Talk:Buddhism and Hinduism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

Hindus are wrong and so are scholars if they think Buddha' was merely a reformer praising the Upanishads.

This is a comparative religions article, comparing Buddhism and Hinduism.--216.254.121.169 17:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hindu Point of View Article

I think the best way is to make this article simply a hindu point of view article and not a comparative article. A separate article on Buddhist views on Hinduism should be started. This would be fair to both points of views--Green23 00:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Support - we already have Jainism and Hinduism plus Jainism and Buddhism, so this would give these articles intuitive names. Addhoc 10:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Support--Green23 00:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

COMPLETE REWRITE 2

1) This article does not take into account dating of various texts. Pre and post Buddhist. Most of the dating of Hindu texts is questionable and by most scholars of any repute considered to be no earlier than 1500 bce.

Many Upanishads are post Buddhistic.

The POV in this article is obvious. Yoga Sutras are post Buddhistic, but Buddha is supposed to have copied from them...pathetic! Even the Dating of the Gita is questionable.

Karma, Dharma etc., has different meanings and usages in Hinduism and Buddhism, which is why there are separate articles.

Sorry but this article does not take into account the HUGE influence on Indian culture of Buddhism and the fact that Hinduism has no 4 Noble Truths or Eightfold Path and a whole host of other beliefs which were integrated into Hinduism to make what constitutes modern Hinduism.--Green23 14:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Not quite, Karma ,Dharma have different meanings within Buddhism and Hinduism themselves, within a religion things can (and have) been percieved diffrently and often in a conflicting manner. Your attempts to form two uniform religions and contrast them are absurd and based on original reseach. Buddhism was another school of Hinduism itself, it has come up with nothing new, until it spread to such an extent that the followers of this philosophy became distinguished like those of Chinese folk religion. In no text has Buddha said leave your religion and convert to my path (which I'll call a religion), this was something which began happening later and now people aim to detach Buddha from his Hindu roots and life completely. Freedom skies 02:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material which are pro-buddhist

This article is a deliberate attempt to make Hinduism into some all right religion -- the following sourced material was deleted and hopefully REAL SCHOLARS will add it to the article.

Not quite. The quotes have been put into another page and the canonical views have been mentioned. hinduism was NEVER a secret teaching, and to abuse a religion like that based upon a personal bias and original reseach will not do. Freedom skies 02:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I am shocked to read all this non sense about Hinduism in an effort to put Buddhism on a pedestal. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker81 (talk • contribs) 18:37, September 4, 2007

Buddhist Canonical Views on Brahminism

Views that Buddhism supports brahmanical teachings such as the Upanishads generally don't take into account the actual sayings of the Buddha as found in the Buddhist Canon, where he calls Vedic learning and it's formulators as a line of blind men:

13. 'Well then, Vasettha, those ancient Rishis of the Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas, the authors of the verses, the utterers of the verses, whose, ancient form of words so chanted, uttered, or composed, the Brahmans of to-day chant over again or repeat; intoning or reciting exactly as has been intoned or recited-to wit, Atthaka, Vamaka, Vamadeva, Vessamitta, Yamataggi, Angirasa, Bharadvaja, Vasettha, Kassapa, and Bhagu [11] -- did even they speak thus, saying: " We know it, we have seen it, where Brahma is whence Brahma is, whither Brahma is?

15. O Vasettha, those brahmins who know the three Vedas are just like a line of blind men tied together where the first sees nothing, the middle man nothing, and the last sees nothing (Tevijja-Sutta, Dighanikaya, 13:15).

Vedas and Upanishads - a Secret teaching

Buddha also regards his teachings as open to everyone and not as "Rahasya" of the Upanishads or secret doctrine in comparison to brahmanism and openly calls the any secret doctrines as false:

O disciples, there are three to whom secrecy belongs and not openness. Who are they? Secrecy belongs to women, not openness; secrecy belongs to priestly wisdom, not openness; secrecy belongs to false doctrine, not openness. To these three belongs secrecy, not openness.

But there are three things that shine before all the world, and not in secret. Which are they? The disc of the moon, O disciples, shines before all the world, and not in secret; the disc of the sun shines before all the world, and not in secret; the doctrines and rules proclaimed by the perfect Buddha since before all the world, not in secret. These three things shine before all the world, and not in secret. [Anguttara Nikaya, pp.1, 3, 129.] -

In Hinduism, Rishis were mere "hearers" of "shruti" texts or Vedas, considered to be the holiest texts of Hinduism. Shruti literally means "that which was heard" in sanskrit. In Buddhism, the equivalent of Rishis are known as "Shravaks" which also means "hearer". So the equivalent of the Rishis who "heard the Vedas" would be the "Shravaks" in Buddhism.

