| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
| Date: |
28 May 2005 09:45:47 AM |
| Object: |
HINDUISM, BUDDHISM DIFFERENT RELIGIONS? |
HINDUISM, BUDDHISM DIFFERENT RELIGIONS?
Forwarded message from
[ Subject: Hinduism - Buddhism different religions? By Nandakumar Chandran
[ From:
[ Date: Thu, 26 May 2005
Hinduism -- Buddhism different religions
By Nandakumar Chandran
esamskriti.com
In modern perception today Buddhism is regarded as a
religion distinct and apart from Hinduism. It is our view
that such an understanding lacks historical validity and
is also logically flawed. In the enterprise of clarifying
Buddhism's relationship with "Hinduism" we will in the
essay below adopt the following strategy:
1. Show the inadequacy of the modern understanding of the
word "religion" in representing Indian religious
traditions.
2. Understand the historical context of the definition of
"Hinduism".
3. Understand the inadequacy of the arguments, which
distinguish Buddhism as a religion distinct from
"Hinduism".
4. Understand why Buddhism is regarded as a religion
distinct from "Hinduism" today.
5. Attempt to understand the true relationship between
Buddhism and "Hinduism".
Some fundamental problems with regards defining
"religion" in India
A religion in the modern sense is generally understood in
the Semitic mould as a faith distinguished by its belief
in a historical prophet and a holy book. Thus the
combination of Jesus and the Bible or Mohammed and the
Quran establish the distinct identity of Christianity and
Islam. According to these religions salvation or access
to God is possible only if you accept the authority of
their prophet and holy book. So each of these religions
hold that theirs is the only true path and the claims of
all other religions are false and invalid. At a secondary
level apart from theological distinctions the adherents
of these religions also distinguish themselves by their
distinct cultural traits -- like naming themselves after
the holy men of their religions, dressing in a distinct
way or observing cultural practices particular to their
own religion. So it is in these factors -- primarily the
exclusive belief in prophet and holy book and secondarily
in theological beliefs and distinct cultural practices --
that the individual identity of a religion and its
adherents rests.
But if we look at India the concept of a prophet is
totally lacking -- no saint has ever claimed that "he is
the only way". With regards the scriptures, a few streams
of the Miimaamsaa consider the Vedas to be infallible and
the sole authority on matters spiritual -- but even here
they're careful to stress on the importance of reason in
interpreting the scriptures. Simply put: even the Vedas
cannot make fire cold. But the majority of the religious
streams were agreed about the relative value of their
scriptures and accepted the authority of other sources
too -- logic, the views of enlightened men etc. So no
religious stream in India has ever claimed that they and
only they represent the sole way to God based on their
prophet and holy book and all others are false. Simply
put the argument is that God/reality is not validated by
a prophet or a holy book and is open to anybody with the
right inclination. So each religious stream at best
claims to be a better and more effective path to access
God/reality.
With regards theological views, all religious streams of
India consider man to be caught in an endless cycle of
rebirths, where each life is inevitably sunk in suffering
due to the transient nature of the world. Salvation is
escape from the cycle of rebirths. Knowledge of the true
nature of ones own self is what brings about salvation
(even for Buddhism the "I" is without substance and it is
on understanding its true nature that the root of the
bonds which tie a human being to samsaara -- "I" and
"mine" -- are erased and thus liberation effected). This
saving knowledge can arise either by intuition or by the
grace of God. But it is imperative that one must lead a
life of control of the psycho/physical faculties and
practice compassion and charity. This is fundamental
dharma and no religious stream has ever disputed it.
Where the various spiritual streams differ is in their
metaphysical worldviews (whether there is one or many
souls, where there's a primal matter or infinite atoms
etc) and their own particular path to effect liberation
-- but this path is not anything totally new but an
emphasis on a particular set of spiritual practices of
the fundamental dharma. For e.g. Advaita might lay
greater emphasis on self-introspection, while Mahaayaana
Buddhism might give more importance to ethics and
meditation or Yoga, which teaches mind control.
