. There were also prophets and seers who predicted the
coming of Christ. The point I would like to make is that if some
religion considers itself the sole source of truth, and considers
that it had a beginning or foundation in time, and that it was
PROPHESIED or predicted by wise men, prior to its foundation, why
then THOSE WISE MEN must have had some means to access the one
perfect truth; otherwise they would have been in total darkness and
ignorance and unable to foresee the coming of a true religion.
Whence comes such prophetic wisdom and insight prior to any advent or
epiphany?

Please note that this summary is taken from a Christian website
which has its own hidden agenda.

http://www.refuge-outreach.org/religions/buddhism.htm

(beginning of excerpt):

Buddhism has an individual founder and can look back to a date for
its beginnings. The man who formulated Buddhism was Siddhartha
Gautama, who was born a Hindu about 560 B.C., at Lumbini near the
border of India in what is now Nepal. Tradition says that when
Gautama was born, a seer prophesied that he would become the
greatest ruler in human history. The seer added that if Gautama ever
saw four things - sickness, old age, death and a monk who had
renounced the world-the boy would give up his earthly rule and
discover a way of salvation for all mankind.

To refute the prophecy, Gautama's father built a palace for his son,
giving orders that neither the sick, the old, a dead body nor a monk
be allowed near the palace. Gautama grew up in this way, protected
from the world. He later married a beautiful girl named Yasodhara,
who bore him a son. But the "gods" had other plans for Gautama. One
day, as he rode though the park that surrounded his palace, he saw a
man who was covered with terrible sores, a man who tottered with age,
a corpse being carried to its grave and a begging monk who appeared
to be peaceful and happy. That night, as Gautama reported later, he
began to think about the look of peace on the face of the monk. He
began to wonder if there was more to life than the luxuries of his
palace. Late that night he took a last look at his sleeping wife and
child, then left the palace forever.

Gautama, 29 years old, was determined to solve the riddle of life. He
shaved his head, put on a yellow robe and wandered the countryside
as a beggar monk. First he studied the Upanishads with the finest
teachers, but he could find no satisfaction in these writings. Then
he tried to find salvation through self-denial. He starved himself
until he was a walking skeleton, but this brought him no happiness
either.

Finally, he sat under a tree for 40 days and nights. He swore that he
would not move until he found what he was searching for. During this
time, Mara, the evil one, tried to make him give up his quest. At the
end of the 40 days, he experienced the highest degree of
Godconsciousness-nirvana-literally, the "blowing out" of the flame of
desire and the negation of suffering. Through this experience,
Gautama felt he had found "salvation." From then on, he was known
as Buddha or the "enlightened one." After his life-changing
experience, Gautama Buddha went back to the world of man. He
began to preach and teach about the meaning of life and his way to
nirvana. Soon he founded the Sangha, an order of monks. By the time
Gautama Buddha died, 45 years later, many thousands had adopted
his teachings.

In some ways, Buddhism is similar to the Hinduism from which it
evolved. In other ways, it is quite different, and many of Buddha's
teachings were rejected as heresies by the dominant teachers of
Hinduism, the Brahmin priests. For example, Buddha denied that the
Vedas and the Upanishads were divine writings, saying they were of
no help in finding the way to nirvana. He also denied that man has an
atman (soul), which is part of the Brahman (world soul), and that the
present world is maya (unreal). Other Hindu concepts Buddha rejected
included the Brahmin priesthood and the entire Hindu sacrificial
system; instead, he emphasized ethics over ritual. He rejected the
caste system and taught that enlightenment was open to
anyone-including women-not just Brahmin males. Finally, Buddha
radically challenged all the indifferent Hindu gods and goddesses,
saying they were essentially unimportant in the quest for
enlightenment.

Buddha did accept the Hindu teachings on reincarnation, along with
karma (the soul gains merits or demerits according to how one lives
his life) and dharma (the duty one has to perform according to his
station in life). Buddha taught that one could be reborn as a human,
an animal, a hungry ghost, a demon or even as a Hindu god. He also
incorporated yoga and meditation, which were highly developed skills
in Hinduism, into his teachings.

