Hinduism's stance on Buddhism

greenberg

until the end of the world
Registered Senior Member
What is Hinduism's stance on Buddhism?

Does Hinduism declare that Buddhism is wrong?

If yes, what is it about Buddhism that Hinduism declares to be wrong?

If no, why not?
 
Actually you can become a Hindu if you are a Buddhist but you can't become a Buddhist if you are a Hindu. In Buddhism it is taught that wherever you find that you need to go in life to be fulfilled, you should do what you need to do to keep yourself happy and content, even going into another religion.
 
What is Hinduism's stance on Buddhism?

Hinduism, as usual, considers Buddhism also is a path to liberation shown by the 'saint/avatar/whatever' Buddha.

Does Hinduism declare that Buddhism is wrong?

If yes, what is it about Buddhism that Hinduism declares to be wrong?

If no, why not?

There is no single authority in Hinduism to declare something like that.
In fact, the vedic advaitha, has some similarities to non-vedic buddhism.
 
In Buddhism it is taught that wherever you find that you need to go in life to be fulfilled, you should do what you need to do to keep yourself happy and content, even going into another religion.

Provided if it is not going against the Buddha Dharma.
 
I have to agree with neo,
my experience is that Hindus have a wildly diverse set of opinions about just about everything. At least some of the Hindus I knew, pretty deeply into meditation and the mystical end of things, considered Buddhism a valid path. From others I got the sense they felt that without a guru relationship it was just too much for the individual to accomplish. Others seemed to consider it kind of cold. I would guess that is just scratching the surface of opinions.
 
I actually wrote a pretty lengthy essay on this topic in my World Religions class. Hindus dont really see other religions as wrong or right, they see them more as different paths to salvation. They kind of see every religion as a form of hinduism. Hinduism is very diverse and a very personnal religion. You kind of create a religion that works for you. But that is simplifying it. There are some underlying universal doctrines involved. In a book I read once, and I can't recall the name, the author put hinduism this way: Hindus see god as a mountain. There are many different paths to take to climb up this mountain. All the paths are different, but they will all get you to the top! The attitude of religions being right or wrong is a very judeo/xtian attitude. You really don't see those kinds of attitudes in easter religions at all.
 
Now hold on just for a minute guys. Please take a look at Shankaracharyas commentaries on Brahman (especially on Bram Sutras), or read AtmaBodh.He meticulously points out or refutes i should say "some" of the beliefs of Buddhists. But yes, the last post is pretty much right ... there are set of beliefs which are either location specific or family specific or blah blah ... (you get the picture ;) )



Rick.
 
Well, Hinduism itself can't really take a stance, so I have to go by Hindus - a term that itself is misleading since it sounds like one religion.
 
some what. Truly speaking "Religion" is a very "western" word (call me crazy), but the idea of centralized authority in religion doesn't hold ground in Hinduism, which is why it has survived and become sort of Liberal in its ideas and Philosophies, the origin of all this is Vedic culture though (as far as I know ).

Rick
 
Actually you can become a Hindu if you are a Buddhist but you can't become a Buddhist if you are a Hindu.

The exact opposite is true. Buddha is considered one of the 10 main incarnations of the Vishnu in Hinduism; and hence if you are a Hindu, you accept Buddhism.

But a buddhist is actually a break-away from the earlier Hinduism.
 
The very first thread in this subforum I posted, I defined Hinduism which is otherwise known as Sanatana Dharma (Eternal way of life) as: "Any way of life that can last mankind for eternity is the way of life."

If we go by that definition, then you can test Buddhism through that rule. If it fits...use it....Ofcourse the way of life must have built in adaptive features to last that long. I think Hinduism does....
 
some what. Truly speaking "Religion" is a very "western" word (call me crazy), but the idea of centralized authority in religion doesn't hold ground in Hinduism,
unless there's a guru, for example. There may be no Pope, but there are plenty of authority figures.
 
The exact opposite is true. Buddha is considered one of the 10 main incarnations of the Vishnu in Hinduism; and hence if you are a Hindu, you accept Buddhism.

But a buddhist is actually a break-away from the earlier Hinduism.


How does what you state above fit with the Buddha's teaching that believing in creation by a supreme being is detrimental?


"Monks, there are these three sectarian guilds that — when cross-examined, pressed for reasons, & rebuked by wise people — even though they may explain otherwise, remain stuck in [a doctrine of] inaction. Which three?

...

"Having approached the priests & contemplatives who hold that... 'Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation,' I said to them: 'Is it true that you hold that... "Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation?"' Thus asked by me, they admitted, 'Yes.' Then I said to them, 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of a supreme being's act of creation. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views because of a supreme being's act of creation.' When one falls back on creation by a supreme being as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my second righteous refutation of those priests & contemplatives who hold to such teachings, such views.

AN 3.61
 
How does what you state above fit with the Buddha's teaching that believing in creation by a supreme being is detrimental?

This does seem to be against the basic Hindu tenet that all creation is by Brahma. But then that is figurative and there are bigger concepts than Brahma; and contradictions fit in snugly within Hinduism.

My point is that Buddhism fits in well into Hinduism, though it does not agree with some of the supposed tenets of Hinduism; and this is a feature of Hinduism.
 