With regards cultural practices, it is to be noted that
only serious practitioners of the Indian spiritual
streams, who in most cases were monks, did anything
significant to distinguish themselves from the adherents
of other spiritual streams. For example the Saamkhya
ascetics wore red robes and the Buddhist and Jainaa monks
named themselves in a particular way. But the laity of
the various streams existed together with little to
distinguish between themselves. For a Shaivite or a
Vaishnavite or a Nyaaya logician to become a Buddhist
only meant abandoning a few of his existing views and
practices on spirituality and adopting new ones as taught
by Buddhism. To embrace a new path only meant adopting a
slightly different way of life more conducive to one's
own spiritual inclinations. Sometimes those who converted
to a new path, not satisfied with their current path,
went back to their original fold -- the great Purva
Miimaamsaa philosopher Kumaarilla Bhatta being a notable
example. But this seldom involved any change in existing
cultural practices as they were all born/married/died the
same way, ate similar food, dressed similarly, enjoyed
similar past times and upheld similar ideals about the
purpose of life. It was not unusual for an orthodox
Brahmin family to have a son who was a Buddhist, married
to a woman who believed in the teachings of the
Mahaaveera. They all belonged to the same civilization
and lived as one people under the shade of the dharma.
So considering all these it is a flawed theory that
considers Buddhism as a religion distinct from "Hinduism"
based on modern notions of religion.
Understanding "Hinduism"
If we see in the four thousand years worth of religious
literature in India we cannot find a single reference to
the word "Hinduism" anywhere! "Hinduism" is a word
concocted by Europeans to refer to the myriad streams of
religious faiths in the land of Hindustan. "Hindu" only
means an inhabitant of the sub-continent east of the
river Sindhu. The Persians pronounced "Sindu" as "Hindu"
which the Greeks in turn pronounced as "Indu" -- thus the
word to refer to the denizens of the sub-continent. Even
"India" is but a Greek word for Hindustan.
Only after the advent of Islam and later Christianity in
India, the natives of the sub-continent who did not
belong to either of these religions, used the word
"Hindu" to distinguish between themselves and the
adherents of these alien religions. Though the definition
is strictly geographical in nature but interpreted in the
religious sense a "Hindu" can be a Shaivite or a
Vaishnavite or an Advaita Vedaanti or a follower of one
of the numerous such sects -- each with their own set of
Gods and Goddesses, their own holy book(s), their own
spiritual founder/teachers and their own specific way of
effecting liberation. And historically we do not see even
heterodox streams like Buddhism or Jainsim being excluded
from such a definition. Neither in the works of the
aastika nor naastikaa schools do we find any distinction
like "Hindu and Bauddha" or "Hindu and Jainaa". Within
themselves it is always "Vedaanti and Bauddha" or
"Naiyaayika and Jainaa". Only when there's a reference to
Christianity or Islam does the word "Hindu" come into
play. So to both the adherents of the alien and native
religions "Hindu" meant a follower of one of the native
religions of India, including Buddhism and Jainism.
But even then before the advent of Europeans into the
sub-continent nobody is known to have clubbed together
the myriad spiritual streams of India under a single
definition of "Hinduism". Under this definition all the
adherents of the aastika and assorted miscellaneous sects
excluding the Jains and Buddhists, were classified under
"Hinduism". Though there's is no problem with regards
what constitutes "Hinduism" itself, still if you look at
the reasons why Buddhism and Jainism are identified as
separate religions distinct from "Hinduism", then we find
that the definition of "Hinduism" itself becomes
untenable.
Problems in distinguishing between Buddhism and
"Hinduism"
There're seven main factors, which are normally used to
distinguish Buddhism as an entity apart from the various
sects that make up "Hinduism":
1. Repudiation of the authority of the Vedas: It is
generally held that the Buddh repudiated the authority
of the Vedas. But it is very important to understand
level this "repudiation" extended to. Nowhere do we find
the Buddh saying that the teachings of the Vedas are
false. He only questioned whether those who revered the
Vedas had experienced/seen the reality which they claimed
that the Vedas talked about -- so he was not disputing
the validity of the Vedas per se, but only those who
claimed to know the reality that the Vedas talked about.
The Vedas have traditionally been divided into the karma
kaanda and the jnaana kaanda -- the ritualistic and the
knowledge sections. By the time of the Buddh the
ritualistic section had gained prominence with Brahmins
performing elaborate rituals and sacrificing animals in
the name of Vedic karma. The Buddh was not opposed to
rituals per se as we find in the Nikhaayas that he has no
problem in participating in a Vedic ritual with a Brahmin
-- he only opposed the prominence given to the Vedic
rituals in the scheme of spiritual liberation and the
sacrifice of animals in this process.