Buddhism is Messianism in contrast to Brahmanism

In contrast to brahmanism or a small priesthood who have secret teachings (rahasya), Buddhism is considered to be messianism, or warrior kings (and queens such as Srimala) who work to liberate all beings, by scholars such as Thurman,

All Bodhisattvas wish to save the whole world, the infinite universes of numberless beings. But they do not only appear as warrior-kings for specific nations or even planets. They work for universal liberation in all capacities.

The Bodhisattva ideal is first established by Buddha in the Jataka tales. The patient and enduring warrior was looked upon as the ideal, and unlike Brahmanism, it was a universal call and based on ethics and merits of practice alone.

The Buddha created a new race of men, a race of moral heroes, a race of salvation-workers, a race of Buddhas. (Manmatha Nath Sastri)

Buddhist Influence on Hinduism

Buddhist influence on Hinduism is notable. L. M. Joshi, notes that according to Swami Vivekananda, Hinduism is largely Puranic and post-Buddhistic, he also notes that Vaishnavism owes a great deal to Buddhism:

"In his speeches and writings Swami Vivekananda has often noted the diverse Buddhist influences on Hinduism. He had observed that "Modern Hinduism is largely Pauranika, that is, post-Buddhistic in origin." He pointed out that Buddhism was mainly responsible for stopping or lessening the customs of drinking wine and killing living animals for sacrifice or for food in India. He rightly traced the origin of Hindu images and temples to Buddhist models. About the relation of Vaishnavism to Buddhism, he was declared that "Buddhism and Vaishnavism are not two different things. During the decline of Buddhism in India, Hinduism took from her a few cardinal tenets of conduct and made them her own, and these have now come to be known as Vaishnavism." It should be noted here that Vaishnavism does not consist mainly of a few cardinal tenets of conduct. The Swami is briefly referring to moral principles and practices, such as ahimsa, karuna, maitri, respect for the guru, control of the mind and the senses of yoga, etc. which Buddhism transmitted to Vaishnavism. The Bodhisattva ideal and the idea of Buddhavatar also became integral parts of Vaishnava theology." [Joshi:1977:348]

This is false. Vaishnavism is not a model of Buddhism. Vishnu is mentioned as early as the Vedas, way before Buddha. The stories and fables of Vaishnavism are completely different then Buddhism and has been known to exist at least as early as 500 BC, which the exception of the Puranas which are post Buddhistic. Principles such as ahimsa, respect for the guru, control of the mind and the senses of yoga already existed within Hinduism way before Buddhism. In fact they can be found in the early Upanishads to be exact.

Swami Vivekananda was bound up in British European/colonial interpretations which was specifically desgined to undermine Hinduism (the majority religion during British rule). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker81 (talk • contribs) 19:31, September 4, 2007

L.M.Joshi further observes:

"Speaking of Buddhist ascetic ideals and institutions, Swami Vivekananda has said that the monastic vow and renunciation began to be preached all over India since the time of the Buddha, and Hinduism has absorbed into itself this Buddhist spirit of renunciation. The ochre robe found a lasting home in Hinduism also. The Hindu teacher not only accepted the Buddhist institution of monks. They occupied the Buddhist monasteries also. The many monasteries that you now see in India occupied by monks were once in the possession of Buddhism. The Hindus have only made them their own now by modifying them in their own fashion. Really speaking, the institution of Samnyasa originated with the Buddha. In conclusion the Swami has stated that Hinduism has become so great only by absorbing all the ideal of the Buddha. Swami Vivekananda has been a pivotal figure in modern Hinduism and his opinions are representative of the educated Hindus." [Ibid:348]

Well it can be argued the other way around as well. Many scholars hold the view that Buddhism was profoundly influenced by Hinduism and also Jainism and particularly the Upanishads. According to Elst:

"This list of promises is unique in the history of Buddhism, in that it not only professes to follow the Buddhist way, but also attacks a non-Buddhist tradition and rejects the devotion to a number of Gods whose worship was propagated outside India by Buddhism itself. The Japanese-Buddhist Goddess Benzai-ten is none other than Saraswati, the Chinese-Buddhist God Shui-tian is Vedic Varuna, etc., all imported by Buddhism without the help of a single (non-Buddhist) Brahmin.3 As D.D. Kosambi notes: “Pali records started by making Indra and Brahma respectful hearers of the original Buddhist discourses. The Mahayana admitted a whole new pantheon of gods including Ganesha, Shiva and Vishnu, all subordinated to the Buddha.”4"

It has also been argued that Buddha took many teachings from Jainism. Jainism is much older then Buddhism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker81 (talk • contribs) 19:31, September 4, 2007

About the impact of Buddhism on the social conditions in this country and how it influenced the conditions of women and shudras, L.M.Joshi again, observes:

"Buddhism made profound impact in Indian social life in several ways. Its leaders and teachers continuously criticized the theory of castes and ridiculed the false claims to superiority based on birth (jati) and colour (varna). On the other hand, Buddhism opened the doors to higher religious life and the highest goal for all those who sought them, including the members of the lower strata of society. Although Buddhism was not directly concerned with the abolition of castes, it strongly opposed the caste system and repeatedly taught the evils of casteism. Another aspect of Buddhist social inhibition. Buddhism along with Jainism but unlike Brahmanism gave the equality of opportunity in religious culture to women. Some of the female members of the earliest ascetic order known to history were the Buddhist Theris or nuns whose religious poetry has come down to us in the Theriagatha. The eminent position attained by large number of women in Buddhist history, viz. Khema, Patacara, Dhammadinna, Subha, Kisa, Sujata, Visakha, Samavati, Ambapali, Upplamanna, and Soma, etc. shows that Buddhism had done much for the emancipation of women in Indian society. The same is true with regard to the Buddhist contribution towards the upliftment of shudras." [Ibid:368]

This idea of Buddha being a social reformer has been challenged. To say Buddhism attempted to reform caste distinctions anymore then Hinduism has tried to is false propaganda. Caste and Untouchablity continued to be practiced throughout the Buddhist world. Also, the admission of women into Buddha's order is controversial at the least.Caste is a social system which was sanctioned through Hinduism based on qualities but lived on regardless of any religious change both within Hinduism and outside of it.

Also, if the above is true, you would have to explain why Buddhism has failed to produce any women Boddhisatvas, with the exeption of a couple as well as why slavery continued in majority Buddhist countries in mass.

Yes Hinduism did to quite an extent restrict the lower castes and women from attaining higher status but when and how this happened it debatable.Many believe caste in it's early stages was flexible and there is much evidence of this within Hindu scriptures and teachings. There were also some low caste sages and women that wrote the Vedas and the Upanishads which means there was some degree of acceptance of the two groups.

Lastly, it's stands without a shadow of a doubt that Hinduism has produced way more women Gurus and sages then Buddhism has throughout the ages, so the above can be easily refuted, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker81 (talk • contribs) 18:50, September 4, 2007

As a hindu, he does not call Vedic teaching wrong but he calls adhering to god and his priests wrong. A seperate religion was formed centuries after his death, based on his philosophy, which has been repeated in Hinduism before and after his birth.

+ All his texts are mentioned in the article. Freedom skies 02:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Amazing, L.M. Joshi is a scholar and his work "studies in Buddhistic culture" is one of the most comprehensive on Buddhist-Hindu studies.

There is no evidence of any Hinduism before the Gupta period.—This is part of a comment by Saavak123 , which got interrupted by the following:

There is no evidence of Buddhism before King Ashoka which is slightly before the Gupta period. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker81 (talk • contribs) 18:46, September 4, 2007

Ashoka's edicts mentions no Hindus, but mentions "Dhamma" but does mention Brahmans and Shramans and Buddhist sutras.—This is part of a comment by Saavak123 , which got interrupted by the following:

This is FALSE. King Ashoka explicitly listed the various Hindu schools of thought in contrast to nastika schools.He also paid homage to Hindu Gods and Goddesses. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker81 (talk • contribs) 18:46, September 4, 2007

Hinduism is a Puranic religion and incorporates Vedas and Buddhism. It might be religious syncretism, I have sources from other scholars as well, Hinduism is merely religious syncretism of all the religions on the Indian subcontinent. A proper historical analysis is needed--Saavak123 16:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

First off the same can be said about Buddhism, I have evidence from scholars that much of Buddhism was absorbing of other religions within India (animist) as well as throughout South East Asia which is why you have so many different kinds of Buddhism.

Hinduism is Vedic and consists of four denominations and follow the Vedic texts. It is a mixture of pre-Aryan, Aryan, tribal and animist beliefs, much like Buddhism which is also a mixture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker81 (talk • contribs) 18:46, September 4, 2007

Resolution of Disputes

1) Hinduism is syncretism of all Indian beliefs, and is not a word used before Gupta period.

2) Comparison of Vedic tradition Hinduism to Buddhism is more in order.

3) post Buddhistic works == many Upanishads and the Yoga Sutras are definately post Buddhistic.

4) pre-post Buddhist influence on India is not noted.

5) majority of Indians were Buddhist during Ashoka's reign.

Need for such an article????

Buddhism is completely against Dogma.The Aim of the buddha was to propagate dhamma or Dharma NOT to 'convert' in the proslysteic sense but to get rid of dukkha. Being a buddhist by birth or even by choice may not lead to the fufilment of this aim. Hinduism too is NOT a religion which needs to be abided by without thought. Most modern Hindus like Buddhists are very clear in the role religion must play in their lives.The Buddha did not concern Himself with the presence of 'God/Brahman'but did not deny it.Hinduism has spent some time and effort to explore this avenue. Therefore Buddhisma nd Hinduism are complementary.They have a lot to learn from each other and have done so.They are undoubtedly 2 Obvioulsy different streams moving in the same direction and the as they have done in India these streams have merged to a great extent.Buddhism therefore NEVER DIED in India for its soul was preserved by Hindus. I therefore feel that the article MUST NOT BE DELETED BUT be written out in a more useful manner.