(end of excerpt)

Sitaram continues:

Now, let us take a look at excerpts from a website entitled "The Mind
of Gandhi" and see what it says about Buddhism:

http://www.mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/chap17.htm

(beginning of excerpt):

The Way of the Buddha

It is my deliberate opinion that the essential part of the teachings
of the Buddha now forms an integral part of Hinduism. It is
impossible for Hindu India today to retrace her steps and go behind
the great reformation that Gautama effected in Hinduism. By his
immense sacrifice, by his great renunciation, and by the immaculate
purity of his life he left an indelible impress upon Hinduism, and
Hinduism owes an eternal debt of gratitude to that great teacher...
What Hinduism did not assimilate of what passes as Buddhism today was
not an essential part of the Buddha's life and his teachings.
It is my fixed opinion that Buddhism or, rather, the teaching of the
Buddha found its full fruition in India and it could not be
otherwise, for Gautama was himself a Hindu of Hindus. He was
saturated with the best that was in Hinduism, and he gave life to
some of the teachings that were buried in the Vedas and which were
overgrown with weeds.

His great Hindu spirit cut its way through the forest of words,
meaningless words, which had overlaid the golden truth that was in
the Vedas. He made some of the words in the Vedas yield a meaning
to which the men of his generation were utter strangers, and he found
in India the most congenial soil. And wherever the Buddha went, he
was followed by and surrounded not by non-Hindus but Hindus, those
who were themselves saturated with Vedic law. But the Buddha's
teaching, like his heart, was all-expanding and all-embracing and so
it has survived his own body and swept across the face of the earth.
And at the risk of being called a follower of the Buddha, I claim
this achievement as a triumph of Hinduism. The Buddha never rejected

Hinduism, but he broadened its base. He gave it a new life and a new
interpretation. But...I want to submit to you that the teaching of
the Buddha was not assimilated in its fullness whether it was in
Ceylon, or in Burma, or in China, or in Tibet...

(YI, 24-11-1927, pp392-3)

(end of excerpt):

Sitaram continues:

Was Jesus a reformer of Judaism or a destroyer of Judaism? Was
Buddha a reformer of Hinduism, or a destroyer of Hinduism?

History teaches us that Buddhism spread far and wide, beyond the
borders of India, all the way to China and Japan.

But wherever there is a reformation or revolution, there shall soon
appear a counter-reformation or counter-revolution.

http://www.kamat.com/indica/faiths/bhakti/shankaracharya.htm

(beginning of excerpt):

The tremendous task of interpreting the true catholic spirit of Hindu
philosophy was yet to be undertaken, and the three acharyas,
Shankaracharya (c 788 - 820 AD), Ramanujacharya (11th century AD),
and Madhwacharya (13th century AD) -- all hailing from southern part
of India are credited for the status of present day Hindu thought and
philosophy.

Shankaracharya criticized Buddhism in its decayed form, he
assimilated many tenets of Buddhism cleverly, like that of nirvana
(void). It was Shankaracharya who was responsible to absorb Buddha
into Hinduism and recognize Buddha as an avatar (incarnation) of
God !

Man as the measure of all things.

The outer turmoil of religious reformation is but a projection and
shadowplay of the inner turmoil and chaos of the human body and
spirit.

We look outside ourselves for some absolute unchanging rule or law
from a God or an avatar or prophet, when what we should really be
looking at is our own lawlessness and fickle fluctuation.

Our desire for authority and rules arises from our own unruliness and
the suffering which it causes us.

The Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam started
out with one individual, Abraham, leading a decent, regulated life,
fasting and meditating, and seeing a vision of the divine. Jesus
goes into the wilderness for 40 days, fasts, meditates, prays, and
sees, not God, but Satan. For if Jesus is God, then how can he see
himself? It is only possible for him to see Satan. Then, Mohammed
leads a decent life, goes into a cave, meditates, and sees, neither
God nor Satan, but only hears the voice of Gabreel, an angel. And
Buddha lead a decent life, fasted, meditated in solitude, and gained
a vision of truth in his enlightenment. What all these events have
in common is that they are very subjective personal events, arising
after years of a particular way of life, and arising only for that
one individual who had those experiences and led that life.

So, these personal subjective experiences of singular individuals are
written down in scriptures and sutras and suras and gospels and
epistles. The religious experience for the average man in the street
is simply reading those scriptures, sutras, suras, gospels and
epistles a few times a week, and perhaps having some insight here or
there, and writing it down in a sermon or essay. If any average man
in the street were to go into the wilderness, meditate, fast, pray,
in imitation of Abraham and Buddha and Jesus and Muhammad, and were
to have his or her own vision of a pillar of fire, or a flying
chariot or burning cauldron, or hear the voice of an angel, and were
to come back to civilization and recount these wonders, then surely
they would be branded as a heretic, madman, blasphemer, a dangerous
person to be imprisoned or exiled or excommunicated or executed.