As has been noted by a lot of scholars, both ancient and
modern, the Buddh's teachings compare very favorably the
to jnaana kaanda of the Vedas -- the Upanishads. In
contrast to the orthodoxy who tried to present the whole
Vedas as absolutely valid, the Buddh only shifted the
emphasis on the knowledge section. In this he considered
the teachings of anybody who had "crossed the further
shore", including himself, to be as authoritative as the
Vedas.
The "relativity" in the Buddh's approach to the Vedas is
not unique to him. All the orthodox schools except the
two Mimaamsaas too pay only lip service to the Vedas --
where their doctrines agree with the Vedas they are eager
to show it off -- but where it doesn't they ignore such
contradictions. For each school, only the Sutras of the
founder truly play the part of the scripture. The
Naiyaayikas dilute the validity of the scripture by
accepting anything that's proved by logic.
Even with respect to the two Miimaamsaas, it is only the
Purva Miimaamsaa, which can be said to accept scriptural
injunctions as absolute. In contrast the schools of the
Uttara Miimaamsaa exhibit various positions regarding the
scripture: Advaita accepts the relativity of the Vedas
and asserts that scriptural teachings are only to
"instruct" -- also from the ultimate standpoint Advaitins
consider even the Vedas to be in the realm of ignorance.
The Visishtadvaita school considers the Divya Prabandham
to be on par with the Vedas. The Saiva Siddhaanta school
considers the Saiva Aagamaas to be more authoritative
than the Vedas.
Regarding Vedic rituals with the exception of the
Miimaamsaas, all the orthodox schools too are interested
mainly in the jnaana kaanda and are indifferent to the
karma kaanda. Even with the Mimaamsaas, it is only the
Purva Miimaamsaa for which rituals form a very vital
aspect of spirituality -- the Vedaantic schools in
contrast emphasize on the importance of the jnaana kaanda
over the karma kaanda. Also historically the Saamkhya and
Dvaita Vedaanta too were strong in their opposition to
animal sacrifices in the name of religion.
Considering all these it is very difficult to establish
Buddhism as a religion distinct from "Hinduism" merely on
the basis of the Buddh's "repudiation of the Vedas". It
is also to be noted that historically Buddhist
universities like Takshila and Nalanda didn't teach
Buddhist philosophy alone -- the Vedas and the
philosophies of aastika schools were also taught in these
institutes.
2. The caste system: it is generally held that the Buddh
rejected the caste system in contrast to the other
schools, which accepted the varna system. This too is not
really true.
o In the Ambatta Sutta we find the Buddh scorned as a
lower caste Kshatriya by a Brahmin. The Buddh in
response points out to the Brahmin that while the Brahmin
was born of wedlock between a Brahmin and a lower caste
woman, the Buddh's ancestors resorted even to incest to
preserve the purity of the race of the Saakhyaas! Thus
the Buddh declares himself to be superior to the
Brahmin.
o The practical implication of the doctrine of karma
itself is that one is born in a higher caste due to the
virtues of past lives. The Buddh himself admits that to
be born as a Brahmin in a spiritually conducive
environment reflects a life of dharma lived in past
lives.
o Nowhere in the dialogues of the Buddh do we find him
declaring all castes to be equal -- nor is it supposed to
be so even after they join the Buddhist order. In the
Nikhaayas we find Brahmin disciples of the Buddh
addressed as Brahmins even after they have joined the
sangha.
o Even after the Buddh, his followers in many
instances have harped on his "royal" birth to assert the
validity of their religion -- quite like Jainism it is a
regular practice in Buddhist literature to assert the
superiority of the Kshatriya caste over the Brahmin
caste.
o The Jaataks too assert that the Buddh in all his past
and future existences will be born only as a Brahmin or a
Kshatriya and never in a caste lower than these two.
According to Buddhist prophecy even the future "Buddh-to-
be" -- Maitreya -- is supposed to be born as a Brahmin.
Due to the reasons given above we find it hard to accept
that the Buddh was against the caste system. The Vedic
religion allowed only the dvijas (the top three castes)
access to spiritual knowledge -- the Buddh only opened
up such knowledge for the lower castes and women. So this
does not necessarily mean that the Buddh was opposed to
the caste system per se, but only disputed the claims of
spiritual supremacy of the Brahmins and asserted that
anybody with the right inclination can take up
spirituality. Also the Buddh was not particularly
against Brahmins -- for we find recurring instances in
the Nikhaayas where the Buddh affirms that it is a
virtue to give alms to Brahmins. So in reality the Buddh
was only against the exaggerated claims of the spiritual
prowess of Brahmins, but not against Brahmins or the
caste system per se.