Unfortunate

We've got a unanimous keep result at AFD, but the big gray tag just doesn't want to budge. I suppose that's the sort of problem one should expect when attempting to use AFD to solve a content dispute. Tsk tsk tsk. — CharlotteWebb 06:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been removed. _JD^talk 22:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Quality of sources

Note that Christian Lindtner (ref. 24) is a holocaust revisionist who also believes such things that The Bible is really some Hindu texts perverted by the evil Jews. Hardly a respectable source for Wikipedia. Rune X2 18:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Knower of the Vedas

Can this please be verified: "Buddha is said to be a knower of the Veda (vedajña) or of the Vedanta (vedântajña) (Sa.myutta, i. 168) and (Sutta Nipâta, 463)." Also, the fact that he is called that in the Pali Canon does not mean that he himself described himself as such in the Canon. Arrow740 04:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

How would one go about verifying such a thing?--0rrAvenger 19:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Needs a source

There is a considerable overlap between Yoga and Buddhism. Of particular interest is a comparison of the Buddhist eight-fold path and the eight limbs of Patanjali's Yoga. Their moral precepts (the sila of Buddhism, the yama and niyama of yoga) share the Hindu principle of non-violence (ahimsa); their final steps point towards a common goal - 6. Buddhist Samma Vayama (Effort) vs Yogic Dharana (Concentration), 7. Buddhist Samma Sati (Mindfulness) vs Yogic Dhyana (Meditation) and 8. Buddhist Samma Samadhi vs Yogic Samadhi. An in relation to views of the Self, yoga's asmita-samapatti is designed to eradicate the wrong views on the Self much in the same way Buddha did it in Anatta-lakkhana-sutta.

This needs to be sourced. Are we saying that Patanjali was mimicking the eight-fold path? Arrow740 22:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is also relevant to Yoga#Yoga and Buddhism. The same section has been used to create Yoga and Buddhism, which though has been somewhat modified after some discussions. Our discussion should cover all these articles. --Knverma 11:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about that article. So is it just the three; this one, the Yoga one, and the Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu one? Arrow740

I'll see if there are more. Till now I had only noticed Yoga and Yoga and Buddhism. Though I see shortcomings in those articles, I am unable to fix them to produce the right article. --Knverma 18:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This POV-pushing is actually pretty mild. I've seen a lot worse in the Islam articles. Arrow740 19:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is first (in the title)?

Buddhism and Hinduism, or Hinduism and Buddhism? I see that the article and the first sentence have both presented, but is this okay with everyone?--0rrAvenger 15:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It does look a bit awkward. This being a comparative study of two religions, we have to arbitrarily choose one of the two titles. So as we are probably not changing the title, we can change the opening sentence. --Knverma 21:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that it has to be arbitrary... I have checked WP:TITLE, and the most relevant I can find is WP:TITLE#Use_of_.22and.22. Perhaps there ought to be a centralized discussion regarding this. My personal view is these types of articles should be avoided; the content should be moved to articles titled "Hindu view of Buddhism" and "Buddhist view of Hinduism" (cf. "Islamic view of Jesus, not Jesus and Islam or Islam and Jesus).--0rrAvenger 17:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, consider Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Paired_reference.--0rrAvenger 17:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The first suggestion implies also adjustment of content, and we should also look at Talk:Buddha from the Hindu perspective#Move. --Knverma 19:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought more on it, and I agree that the title "Buddhism and Hinduism" is a bit vague about what exactly the article is about. I mean literally, it could mean including everything that is there in the Buddhism and Hinduism articles. I am in favor of a more precise title.

Currently, the article is talking not just about the two kinds of views you mentioned, but also other things like similarities in practices and some historical influences of one upon the other. --Knverma 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Following a number of the above comments, what does everyone think about the suggestion to re-name this article to Buddhist viewpoints of Hinduism (or similar), and to move material from the perspective of Hinduism to the article Buddha from the Hindu perspective, which we could then re-name to Buddhism from the viewpoint of Hinduism (or similar), giving two seperate articles which should hopefully allow more room for growth and more transparency in terms of points of view? Gouranga(UK) 15:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

<deindent> I actually prefer the current title and am mildly opposed to any "from a viewpoint" formulation, which probably will qualify as a POV fork. Even if editors decide that "Hindu's view of Buddhism" and "Buddhist's view of Hinduism" qualify as encyclopedic subjects, with sufficiently many secondary sources, I think this article should be retained. Ideally, "Hinduism and Buddhism" should be a comparative religion article, that lays down how the two religions relate (geography, history, theology, adherents) and not just how one religion views the other, i.e. the view should be of a neutral scholar looking at the two religions and drawing inter-realtionships. similarities and contrasts. As for whether the article should be named "Hindusim and Buddhism" or "Buddhism and Hinduism" ... I think most readers wouldn't really care and won't read some subliminal meaning into the ordering - so let us too concentrate on the article's content. Abecedare 16:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Arrow740 16:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Samkhya

