streaming consciousness…

Tagged: Vedas Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

• 

  hardie karges 4:36 am on October 27, 2024 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: anatta ( 22 ), asceticism, atman ( 5 ), Brahman ( 3 ), Brahmanism ( 8 ), Buddhism ( 428 ), dharma ( 35 ), Hardie Karges ( 239 ), Hinduism ( 28 ), India ( 15 ), Indra ( 2 ), Jainism ( 13 ), language ( 144 ), meditation ( 189 ), Padmasambhava, philosophy ( 101 ), religion ( 158 ), spirituality ( 27 ), Upanishads, Vajrayana ( 22 ), Vedas   

  Buddhism is the Middle Path between Jainism and Brahmanism… 

  

  Brahmanism is what we now call ‘Hinduism’, but that term didn’t really exist way back when, only recently applied by the Brits to the plethora of sects and devotions which now constitute Hinduism. But it was in the midst of the Upanishad era at the time of the Buddha, which would redefine the previously Indra-based fire rituals which had reigned during the Vedic times. And with the advent of the new Upanishadic orientation, the resulting resemblance to Buddhism was profound—but still distinct.

  And so was Jainism distinct from both of them, at the same time that it shares much with them. But remember, that the ‘Hinduism’ that the Jain reacted to in the 6^th century BCE is not the same as modern Hinduism, either, and that is partly because of this same three-way dialogue. Jainism was largely a reaction against the Brahmanists’ fire sacrifices, they being extreme nonviolent vegetarians. But many modern Hindus are also vegetarians, with Buddhists characteristically somewhere ‘in between.’

  That’s the Middle Path, specifically between the extreme asceticism of the Jains and the lavish rituals of the ‘Hindus’, but also between the many gods of Hinduism and the total lack of them in Jainism. Technically Buddhists don’t really have them, either, but, you know… Later versions of Buddhism were not so strict about that, such as the Tibetan version of Vajrayana, which came direct from India sometime after the 5^th century and attested by Padmasambhava in the 8^th century.

  But both Jains and Hindus were crazy about souls, Jains finding them everywhere and Hindus finding them cosmic, Atman, preferably in union with the cosmic dharma principle Brahman. But Buddhism found little of value in any of that, and so chose non-self anatta. So, they all evolved into different sects with different orientations, and we generally all get along nicely. The main difference is that Hinduism tilted toward a nationalism which international Buddhism could never assimilate. And Jains, ‘winners’ in Sanskrit, were ultimately the losers.

   

  Reply Cancel reply

  Required fields are marked *

  Name *

  Email *

  Website

  Notify me of new comments via email.

  Notify me of new posts via email.

  Δ

• 

  hardie karges 3:52 am on June 2, 2024 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: anatman, atman ( 5 ), Brahman ( 3 ), Brahmanism ( 8 ), Buddhism ( 428 ), Hardie Karges ( 239 ), Hindu ( 8 ), Hinduism ( 28 ), Indus River, khandhas ( 3 ), meditation ( 189 ), non-self ( 4 ), Pali ( 20 ), religion ( 158 ), Sanskrit ( 22 ), self ( 20 ), skandhas ( 10 ), spirituality ( 27 ), Vedas   

  Buddhism vs. Hinduism, Non-Self vs. Cosmic Self…  

  

  Anatta/anatman (non-self) doesn’t mean that we are nothing, just not much: no permanent soul, certainly nothing cosmic like Brahman. And this is where the fundamental concept comes from, the debate with the Brahmanists that we now call Hindus, though at that time (500BCE) the term was unknown, at least to Indians themselves. Because that’s all that the term ever meant, really: people of the Indus River, i.e. Sindhu or Hindu, a river now identified with Pakistan. India is now more identified with the Ganges.  

  But the distinction that the Buddha wanted to make between his worldview and that of the Brahmanists was that he saw nothing like the cosmic Atman ‘self’ that they propose to unite with the equally cosmic Brahman god-stuff that exists as the creative principle of the Universe. And while Hindus recognize Buddhism as but one of many Hindu Veda-based sects, Buddhism is having none of that, and the self/non-self debate is at the heart of that issue.  

  In fact, Buddhism relegates ‘self’ to ‘heaps’ of random qualities called ‘skandhas’ or ‘khandhas’ in Sanskrit or Pali. They are form, feeling, perception, consciousness, and reasoning, of which we all share equal and certain quantities. No one collection of such qualities is more important than any other, just as no one person is better than any other. The racist caste system of India will forever define the difference between Hinduism and Buddhism, and the atman/anatman distinction is at the heart of that.
   
• 

  hardie karges 12:03 pm on August 7, 2022 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: anatta ( 22 ), Brahmanism ( 8 ), Buddhism ( 428 ), Mahayana ( 46 ), Middle Path ( 53 ), non-self ( 4 ), philosophy ( 101 ), religion ( 158 ), rishi ( 7 ), self ( 20 ), Vedas   

  Buddhism in a Hindu World: no Time for Selves and Souls… 

  

  

  You should be able to find a comfortable balance between low self-esteem on the one hand, and overt selfish egotism, on the other, in the Buddhist doctrine of anatta, non-self or no-self, same thing. But this is one of the more controversial and misunderstood of the Buddha’s teachings, and subject to much abuse by those who want to go too far in the opposite direction from egotism, by claiming that we are all ‘nobody,’ and should somehow be proud of that. And that’s fine, if that’s what you want, but that’s not what the Buddha said.

  Because in one very real sense, the Buddha’s Middle path is not just the original path between luxury and lack, or even the esoteric existence and non-existence of the later Mahayanists. It is also very much a Middle Path between the competing philosophies of Vedic Brahmanism and the Jainism of his day. Those two, in effect, defined a very real dichotomy between the lush and lavish celebratory rituals of the upper Brahmin class and the self-denial of the renunciant rishis who once made India famous as a religious center, and to some extent still do.

  So, the self vs. no-self controversy for Buddhists was never supposed to be a total refutation of all things selfie, such that we are individually nothing at all and should aspire to nothing more than the average leaf blowing in the wind. The Buddhist doctrine of anatta only means that there is no permanent eternal soul to aspire to union with the cosmic Brahmana principle, as Brahmanic Hinduism invokes, and so nothing to worry about on that count. Peace in this life in this world is to be found by knowing the truths of suffering, craving, and impermanence, and then acting accordingly. Now we can get on with our lives.