On a related note, we'd like to point out that this is
the exact case with respect to the Bhakti saints too. If
the bhakti saints can be accommodated within the ambit of
Hinduism, then why not the Buddh?
It is also to be noted that even for the Saamkya and Yoga
systems anybody who's enlightened is considered a guru
irrespective of caste. The Visishtadvaita and the Saiva
Siddhaanta reveres many non-Brahmin teachers as saints.
Considering all these it is very difficult to establish
Buddhism as a religion distinct from "Hinduism" merely on
the basis of the Buddh's alleged "repudiation of the
caste system".
3. Philosophical views: It cannot be said that just
because of distinct metaphysical views Buddhism is a
distinct religion -- for the same can be said about all
the schools which constitute "Hinduism" too. They all
have distinct metaphysical views, which distinguish them
from each other. Here it is sometimes pointed out that
Buddhism does not accept a creator God -- but the same
applies to even orthodox schools like classical Saamkhya
and the Purva Miimaamsaa.
4. Anatta: it is sometimes said that while the
traditional view of "Hinduism" is based on the Atman
(Self), the Buddh in contrast taught the anatta.
But here it is to be noted that anatta only meant that
which is not the Self -- the non-self. It doesn't mean
"no self". Nowhere do we find the Buddh denying the
reality of the Atman. He just maintained silence when
questioned about the Atman.
The Buddh's attitude to philosophy was that it was more
meaningful to understand the known than wasting time
speculating about the unknown. Thus it is the non-self --
the skandhas or aggregates -, which should be
contemplated on and understood. But his stress on the
non-self doesn't mean that the Buddh negated the self --
Naagaarjuna puts anatta in the right perspective when he
questions in his Mulamaadhyamaka Kaarikaa: without the
self how can the non-self exist? The Buddh only taught
the insubstantiality of the individual self, but not no-
substance or no-soul.
It is also to be noted that the great Advaitin teacher
Gaudapaada quite in line with Mahaayaana Buddhism asserts
that it is only those who go beyond the notions of the
existence or non-existence or both or neither of the
Self, are truly omniscient.
So Buddhism cannot be distinguished from "Hinduism" based
merely on simplistic notions of the concept of anatta.
5. Teachings: Even with regards his teachings there's
nothing in what the Buddh taught that cannot be found in
texts earlier to Buddhism. The four noble truths are
unanimously accepted right across the Indian
philosophical spectrum -- right from the Upanishads to
the darshanas these truths are accepted as fundamental
reason for a life of the spirit.
The origins of the theories of anatta, kshanikavaada
(momentariness), pratitya samutpaada (dependant
origination) can all be found in the Upanishads (this has
been noted by as orthodox a thinker as Kumaarilla Bhatta
in his Tantravaartikam). Schools generally picked out
what they could relate to in the scriptures and expanded
on them. The Buddh too only did the same thing.
Even with regards to later Buddhist philosophy it didn't
develop in isolation and only developed in relation to
other schools of philosophy. Naagaarjuna was primarily
responding to Gautama's Nyaaya Sutras. Vaatsyaayana the
classical commentator of the Nyaaya Sutras addresses many
of Naagaarjuna's concerns. Likewise the Buddhist logician
Dignaaga answers Vaatsyaayana; the Naiyaayika
Udhyotakaara responds to Dignaaga; and Dignaaga's
disciple Dharmakirti addresses the concerns of
Udhyotakaara. This was the way Indian philosophy
developed. So directly or indirectly each school
influenced the philosophy of other schools. So Buddhism
developed only in relation to its native cousins and thus
its identity itself depends on its cousins to a great
extent.
6. Aastika vs. Naastika: as noted above many of the so-
called aastika schools stood for the same things that
Buddhism did. So it is not easy to identify aastika
schools with Hinduism either. Also historically even
schools like Saamkhya and Advaita Vedanta have been
branded "naastika" in certain quarters.
