Buddhism, Hinduism, and Karma

How to Join	Member's Area	Private Library	Search	Sanctuary		Login
Main Forums	Discussion	Tech Talk	Mature Content	Archives	A home without a wall, Our haven without ends, A circle we all call Our Family of Friends!

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

0 posted 2005-12-28 08:41 PM

Reading, more like skimming, some of the posts of Baba Michi, I thought I'd try to bring this branch of Opeth's thread into its own.

While I certainly don't agree with everything you say, (There is no 'ought' in Buddhism?), you seem pretty well versed in the stuff.

Two points:

1. Though I never had time to develop this idea, I've often thought of Buddha as more of a spiritual social revolutionary rather than someone who created a new metaphysical system. By this, I mean that Buddha created a vehicle to bypass the caste system and attain enlightenment without the long process of Hinduism.

This is a shot in the dark, but I've often wanted to explore the political implications of this radical idea. The Buddha's idea, not mine.

2. Does it make sense to call the mass of Indian religion we call Hinduism, Hinduism? I forget who said this, but I was under the impression that Hinduism is a Western construct placed over a myriad of different beliefs systems and rituals?

Anyway, this is just to get started. Let the thread go where it may.

majnu

Senior Member

since 2002-10-13

Posts 1088
SF Bay Area

1 posted 2005-12-28 08:59 PM

not exactly, there is a "hindu" identity. the pantheon is not a strict heirarchy as in greek or norse mythology. rather it is a geographic and socioeconomic structure. different gods traditionally had more followers in different regions and among people of different jobs. this is a basis of the caste system. however, all hindus revere the whole pantheon, and although the spheres of the different deieties overlap, they do pray to different ones for different things.

the one unifying theme, however, is that in essence they believe that the whole pantheon is different aspects of brahma.

if you really want to understand it you have to go through some of the texts. it is really almost monotheistic if you ask the brahman priests but those of lesser education and reading would insist that the deities are distinct.

-majnu
--------------------------------------
Timid thoughts be not afraid. I am a Poet.

Baba Michi
Junior Member

since 2005-12-07

Posts 40
Southern Germany

2 posted 2005-12-29 12:54 PM

Yeah, Hinduism can be sort've a blanket term, but Majnu is right; it may not be the most concise word, but most Hindus have a group of generally agreed on principles around which there is alot of branching out, and when you say Hindu, you can get a pretty general idea of some basic metaphysical groundwork.

As for the Buddha, I likewise agree that he was not really trying to establish a metaphysical view of the universe, but instead trying to create a system which would alleviate suffering. There is a sanskirt word I can't remember that refers to the method of adjusting one's teachings in order to most benefit a particular people, and that's what I think he always had in mind, as opposed to actually trying to explain how the universe worked.

Essorant
Member Elite

since 2002-08-10

Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada

3 posted 2005-12-30 11:29 AM

Off-topic comments removed. Please don't grab someone else's thread, Ess, for your own purposes.

[This message has been edited by Ron (12-30-2005 11:53 AM).]

jbouder
Member Elite

since 1999-09-18

Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash

4 posted 2006-01-03 03:11 PM

Brad:

Regarding #1, I think you're on the right track.  As I understand it (and I could be wrong), the vehicle that bypasses the caste system is the Buddhist denial of "I."  In Siddhartha's day, I imagine the political implications of severing one's identity and social role from a clearly delineated caste would have been extremely radical.

I need to dust off some old research ... then I might be able to elaborate.

Regarding #2, I think it is better to think of Hinduism as a "classification" rather than a clearly defined religious system.  We do this for Christianity (we use the term whether we are discussing Lutheranism, Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy), we are starting to do this with Islam (Shiitte, Sunni, Sufi, etc.), so I don't see the harm in a Hindu "construct" as long as we acknowledge it is a generic classification.  Classifications are useful, as long as we don't confuse them for "definitions."

As far a Karma is concerned, I have no problem with the concept that our actions have an effect on one's next life.  As long as we're clear on how we define our terms.

Jim

	⇧ top of page ⇧
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.