Thai woman and religion...

[Guest]

>>>but I have heard many argue there is no way he could have been a Hindu.<<<

 

first of all - the term "hindu" is a british invention which is very misleading. "hinduism" is not a single religion but a conglomerate of many different sects with wildly differing believes and practises. often the only common denominator is the believe in the laws of dharma and kharma. i know the argument that "hinduism" believes in a sort of soul, while buddhism doesn't. only thing is that even in the sects which are very clearly part of "hinduism" there are some who do not even believe in the existence of god (and/or soul).

 

the buddha has clearly been born into that world of sects, so you definately call him a "hindu". i would even go so far that i would see "buddhism" as one of the many sects of that system.

the buddha himself was a refomer, he grew up in the days when the different saddhu (or renunciate/ascet) sects were flourishing.

he somewhat was the first who has layed down rather strict rules for the members of his order, which was very fast countered by the other freshly formed saddhu sects, which were previously individual sages with their disciples following their own rules.

he somewhat fell out as his teaching also rebelled completely against the vedic cast sythem, not even nominally accepting it, and not even in the laypeople. many saddhu sects do reject the castsystem, especially in their order, but still accept a nominal cast for the laypeople (that is more with the shivait and tantric sects than with the vaishnait ones who are much stricter with cast, often not even allowing lower cast people into their sects).

still though, as he does not reject the rules of dharma and karma i would not separate buddhism from "hinduism".

 

hinduism itself is full of contradicting facts. for example, in the traditional hindu believes india is not just a country but a holy land full of sacret points all over the place. an orthodox hindu is not allowed to leave the circle of those points. he will lose his cast, will be impure, polluting to every hindu, even his own family. if he returns he will have to go through enourmous purification rites to be accepted back into his cast.

still though, you have a flourishing hindu culture in bali, and once most of indonesia was hindu.

 

i don't think that there is a common consense on that topic - some scolars say that buddhism is its own religion, while others put into "hinduism".

 

by the way, before i forget - he was born in nepal. ::

[markle]

Says flyonzewall:

---

still though, you have a flourishing hindu culture in bali, and once most of indonesia was hindu.

---

 

let's not forget that rather large hindu complex due of Thailand called Angkor Wat.

 

Strangely Hinduism was brought into the region AFTER Buddhism had taken hold.

[pattaya127]

some scolars say that buddhism is its own religion, while others put into "hinduism".

---------------------

Yes, and we know what B would have said: "what do you care where it comes from or belongs to, these questions will not help one iota in your way to your own salvation".

Again, let's forget HInduism for the period of the buddah, Brahminism is more correct. From it came all the different appartenences most of nowadays "hindus" practice.

I also would like to add that Buddhism did not wane or was rejected outright after its first dissemination by the B's disciple. the Emperor Ashoka, who ruled India a couple centuries (?) after B. was a devout Buddhist and most likely this was the highest point of that philosophy as far as India is concerned.

 

the buddha himself was a refomer

----------------------------

It may appear so, but the fact that Buddhism went on to travel very well in SEA and east Asia, being established on its own as a philosophy/religion, shows it's a distinct belief not just reformed Brahmanism, however it sprang out from core beliefs about Dharma and Kharma.

Islam also recognized many facts of Xism, Abraham, jesus, same God as them, but it's not Xism reformed.

maybe a point of vocabulary only .

[pattaya127]

Strangely Hinduism was brought into the region AFTER Buddhism had taken hold.

--------------------------------

I would not go as far as saying that. Brahmanism was the "religion" of the rulers and high nobility/castes in pre-Angkor Cambodia.

Buddhism may have been present in some way or places, but it was mostly established as a state religion in 13th c. Siam, and its brand, Hinayana/Theravada, was inspired and tutored by the country that kept closest to the original sects, Sri Lanka.

Theravada meaning "elder sect", Hinayana meaning small vehicle, and a derogatory labeling at first from Mahayana sects who believed all human beings can work out their salvation, without adhering to a monkhood, and that the original doctrine, though fundamental, pointed to many interpretations and "ways", not just that of the original sangha (community of monks) .

Past 11AM, got to go to work.... :hubba:

 

[Guest]

>>>Again, let's forget HInduism for the period of the buddah, Brahminism is more correct<<<

 

 

but at the same time there were countless other believes in the realm of hinduism practised - all the different shakti cults whose roots do preceed brahmanism, the at the same time freshly forming saddhu sects which were often also countermovements of the elitist brahmanism.

even today you have lots of cults flourishing which are not brahmanistic.

 

what we classifiy so wrongly as "hinduism" is a constantly morphing thing, certain philosophies become dominant just to loose influence again, get changed and mixed up with others. and buddhism has its roots clearly in that world, and while travelling over asia has adapted to local cultures, such as the predominant animism/spiritualism here in south east asia, the bon cults in tibet, as bengali tantrism heavily influenced the second renaisance of tibetan buddhism. taoism (pure land buddhism!) and confucianism in china, shintoism in japan.

 

what many westerners (and more modern educated asians) have difficulties to accept is that there is no easy classification in all those dharma/karma dominated sects as we can find in the different judeo/christian/islamic religions.

[Guest]

>>>Theravada meaning "elder sect", Hinayana meaning small vehicle, and a derogatory labeling at first from Mahayana sects who believed all human beings can work out their salvation, without adhering to a monkhood, and that the original doctrine, though fundamental, pointed to many interpretations and "ways", not just that of the original sangha (community of monks) . <<<

 

 

...plus the concept of the boddhisatwa, that enlightened ones will only reach the last stage of enlightenment until every last sentient being is ready, and have to be reborn to help others.

 

[pattaya127]

what many westerners (and more modern educated asians) have difficulties to accept is that there is no easy classification in all those dharma/karma dominated sects as we can find in the different judeo/christian/islamic religions.

----------------------

yes, very much. Especially as 2 tribes only distant by a few hills from each other could have a diferent dialect and different Creation Myths and religious practices. Could have had, actually, I am afraid that the encroachment of the modern world puts every year, a nail in the coffin of that spiritual wealth. At least in the SE asian hills.

protestantism though gave birth to a lot of different denominations and sects. Especially in the southern american States. But it has been written that India is a country of 900 million religions, one for each citizen.

[Guest]

... and put two bengalis together, and you will have three political parties... ::