Further the hostility we observe in the texts of aastika
schools against Buddhism itself cannot be used as a point
to establish Buddhism as an independent entity apart from
the aastika schools. Because even as the aastika schools
were opposed to Buddhism, they were mutually antagonistic
to each other too. Also we find many aastika scholars
like Gaudapaada who are sympathetic to Buddhism and
revere the Buddh. As traditional a scriptural text as
the Devi Bhaagavatham considers the Buddh as the Lord
descended in human form to prevent cruelty to animals in
Vedic sacrifices.
So it is not possible to distinguish Buddhism with
"Hinduism" based on simplistic notions of aastika and
naastika.
7. Vihaara vs. Temple: Apart from these technical
distinctions it is also pointed out that Buddhists have
their own temples or vihaaraas. But the same applies to
even traditional Shaivites, Vaishnavites, Shaaktaaists
etc -- each will go only to temples which house their
deity and none other. Vaishnavites will not go to a Shiva
temple nor will Shaivites go to a Vishnu temple.
In conclusion we find that it is not possible to
distinguish Buddhism as a religion distinct from
"Hinduism" on the basis of the reasons given above. It is
true that at the time of the Buddh, he did preach
something quite distinct in the prevailing environment
with regards caste, philosophy, spiritual practice etc.
But it did not take long for the other spiritual streams
to accept and reconcile the validity of these teachings
with their own worldview. In some cases even Buddhism
itself wasn't able to live up to the original world view
of the Buddh: Departing from the original monastic
tradition, Mahaayaana with the intent to increase the
scope of the sangha in spreading the dharma tried to
reconcile spirituality with worldly life -- thus the
introduction of the bodhisattva ideal in the model of the
brahmin householder to spread the dharma. This naturally
compromised Buddhism's traditional opposition to the
Brahmins; in the religious sphere it embraced theism;
philosophically it accepted reality to be pure
consciousness. So as time passed the differences narrowed
so drastically that Buddhism could no more sustain its
individual identity in any meaningful sense and thus
could no more be distinguished from other religious
streams. The same is the case with the non-Miimaamsaa
schools, which were all assimilated into one or the other
form of the Vedanta. Jainism quite like Buddhism
dominated certain parts of India at certain points in
time -- but it too met the same fate as Buddhism. Jainism
has all but disappeared from its one-time strongholds and
survives only in tiny pockets mainly near its historical
birthplace in Northern India, where it is held together
more by clannish loyalties rather than any meaningful
religious distinction with the sects of Hinduism. But for
all practical purpose most Jains today consider
themselves as Hindus only.
So why is Buddhism regarded as a religion distinct from
"Hinduism" today?
By the time modern Indologists started their enquiries
into Indian culture, Buddhism was no more a living
religion in India and so these scholars couldn't evaluate
it as a living religion on its own in its native soil.
Jainism too had lost its once dominant position in India
and survives only in tiny pockets in North Western India.
Influenced by their own exclusive Christian backgrounds
western Indologists seem to have viewed Indian religious
streams in the same mould -- basing it on the validity of
a single scriptural text -- the Vedas, or a prophet --
the Buddh or the Mahaaveera. The ancient distinction
between aastika and naastika based on the acceptance or
otherwise of the validity of the Vedas and the supremacy
of the Brahmin in the chatur varna system seems to have
strengthened their opinion on the validity of such
distinctions between "Hinduism" and Buddhism/Jainism.
Plus what they saw of Buddhism in practice in countries
like Tibet, China and Japan, obviously influenced them to
identify Buddhism as a religion distinct from "Hinduism".
But as noted, we cannot distinguish between Buddhism and
"Hinduism" the way the latter can be distinguished from
Christianity or Islam. Also historically the development
of Buddhism in India is different from the way Buddhism
developed in other countries. Buddhism in India grew only
in relation to its native cousins and its relationship
with them is different from its relationship with the
religions of the alien lands it spread to. So while it
might be meaningful to distinguish between Buddhism and
Taoism or Shintoism as distinct religions primarily
because of the native cultural and philosophical contexts
in which each religious stream developed, the same
doesn't hold for its relationship with the so-called
"Hinduism".
Understanding the relationship between Indic spiritual
streams: Dharmic Substratum
One of the important questions to be asked in
understanding Buddhism's relationship with Hinduism is:
Did the Buddh consider himself to be starting out a
totally new tradition apart from the Vedic tradition?
