Is Buddhism based on Hinduism?

[anatta]

Quora

www.quora.com

At the time of Prince Siddhārtha Gautama of the Śakya clan of Sūrya Vamśi Kṣatriyas there was no such thing as “Hinduism”. There was simply Dharma, or Veda-dharma or varṇāśrama Dharma (European scholars refer to it as Brahmanism). Buddha would have been raised as a Kṣatriya prince, been initiated with the sacred thread and learned the gāyatrī mantra, the performance of Sandhya and some basic Veda etc. His marriage would have been conducted in accordance with Vedic rituals and his son would also most likely have received the Vedic sacraments.


At that time there were 6 major schools of Vedic philosophy all arguing and contending with each other and with the Chārvāka - materialists, and others that have disappeared from the pages of history. The most organised religion of the time and the major contender with Brahmanism was Jainism. So the aspirant Gautama entered into a playing field with many other contenders.


They are lived together, discussed together argued (as Indians do) supported the Vedas, refuted the Vedas - rejected the Vedas and so on. Since they all lived in the same cultural milieu they all shared some common philosophical ideas and concepts of:

Dharma which was the main point of common reference. There was a prolific cross-pollination of ideas.

So from this common fecund intellectual pool comprised of Brahmanism and its competitors and antagonists three streams arose in order of their consolidation (1) Jainism (2) Buddhism and (3) what was later come to be known as Hinduism which unlike the previous two never developed a formal organizational structure.


Interestingly enough all three religions referred to themselves as Sanātana Dharma or severally as Jina-dharma, Buddha-dharma, and Vaidika-dharma — “Buddhism” and “Hinduism” were appellations given by Western scholars.

 

[Hawkeye10]

The way it has been explained to me is that Buddhism was birthed in Indian Hinduism, went to China and their Confucianism, and then to Japan and their Shinto......shapeshifting as it goes.....adapting to the people and their needs.

 

[EdwinA]

Not really. Buddhism is merely the ultimate self-centered narcissist cult, while Hinduism is a pagan demon worshiping pantheism. Any tour of the temples in India will verify that immediately. Buddhism isn't really a theology.

 

[Litmus]

Quora

www.quora.com

At the time of Prince Siddhārtha Gautama of the Śakya clan of Sūrya Vamśi Kṣatriyas there was no such thing as “Hinduism”. There was simply Dharma, or Veda-dharma or varṇāśrama Dharma (European scholars refer to it as Brahmanism). Buddha would have been raised as a Kṣatriya prince, been initiated with the sacred thread and learned the gāyatrī mantra, the performance of Sandhya and some basic Veda etc. His marriage would have been conducted in accordance with Vedic rituals and his son would also most likely have received the Vedic sacraments.


At that time there were 6 major schools of Vedic philosophy all arguing and contending with each other and with the Chārvāka - materialists, and others that have disappeared from the pages of history. The most organised religion of the time and the major contender with Brahmanism was Jainism. So the aspirant Gautama entered into a playing field with many other contenders.


They are lived together, discussed together argued (as Indians do) supported the Vedas, refuted the Vedas - rejected the Vedas and so on. Since they all lived in the same cultural milieu they all shared some common philosophical ideas and concepts of:

Dharma which was the main point of common reference. There was a prolific cross-pollination of ideas.

So from this common fecund intellectual pool comprised of Brahmanism and its competitors and antagonists three streams arose in order of their consolidation (1) Jainism (2) Buddhism and (3) what was later come to be known as Hinduism which unlike the previous two never developed a formal organizational structure.


Interestingly enough all three religions referred to themselves as Sanātana Dharma or severally as Jina-dharma, Buddha-dharma, and Vaidika-dharma — “Buddhism” and “Hinduism” were appellations given by Western scholars.

yes.

it's a reform of Hinduism.

Hinduism without severe asceticism and the caste system.

in fact the founder of Jainism was friends with the Buddhism people.

they were Hindu kings.

I don't know what weed you're smoking.

 

[Litmus]

Quora

www.quora.com

At the time of Prince Siddhārtha Gautama of the Śakya clan of Sūrya Vamśi Kṣatriyas there was no such thing as “Hinduism”. There was simply Dharma, or Veda-dharma or varṇāśrama Dharma (European scholars refer to it as Brahmanism). Buddha would have been raised as a Kṣatriya prince, been initiated with the sacred thread and learned the gāyatrī mantra, the performance of Sandhya and some basic Veda etc. His marriage would have been conducted in accordance with Vedic rituals and his son would also most likely have received the Vedic sacraments.


At that time there were 6 major schools of Vedic philosophy all arguing and contending with each other and with the Chārvāka - materialists, and others that have disappeared from the pages of history. The most organised religion of the time and the major contender with Brahmanism was Jainism. So the aspirant Gautama entered into a playing field with many other contenders.


They are lived together, discussed together argued (as Indians do) supported the Vedas, refuted the Vedas - rejected the Vedas and so on. Since they all lived in the same cultural milieu they all shared some common philosophical ideas and concepts of:

Dharma which was the main point of common reference. There was a prolific cross-pollination of ideas.

So from this common fecund intellectual pool comprised of Brahmanism and its competitors and antagonists three streams arose in order of their consolidation (1) Jainism (2) Buddhism and (3) what was later come to be known as Hinduism which unlike the previous two never developed a formal organizational structure.


Interestingly enough all three religions referred to themselves as Sanātana Dharma or severally as Jina-dharma, Buddha-dharma, and Vaidika-dharma — “Buddhism” and “Hinduism” were appellations given by Western scholars.

and Cain and Abel weren't "Jews".

pedantic wind pissing.