Regarding [1], please give the quote regarding this bizarre idea. Arrow740 07:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If it was taken from here, which contains the sentence "Jacobi maintained that Samkhya and Yoga concepts influenced Buddhist doctrine," then I'm sorry that's not an RS and you're lying about what the website says. Keep it up and I'll file an RfA. Arrow740 07:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Namaste. I noticed some conflict on the Samkhya article (e.g. [2]) and I am trying to understand what the disagreement is about. Can someone explain in another way what idea is the key controversy?

I am not familiar with the source which was mentioned, but I have found some discussion of Buddhist connections in pp. 115-117 of the book The Evolution of the Sāṃkhya School of Thought by Anima Sen Gupta, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, Second Revised Edition, 1986, (no isbn). That material discusses the Buddhacarita specifically and goes into some details of how ideas in it appear similar to dualistic Samkhya. I would need to read it more closely before trying to boil it down into a nutshell. In using the term Samkhya it is important to remember that there were stages of development of Samkhya, and at the period when it may have affected the Buddhacarita it may not have been what we think of as "classical" Samkhya which was a more codifed system. Perhaps I can find additional references on this if it is a matter of debate. I would not dismiss the idea too quickly, but it needs to be carefully worded as there are many misconceptions about what Samkhya means.

I just checked the index to volume 2 of Maurice Winternitz' History of Indian Literature, which covers Buddhist literature, and found quite a few references to samkhya there. I have not read them, but there are so many that I suspect there is indeed something to the theory that could be researched via Winternitz. The index to Edward Conze's Buddhist Thought In India also shows references to samkhya. Buddhipriya 07:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Carrithers has an excellent discussion of the evolution of the Buddha's thought. I highly recommend it. Arrow740 08:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Buddhipriya, thanks for your message. I don't understand what the "conflict" is about either, since most detailed works on Buddhist history would cover this. Carrithers is a decent author I am sure if Carrithers chooses to write a detailed book on this he'll talk about it at length. I chose Hermann Jacobi's book on this subject (Der Ursprung des Buddhismus aus dem Samkhya Yoga) as reference, because it is entirely about it. The title of the book is evidence enough, for anyone assuming good faith and not having prejudices on this matter. The book should be available in any large library, for those who really feel the necessity of verifying it themselves. If that's not possible, portions of the book Die Samkhya Philosophie by Richard Garbe an form of a review in 'The Monist' by Carus and Smith is available online: [3].

I will quote it here:

“ Considering the fact that Buddhism has sprung from the Samkhya philoophy, it is to be anticipated that the present work, which is the first attempt at giving a systematic exposition of its nature, history and tenets, will meet a widespread demand, not only among scholars, but also among the public at large. [...] The Samkhya philosophy, founded by Kapila is closely connected with Buddhism. The Samkhya philosophy is the mother of Buddhism and Buddha has derived from it many of the fundamental teachings of his religion. Many terms and the solution of many propblems were adopted by Buddha without essential change. [...] ”