This cannot be so because the Buddh accepted that what
he was doing was only continuing the ancient arya
tradition -- puraana aarya dharma. It is in this spirit
that though his name was Siddhaartha, the Buddh let
himself be addressed to by his Vedic gotra name --
Gautama -- and also in many cases took care to refer to
other people by their Gotra names -- Vaccha (Vatsa),
Kaashyapa etc. This clearly indicates that he considered
himself to be a part of the existing tradition.
Also the very fact that Buddh accepted that he had gone
through various births and it was due to adherence of the
dharma in past lives that he has come to the present
stage of Buddhhood, itself implies that there was dharma
prior to him and he was an integral part of it. But like
various teachers prior to and after him, he only gave
that extra individual addition to the dharma, which was
his own individual contribution to the understanding of
the dharma. But this doesn't make his school a totally
new tradition divorced from its cultural ancestors and
contemporaries -- if this is so then all other schools
too have to be considered likewise.
So there is little doubt that even as other spiritual
streams the Buddh considered himself to be a part of an
age-old tradition. And historically too all the spiritual
streams were acutely conscious of their traditional
connection to the underlying age old religious tradition
of the land and took care to emphasize it -- in fact each
school claimed that they were the true representatives of
the tradition.
With regards to the identity of this tradition there are
two possibilities:
1. The Buddh considered himself part of the Vedic
tradition, but disputed the Brahmanical interpretation of
the Vedas. OR
2. There's an even earlier dharmic substratum of which
even the Vedic tradition is but a part -- and it is this
ancient dharmic substratum that the Buddh considered
himself as reviving/following.
Either way there is little doubt that the Buddh
considered himself to be following in the footsteps of
his civilizational ancestors in spreading the dharma. The
same is the view of his rivals too. It is due to this
common dharmic ancestor that all religious streams of
India share many common beliefs in philosophy and
spiritual practice: that there's a cycle of rebirths and
each life is filled with suffering due to the transient
nature of the world; karma which conditions each
existence based on past actions; salvation is knowing the
reality inherent in oneself which is effected by living a
life of dharma (control of the psycho/physical faculties,
compassion and charity) in combination with meditation or
devotion -- thus does one escape the cycle of rebirths.
The underlying civilizational unity underlying all the
spiritual streams of India is more than evident in the
shared philosophical heritage that they all subscribed
to. All streams predominantly worked under the same
philosophical framework and mainly used Sanskrit as the
lingua franca amongst themselves. In this regard it is to
be noted that Panini's Ashtadhyaayi and Patanjali's
Mahaabaashyam, the classical works on Sanskrit grammar,
have been commented upon by both Buddhist and Jaina
authors too.
Thus the various spiritual streams of India are better
understood from the standpoint of the dharma. It is from
the same dharmic tree that all the great spiritual
streams of India, including Buddhism, sprung as branches
to teach their own brand of dharma with the common goal
of salvation from the cycle of rebirths. It is in this
spirit that each school referred to other schools only as
a darshana (school of philosophy) or a siddhaanta
(spiritual philosophy) and not as independent religions.
Hence the significance of works like Sarva Darshana
Samgraha or Sad Darshana Samuccaya.
In conclusion given the civilizational/dharmic unity
underlying all the spiritual streams of India we have to
find a more integrative way to define and represent the
various spiritual streams of India.
You could write to him at Nanda Chandran:
vpcnk@hotmail.com
The link to this article in Nanda's site is below.
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~pushpasri/buddhism/budh_hindu.html
Long Live Sanatan Dharm -- Love and Om
October 2002
http://www.esamskriti.com/html/inside.asp?cat=635&subcat=634&cname=hinduism
End of forwarded message from
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not so send
peace, but a sword.
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in
law.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
- Matthew 10:34-36.
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
.
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: HINDUISM, BUDDHISM DIFFERENT RELIGIONS? |
28 May 2005 09:47:03 AM |
|
|
Forwarded message from "Keshav Acharya" <keshavacharya@yahoo.com>
[ Subject: Re: Hinduism - Buddhism different religions?