The relative, subjective experience of one individual, Abraham,
becomes the absolute, objective rule for many generations.
Let us take the example of myself, Sitaram, and the course of my own
life. I was born, as we all are, as the proverbial "blank slate" or
"tabula rasa."

(beginning of excerpt):

http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Locke.htm

Tabula Rasa & Empiricism:

Ultimately, in his acceptance of the existence of God, Locke was a
dualist -- though only barely so; he did not consider man to be a
divine creature fixed with ideas on coming into this world. Locke was
an empiricist, viz., all knowledge comes to us through
experience. "No man's knowledge here can go beyond his experience."
There is no such thing as innate ideas; there is no such thing as
moral precepts; we are born with an empty mind, with a soft tablet
(tabula rasa) ready to be writ upon by experimental impressions.
Beginning blank, the human mind acquires knowledge through the use of
the five senses and a process of reflection. Not only has Locke's
empiricism been a dominant tradition in British philosophy, but it
has been a doctrine which with its method, experimental science, has
brought on scientific discoveries ever since, scientific discoveries
on which our modern world now depends.

(end of excerpt):

This "blank slate" which became the Sitaram of today is built up of
many subjective experiences and influences. In no particular order
of importance, I may list some of these as the reading of:

Superman Comics

Plato's Dialogues

Wallace Stevens' poetry

Lawrence Durrell's "Alexandrian Quartet"

Kojeve's "Introduction to the Reading of Hegel's Phenomenology"

Sheldon Kopp's "If you meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him"

Milan Kundera's novels

The list of influences and experiences might go on and on. These
subjective experiences are the "tinted glasses" through which I view
the world and reality and myself. Had some of these experiences
been absent, or had their been other, additional experiences and
influences, then perhaps I would think and feel very differently than
I do at this moment.

So, how might you become Sitaram yourself, assuming that it is of
some value to become as I am? Could you become Sitaram by
reading all my writings? Obviously, you could only become Sitaram by
living my life and experiences just as I lived them.

But what if I had been born into the family of an Hasidic Jewish
family in Brooklyn? What if I had been born the son of a Brahmin in
Varanasi? Suppose I had been born the son of an Imam in Medina? In
each case, I would most likely have become something radically
different, because I would have had different experiences. Suppose I
had been born into a very poor family? I would not have had the
leisure to read and study so many things. Each waking moment of my
life would have been devoured by the desperate effort to obtain food
and survive in a hand-to-mouth existence.

We live in an age of fast food and instant gratification. If we are
hungry, we go to a 24-7 store, we order a hamburger, fries and a
shake. We take a pill to calm down, a pill to go to sleep, a pill to
wake up, and even a pill to have an erection. If we want to learn
something new, we buy a "For Dummies" book. There are even cartoon
books to make Sartre and Kant more simplified.

If we want what Abraham had, or Buddha, or Jesus, or Muhammad,
we do not go into the desert and fast and meditate, we do not climb
upon a physical cross with a crown of thorns. No! We say some
words. we take refuge in the saranam of the three gems of Buddha,
Sangha and Dharma. We do our shahada, confessing that Allah is the
only God and Muhammad is his prophet. We accept Baptism.
This is "Religion for Dummies."

Jefferson wisely pointed out, in a letter to a friend, than "just as
no two faces are the same, likewise no to beliefs are the same."

We search for some "one true faith", but when we find it, what do we
do? We divide it into hundreds of warring conflicting sectarian
groups. There is no religion or philosophy or system of government
which has not undergone such factional division. This means that,
since there are one billion Roman Catholics in the world, that
therefore there are one billion forms of Catholicism, and one billion
different natures which Christ assumes. This is a large pantheon
indeed!

Suppose human life should survive for another ten thousand years.
Suppose, ten thousand years from now, you find yourself born upon
some space station in another galaxy. Which way shall you bow to
Mecca? Where will you find your Kumba Mela? Where is your Wailing
Wall and your Kaaba and your Golden Temple? Where are your "waters
of Babylon" that you may lay down your instruments and weep?

Get your own free IRC Chat room