With metta, deeptrivia (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious that you do not have the source you are citing. Your lies are very transparent. You tried to cover your tracks a little after this, but it didn't work. A title of a 19th century text you found on a website with spelling mistakes doesn't belong in an intro, sorry. Arrow740 17:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740, your language and unfounded assumptions are not appreciated. I have pointed out an online source in form of a Richard Garbe book (see link and quote above) in case you do not have access to libraries with detailed scholarly works (as opposed to pop books) and still choose to assume bad faith for no reason. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You lied for two days about the jainworld.com quote before finding the second nineteenth century source online. I do have access to an excellent library and use it frequently. I advise you to use books instead of mining the internet for POV's. Arrow740 05:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the actual content issue, which seems to revolve around whether or not samkhya ideas influenced Buddhism, my impression based on the index checks previously reported is that it is quite likely that the general statement of some influence is true. But since I have not resesearched the topic, it is best that I not try to comment in detail, as silence would be better than saying something wrong. At this point all I know is there are at least four different academic sources related to Buddhist philosophy that discuss samkhya issues, so it is likely that discussions about the use of one source or another may not be central to the larger question of whether or not some influence can be found. Without having done the detailed research, my guess is that this may be an example of how these two great religions, Buddhism and Hinduism, share a common history that has resulted in various common ideas being shared between them. I would use caution in the details of how this issue is described, because the generic term samkhya is used in a wider sense than the specific named philosophy, Samkhya, which was codified at a much later point in time. For example, the references to samkhya in the Gita are of this type, referring to what might be called proto-Samkhya or early samkhya concepts. This issue causes confusion in some Gita studies, so it is not surprising that the issue arises in the context of Buddhist studies as well. There seems to be some emotional reaction to the idea that samkhya ideas affected Buddhism, which I am not sure I understand. Can someone help me understand why making such a statement would be considered negative in some way? To me it seems to be just a question of the history of ideas. I appeal to all editors to calm down and comply with WP:CIVIL as we are more likely to discover the facts that way. Buddhipriya 01:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the scholarly understanding of the history of Samkhya has evolved quite a bit in the last hundred years. Hopefully you will be able to use the sources at your disposal to replace the unfortunate POV-pushing in the intro with something useful. Arrow740 23:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It is true that the Buddha believed as others did that the life of renunciation was the noble path, and the only hope for liberation. However the nineteenth century POV's Deeptrivia has found on the internet are outdated and are not even mentioned in modern treatments of Buddhism. Arrow740 05:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Two points on this issue: first of all, I think the idea that Buddhism originates with a particular Hindu philosophy (as opposed to borrowing widely from a variety of Hindu and India influences) is going to be controversial and difficult enough to unravel that it probably deserves a specific section for discussion. Rather than (as is the case now) throwing that single reference in the intro, maybe we could create a section on 'Hindu Contributions to the Origin of Buddhism' that discusses this and other theories. Secondly, I think that rather than dismissing the idea of Buddhism's origins in a particular Hindu school of thought, we need to have references that discuss this idea in context; I would be very, very surprised if there aren't books and articles out there that analyze and critique the theory that Buddhism originated in Samkhaya. --Clay Collier 23:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If there is a feeling that theories such as the one here are no longer considered valid by today's scholarship, they must have been refuted/critiqued at some point of time. It would be great to see the critique. Clinging on to a viewpoint based on prejudices should be avoided. deeptrivia (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your wisdom. Arrow740 23:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I regret that I have not had much time to work on this interesting issue, but I was able to locate a review of the issues in a book by Mircea Eliade that discusses the history of claims of connections between Buddhism and Samkhya in some detail. It is a very interesting review. The reference is in: Mircea Eliade. Yoga: Immortality and Freedom. Bollingen Series LVI. (Princeton University Press: 1958, Princeton, New Jersey) Translated from the French by Willard R. Trask. I am using the second edition (1969) which is a corrected edition. The discussion of the Buddhist/Samkhya influences is on pp. 377-381 in which he provides a review of what he calls an "extensive" bibliography of interconnections and debates on this topic. In a nutshell, the idea of some sort of connection has come up in many sources, but with many disagreements on what it all really means. He also notes the confounding issue of how Yoga philosophy connects to Buddhism (Yoga used here as the formal name for a school of philosophy, which assumes many aspects of Samkhya philosphy as an underpinning). I do not have time to work on this now, but wanted to share the reference in case others have the book at hand or can get it from a library. All I can say is that I would like to find the time to go into it in more detail, but perhaps someone else can also get the book and give it a go. :) Buddhipriya 04:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

--- (reset indent)

I have looked over a review of these issues in the following book: Sen Gupta, Anima. The Evolution of the Sāṃkhya School of Thought. Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd.: New Delhi, 1986. (no ISBN) See in particular pp. 118-120. This work specifically deals with the history of Samkhya. I am inclined to think that Gupta Sen's take on this is most likely to be right. As I suspected, the issue seems to revolve around the issue of how well-defined the system actually was at the time in question. Since Sen Gupta is specifically concerned with the gradual development of what eventually became an orthodox system, he is quite sensitive to the fact that when people use the term "Samkhya" they often are not clear about which Samkhya ideas they are talking about. The summary of the analysis that Sen Gupta provides on this matter indicates that he thinks there were probably mutual influences in both directions between the preclassical samkhya ideas on Buddhism, and of Buddhism on the later Classical Samkhya, which adapted to external pressures in various ways. Here is the passage that seems most relevant:

But during the pre-Buddhistic era, the thoughts and ideas of the Sāṃkhya school were not systematically and rationally knitted together to form a regular system of philosophy. Moreoever, these thoughts were mainly of a theistic character. It was only after the formation of Buddhism which challenged the reality of the permanent substance, that the Sāṃkhya-thoughts were systematically developed to form a regular system, with a leaning toward atheism.(Sen Gupta, Anima. pp. 119-120.)

In looking at the intellectual history of the claims related to Buddhism and Samkhya, Sen Gupta specifically mentions the work of Muller and Garbe, who represent opposite poles of the debate. If those thinkers had Wikipedia access at the time they worked, we would have seen some excellent edit wars for sure.