By Nandakumar Chandran - My reaction
[ From: "Keshav Acharya" <keshavacharya@yahoo.com>
[ Date: Thu, 26 May 2005
Hinduism is a culture of the land called
Hindustan.Because it is a culture, it undergoes changes
from time to time and from place to place. No culture is
strictly homogeneous.Therefore, even if some people may
say Buddhism , Jainism, Sikhism are different from
Hinduism, it is not true. Some anti-Hindu people try to
divide Hindus by trying to prove that Hinduism is
different from these religions.Many Leftists try to
propagate that tribals are also not Hindus. We must
condemn those, who try to divide Hindus ib various ways.
KA
End of forwarded message from "Keshav Acharya" <keshavacharya@yahoo.com>
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: HINDUISM, BUDDHISM DIFFERENT RELIGIONS? |
28 May 2005 09:50:01 AM |
|
|
Forwarded message from "Gopal V. Ashtekar" <gva@vsnl.com>
[ Subject: Re: Hinduism - Buddhism different religions?
By Nandakumar Chandran - My reaction
[ From: "Gopal V. Ashtekar" <gva@vsnl.com>
[ Date: Fri, 27 May 2005
Pranam.
The question who is Hindu by definition could not be
answered by the Constitution Makers. But they had to
specify to whom the Hindu code Bill would be applicable.
Hence they have written that it will be applicable to all
those people except Muslims, Christians, Jew and Parsees,
which means that it will be applicable to all Hindus in
which naturally were included Sikhs, Jains and all
others.
Namaste.
G. V. Ashtekar
End of forwarded message from "Gopal V. Ashtekar" <gva@vsnl.com>
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: HINDUISM, BUDDHISM DIFFERENT RELIGIONS? |
28 May 2005 10:55:39 AM |
|
|
Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
Forwarded message from "Gopal V. Ashtekar" <gva@vsnl.com>
[ Subject: Re: Hinduism - Buddhism different religions?
By Nandakumar Chandran - My reaction
[ From: "Gopal V. Ashtekar" <gva@vsnl.com>
[ Date: Fri, 27 May 2005
Pranam.
The question who is Hindu by definition could not be
answered by the Constitution Makers. But they had to
specify to whom the Hindu code Bill would be applicable.
Hence they have written that it will be applicable to all
those people except Muslims, Christians, Jew and Parsees,
which means that it will be applicable to all Hindus in
which naturally were included Sikhs, Jains and all
others.
In the Ottoman Empire, there was a Greek Millet and Armenian Millet.
http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/millet.htm
Laws of the Greek Millet applied to Greek Orthodox and Laws of the
Armenian Millet applied to Armenian, Assyrian and Syrian Christians.
That didn't imply that Armenians included Assyrians and Syrians.
Likewise, even if the Constitution makers decided that the Hindu code
applied to Sikhs, they didn't necessarily imply that Hindus include
Sikhs.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nog" |
|
| Title: Re: HINDUISM, BUDDHISM DIFFERENT RELIGIONS? |
31 May 2005 03:49:20 PM |
|
|
If there really was 'one true god' of the universe, all the peoples of the
earth would have come under him and when he WAS talking all would have
heard. Apparently there is not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: HINDUISM, BUDDHISM DIFFERENT RELIGIONS? |
31 May 2005 04:39:23 PM |
|
|
In article <aZidnTYpJr1VUAHfRVn-ig@adelphia.com>,
<Nog> posted:
If there really was 'one true god' of the universe, all the peoples of the
earth would have come under him and when he WAS talking all would have
heard. Apparently there is not.
There are numerous Devs and Devis according to our Vedic-Hindu
spirituality. More information here:
http://www.hindu.org
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "harmony" |
|
| Title: Re: HINDUISM, BUDDHISM DIFFERENT RELIGIONS? |
12 Jun 2005 03:01:14 PM |
|
|
ef hutton is god.
"Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:aZidnTYpJr1VUAHfRVn-ig@adelphia.com...
If there really was 'one true god' of the universe, all the peoples of the
earth would have come under him and when he WAS talking all would have
heard. Apparently there is not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: HINDUISM, BUDDHISM DIFFERENT RELIGIONS? |
12 Jun 2005 03:40:50 PM |
|
|
But Hutton too participated in the Enron scam.
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
In article <Qp0re.14935$oK.8479@okepread02>,
"harmony" <aka@hotmail.com> posted:
ef hutton is god.
"Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:aZidnTYpJr1VUAHfRVn-ig@adelphia.com...
If there really was 'one true god' of the universe, all the peoples of the
earth would have come under him and when he WAS talking all would have
heard. Apparently there is not.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