For example, the concepts of Rama and Krishna, both incarnations of the same Vishnu do not match. Each of them has to be taken in its essence and in reference to the day.
 
What is Hinduism's stance on Buddhism?

Does Hinduism declare that Buddhism is wrong?

If yes, what is it about Buddhism that Hinduism declares to be wrong?

If no, why not?
Buddha is accepted as a lila incarnation of vishnu.

IOW Lord Buddha appears periodically to fulfill the same purpose although details may differ slightly between subsequent incarnations.

For instance here is a passage in reference to a incarnation of Buddha from a previous universal creation.

SB 2.7.37 When the atheists, after being well versed in the Vedic scientific knowledge, annihilate inhabitants of different planets, flying unseen in the sky on well-built rockets prepared by the great scientist Maya, the Lord will bewilder their minds by dressing Himself attractively as Buddha and will preach on subreligious principles.

The purpose of Buddha however is the same in all times (at the onset of kali yuga) and situations (namely a misuse of vedic knowledge by an dominant atheist class and remedying the situation with a philosophy of ahimsa - non-violence) - for instance here is a passage in reference to this universe.

Dasa avatar stotra 4 - O Kesava! O Lord of the universe! O Lord Hari, who have assumed the form of Buddha! All glories to You! O Buddha of compassionate heart, you decry the slaughtering of poor animals performed according to the rules of Vedic sacrifice.


In short, brahmanas were performing vedic sacrifices simply for the sake of eating slaughtered animals (aka atheism) , so Buddha incarnated and established the rejection of vedic authority and the establishing his own authority (namely non-violence with a tinge of impersonal liberation as perfectional)

Buddha turns up many times in various prayers through out vedic literature

SB 8.3.12: I offer my respectful obeisances to Lord Vāsudeva, who is all-pervading, to the Lord's fierce form as Lord Nṛsiḿhadeva, to the Lord's form as an animal [Lord Varāhadeva], to Lord Dattātreya, who preached impersonalism, to Lord Buddha, and to all the other incarnations. I offer my respectful obeisances unto the Lord, who has no material qualities but who accepts the three qualities goodness, passion and ignorance within this material world. I also offer my respectful obeisances unto the impersonal Brahman effulgence.

What is interesting however is how Buddha is seen as playing a role in a religious continuum - what overtook Buddhism (and eventually pushed it to the perimeters that it is now famous for) was sankharacarya's mayavada philosophy (which is basically just establishing the values of buddhism - namely impersonal liberation according to vedic authority). IOW sankharacarya re-established the authority of the vedas after buddha dismissed them (sometimes even scholars refer to mayavada philosophy as "veiled Buddhism"). Basically as the continuum progresses each participant is seen as offering something beneficial - in the case of buddhism it is the Amara Kosa, or sanskrit dictionary, for establishing authoritative explanations that all parties involved agree on.

Sometimes there may be vedic references that philosophically condemn buddhism simply because it is a branch of atheism, although Buddha himself is understood as an incarnation of Visnu. As such, to really get in the spirit of following Buddha requires that one is an atheist, so his appearance day, etc won't be celebrated in any mandir.

Basically in vedic discussion religious paradigms are argued in terms of their linear position in terms of philosophy - its not that buddhists are "wrong" or go to hell, its just that the ultimate result it offers pales in comparison to whats on offer. Basically the faults lie in the explanation of the phenomenal world and self and also Buddhistic nirvana being attainable as an eternal goal.

(on a side note - In 1959, subsequent to the then ongoing Chinese occupation of Tibet, the 14th Dalai Lama sought refuge within India. The then Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, was instrumental in granting safe refuge to the Dalai Lama and his fellow Tibetans. The Dalai Lama has since lived in exile in Dharamsala, in the state of Himachal Pradesh in northern India, where the Central Tibetan Administration (the Tibetan government-in-exile) is also established. Tibetan refugees have constructed and opened many schools and Buddhist temples in Dharamsala. - wiki -

the simple fact that the tibetan buddhists were granted shelter in India is indicative of the traditional vedic social culture of india)

If you want to talk of the "wrongness" of Buddhism, then this is probably more down that alley


You practice Buddha if you appreciate him. You give up everything like Buddha and meditate. But that you will not do. Then what is the talking of, useless talking about this? Do something. Either you believe Buddha or Jesus Christ or Krishna. Do something. Don't talk simply. Lord Buddha is very nice. He gave up his kingdom in youthful life. He was prince. He thought, "It is all nonsense. Let me meditate." Do like that. That is the disease. We won't do anything. We talk much of this, that, this, that. Do anything, but do it perfectly. "Jack of all trade, master of none." That is not good. Be master of something. It doesn't differ. Either you follow Lord Jesus Christ or Lord Buddha or Krishna, it doesn't matter much. But do it perfectly. That is our request.
- A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

once again, theory only becomes fruitful with practice
 
"Hinduism" doesn't really take any stance on Buddhism.....since there is no such thing as "Hinduism"

There are forms of "Hinduism" that are atheistic, monotheistic, polytheistic, non-theistic, pantheistic, impersonalistic, and all are labeled as "Hindu"
 
Last edited:
buddhism was a social reform movement. a denunciation of the hindu caste system. an emphasis on the individual. the rest is a rehash of hinduism
 
Back
Top