Eliade's review of the intellectual history of this debate (the Yoga and Immortality reference I have previously given, pp.377-379) indicates that Max Muller and Oldenberg were the first to reject the tradition (until then generally accepted) that Buddhism derives from Samkhya. Garbe struck back by making various arguments. Jacobi accepts Garbe's conclusions. Oldenberg, who in his work on Buddha had denied Samkhya influence on Buddhism, criticized Jacobi's statements repeatedly, but may have warmed to them eventually. Keith chose a middle path, saying only that both Buddhism and Samkhya have quite a few ideas in common. The bottom line is that there is a long intellectual history of this debate, and a fair handling of it would require presentation of both sides as part of a sequenced historical section. The other issue is that the fact that the evolution of samkhya ideas makes the term "Samkhya" a moving target. Buddhipriya 23:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. This is a great start on what to present. Arrow740 01:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Title

I notice that something about the title was raised earlier, but it never seems to have gone anywhere. The title 'Buddhism and Hinduism' seems quite vague to me. It seems that something like 'Comparisons between Buddhism and Hinduism' would be more accurate: it would make it clear that the article was discussing the similarities and differences between the two religions. --Clay Collier 23:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yoga

When the article says that Yoga is central to Tibetan Buddhism, is it talking of Buddhist Yoga or of certain elements which are common in Buddhist and Hindu Yoga? In the second case, could we identify these common elements? --Knverma 10:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's a good point. There is a lot of confusion and people think that everytime they see the word Yoga it refers to Patanjali's yoga; however, the word yoga can refer to any practice. Then peoiple see the word yoga used in Tibetan Buddhism and think it's the same/similar yoga, but it usually isn't. Of course there are some postures in highly advanced tantric practices to assist in the flow of energy etc., so it can be confusing. However, in general, when the word yoga is used in Buddhism is usually has nothing in common with the Patanjali stuff; any prayer or practice could be called yoga, so this part is actually a bit misleading... rudy 22:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there are quite a few places in the article where it would be good to distinguish between Buddhist and Hindu concepts that actually overlap in meaning or origin and those that just use common terminology- I tried to indicate a bit that this occurs with the general disclaimer that I added in the similarities section regarding terminology, but I think there are a number of cases (yoga being one of them, reincarnation or rebirth another) where signifier is the same for both traditions, but the signified is fairly different. --Clay Collier 23:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

True, that's the problem comparing two religions that are similar, but still quite different in various aspects...rudy 23:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You guys might want to check out Yoga. It is most accurate to say that Buddhism arose in reaction to yoga. Arrow740 23:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a very strange statement indeed when you can see in the text that the first dates of aspects of yoga arose after Buddhism was established??? The problem as I see it is that Yoga is actually only a word for practice in most cases, so how can you say that 'Practice' caused teh reaction of the arisal of Buddhism. Which practice? rudy 18:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, what I meant was that Buddhism arose in reaction to the theories of mystics whose ideas would later be codified into yoga. Arrow740 19:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I reworked the Yoga section to hopefully make more balanced sense. rudy (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Following the NPOV dispute policies, the POV issues should be raised here and discussed. -Knverma 11:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the section to below from further up the page, which includes comments as requested. Gouranga(UK) 11:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Complete rewrite

This article explains almost nothing about Hinduism and instead lists thoughts about Buddhism without any structure. Addhoc 14:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree, I've added a cleanup tag here. I think the article concept is good, but the article itself is not. I'm not crazy about the name either.--Isotope23 17:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What article name would you prefer? Addhoc 17:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is still in need of much improvement from what I can see, so I have added an expert required tag. Rather than trying to proove one tradition being better or worse, or older or younger than the other it would be much more interesting to simply give a range of opinions and focus more on carefully discussing the similarities and differences in philosophy and practices, and the potential influences both may have had on each other.

As Hinduism is really just an umbrella term for whole host of different religious traditions in India, and there are also a significant number of different branches of Buddhism it is never going to be a particularly easy topic but one that could be very interesting nonetheless. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 14:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Following recent additions such as these on top of everything else, and the combatative way in which edits are being presented I don't feel particularly inspired to become involved in editing this article, but I have added the POV tag as I strongly feel it deserves it. IMO the majority of the article is currently being used as a springboard to promote a particular viewpoint rather than a serious comparison of the two traditions. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 11:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