 

[Diogenes]

I thought Buddhism - and all other "religions" - were all based on superstition.

 

[Cypress]

So from this common fecund intellectual pool comprised of Brahmanism and its competitors and antagonists three streams arose in order of their consolidation (1) Jainism (2) Buddhism and (3) what was later come to be known as Hinduism which unlike the previous two never developed a formal organizational structure.

Interestingly enough all three religions referred to themselves as Sanātana Dharma or severally as Jina-dharma, Buddha-dharma, and Vaidika-dharma — “Buddhism” and “Hinduism” were appellations given by Western scholars.

Quora

www.quora.com

^^ It's written by someone with an agenda to elevate Buddhism above Hinduism in the chronology, status, and history of South Asian spiritual traditions.

Agendas are no way to approach the aquisition of knowlege.
There was no 'India' back then either, so a lot of these words come with 19th and 20th century baggage.

It's true that the word Hinduism is a western abstraction, but it's not true that Buddhism predates what scholars typically think of as Hinduism. Ground zero for classical Hinduism are the Upanishads, which were an infection point away form the ritualism of ancient Vedic Brahmanism, and towards a focus on the knowledge and truth claims of what we can call classical Hinduism. The Upanishads predate Siddhartha Gautauma and the Buddhist canonical text Dhammapada by centuries.

 

[Guno צְבִי]

and Cain and Abel weren't "Jews".

pedantic wind pissing.

No shit you uneducated schmuck , Abraham wasn't born yet

 

[EdwinA]

but it's not true that Buddhism predates what scholars typically think of as Hinduism. Ground zero for classical Hinduism are the Upanishads, which were an infection point away form the ritualism of ancient Vedic Brahmanism, and towards a focus on the knowledge and truth claims of what we can call classical Hinduism. The Upanishads predate Siddhartha Gautauma and the Buddhist canonical text Dhammapada by centuries.

Yes. The claim Buddhism was older was just weird.

 

[Litmus]

I thought Buddhism - and all other "religions" - were all based on superstition.

Yes. The claim Buddhism was older was just weird.

ignorance.

Buddhism clearly came from hinduism everything else is word games.

 

[Litmus]

"well technically what became hinduism also became Buddhism from a certain......."

"stfu"

 

[Litmus]

Buddhism is the "middle way" as a reform of hindusms even more extreme asceticism verging on self damage like opus dei tards and their self scourgings.

 

[Litmus]

No shit you uneducated schmuck , Abraham wasn't born yet

Father Abraham had seven sons, sir
seven sons had father Abraham.
and they never laughed
and they never cried
all they did was go like this.......

weird as fuck.

sounds like autism from red dye 20.

God bless RFKj

 

[EdwinA]

ignorance.

Buddhism clearly came from hinduism everything else is word games.

I thought Buddhism - and all other "religions" - were all based on superstition.

pagan beliefs and many cults are; religions are higher developments, of philosophy and literature with psychology and nature blended in. Christianity is the most highly developed theology so far, closest to human nature. The rest are historically interesting but dead ends that go nowhere. Buddhism for instance is merely self-obsession and narcissism carried to extremes.

 

[Daylight63]

Christianity is the most highly developed theology so far, closest to human nature.

I think what you mean is that Christianity is PRACTICED most close to human nature. Take the Religious Right in the USA. They are largely made up of people who recently decided that a man who has violated every sacred vow he ever took in a Church, a man who worships money and literally lives in a GOLDEN PALACE in the sky in NYC and who lies like most people breathe is the best choice for our leader.

The USA does Christianity RIGHT! In the USA we:

1. Would rather watch someone starve on the street than make welfare more available.
2. Would rather watch someone die than ensure healthcare is available
3. Are A-OK with the mass slaughter of US citizens by guns because we "LIVE BY THE SWORD" (just like Jesus suggested!)
4. Have the biggest, baddest military the world has ever seen so we can kick ANYONE'S ASS for lookin' at us funny (like Jesus suggested)

America is a CHRISTIAN NATION goddamnit!

The rest are historically interesting but dead ends that go nowhere. Buddhism for instance is merely self-obsession and narcissism carried to extremes.

Yes. ONLY OUR MAGICAL BELIEFS are rational! Everyone else is just fuckin' stupid as fuck for believing weird shit.

 

[EdwinA]

I think what you mean is that Christianity is PRACTICED most close to human nature. Take the Religious Right in the USA. They are largely made up of people who recently decided that a man who has violated every sacred vow he ever took in a Church, a man who worships money and literally lives in a GOLDEN PALACE in the sky in NYC and who lies like most people breathe is the best choice for our leader.

The USA does Christianity RIGHT! In the USA we:

1. Would rather watch someone starve on the street than make welfare more available.
2. Would rather watch someone die than ensure healthcare is available
3. Are A-OK with the mass slaughter of US citizens by guns because we "LIVE BY THE SWORD" (just like Jesus suggested!)
4. Have the biggest, baddest military the world has ever seen so we can kick ANYONE'S ASS for lookin' at us funny (like Jesus suggested)

America is a CHRISTIAN NATION goddamnit!



Yes. ONLY OUR MAGICAL BELIEFS are rational! Everyone else is just fuckin' stupid as fuck for believing weird shit.

Dumb post. Da Evul Xians really trigger the usual deviants and haters. They also really hate the U.S., mainly cuz they're told to by commies and other vermin.