My "combative" tone in this article is in response to certain misrepresentations on the part of Deeptrivia. The Buddha did not exist in a vacuum, and his ideas were often a reaction to and correction of certain pre-Hindu ideas that are still the core of Hinduism today. Presenting the facts will thus be upsetting to you. However, this does not mean that the article endorses a particular view. If you are concerned that there are not sufficient pro-Hindu POV's presented here, I suggest you check out this treasure trove of them. You can easily add more polemic from there. If you do not indicate a willingness to address the problems which you claim exist in this article then your tagging is simply disruption. Arrow740 19:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding pro-Hindu opinions will not help the article. I believe that is missing the point. Sorry for being such a disruption for you. Gouranga(UK) 20:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are confused about NPOV. Maybe you could be explicit and specific about why you think the article needs a tag. Arrow740 23:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel so much better knowing that you think I am confused. I have removed the tag because I'd rather spend my time more constructively elsewhere. I feel the entire article, pretty much is written from a particularly narrow 'Buddhist' perspective, and makes little or no attempt at any structured description of the mutual interactions of the two very multi-faceted traditions. Gouranga(UK) 14:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What should be here that isn't, specifically? Arrow740 17:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any problem in talking of the mutual interactions. But we need someone to provide the material, citations etc. Buddhipriya made some comments above, other than that I think none of us has presented much material in this area. --Knverma 14:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile I have a suggestion for a possible reorganization of the article. On many of the topics that are discussed in the article (dhyana, reincarnation, yoga, self, ..), there are similarities as well as differences. So instead of having a section listing similarities and another listing differences, we could have a list of items on each of which we discuss similarities and differences. This should lead to more meaningful discussion. Any comments?--Knverma 18:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Alan Watts

Alan Watts have repeated time and again that Buddhism is "Hinduism stripped for export." I have heard him speak this in at least three of his lectures. Some excerpts from the talks where he explains this were also aired on the Alan Watts podcast a few months ago. It's his opinion, and many, like me don't completely agree with it (e.g., there was no "Hinduism" as we know today around 500 BCE), but considering how influential Alan Watts was in comparative religion, this view is very notable and pertinent to this article. However, the disruption by some editors against any additions contrary to the concepts and prejudices they cling to is becoming increasingly annoying in addition to being highly unbuddhistic. deeptrivia (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What? All I did was expand the quote and move it to a place which you agreed was better. Arrow740 23:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Hello Arrow, I have made a number of edits today with the aim of improving the structure of the article and giving it some flow. I'm seeing this largely as a work in progress and think we really need to define in as conscise a way as possible, what is Buddhism, and what is Hinduism in the intro and then work from there. What are your thoughts? Gouranga(UK) 13:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that you removed sourced content and said that the Buddha was born as "prince in the Vedic tradition" without a source, I haven't seen a scholar say that. You seem to be assuming that his parents followed the Brahmins because they were Indian. It is best to get a source. Similarly, the Buddha is mentioned as a historical figure in some Puranas, but you wrote, without a citation, that he was described as a future figure, and added an uninformed belief prefixed with "traditional Hindus believe," again without a citation. Arrow740 19:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It would have been nice if you had kept some of the edits, or added fact tags but hey, why do that when you can just revert wholescale? And for the record that IP address in France has nothing to do with me (not unless I am able to teleport from UK at will?) and why would I bother to hide behind an anon IP address? Collaboration seems impossible when you have this attitude. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 11:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps you should read WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR. Arrow740 19:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps you should read WP:CIVIL. Can we not mould an article together, and then back up with sources anything that seems out of place? Buddha was already described in the article as being from a Kshatriya family, so I'm assuming his background must have Vedic? What would you suggest was his background? He founded Buddhism, so it was plainly not Buddhist. My point is that yes, what I wrote may not have been perfect, but that reverting blindly and quoting Wikipedia policy pages as a 'reply' is not helping any. I was attempting to give the page better readability, and iron out some POV issues such as the comment about Buddha being the origin of spiritual ethics (or similar). Gouranga(UK) 20:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think some of your additions did improve the flow of the article and readability; however, it isn't good practice to add unsourced material with fact tags and then hope that the reference gets filled in later, particularly in a case where there is a dispute over the factualness of the material; rather, we should locate the source and then add based on that. As to the 'Vedic-ness' of the Buddha, this shouldn't be difficult to verify; it shouldn't be too hard to locate in the Pali Canon (via [www.accesstoinsight.org] or some other source) indications that the Buddha is described as familiar with the Vedas (which I suspect is the case). Culture in the subcontinent at the time was certainly no more uniform than it is today, so to describe his background simply as 'Vedic' may be too broad; better to stick to the sources and say that he was familiar with Vedic teachings, as well as other post-Vedic, non-Buddhist philosophies of the era. As to spiritual ethics, Gouranga is correct that that is too broad a claim to make. On the other hand, there is a distinction drawn between the ascetic/meditational practices in Buddhism and Hinduism. In many Hindu texts, otherwise unpalatable characters achieve great things (magical powers, etc.) via sacrificial, ascetic, or meditational practice, despite their ethical failings. Particularly in the Vedas themselves, whether or not a sacrifice or ritual works has nothing to do with the internal state of the actor- if the form of the ritual is performed correctly, by the right person, then the gods are essentially compelled to reward the performance. Buddhism clearly contradicts that; one cannot become a once-returned, arhat, etc. solely through ascetic powers or sacrifice; ethical behavior plays a role as well. Again, I suspect that a good (scholastic) introductory text on Buddhism should report that distinction. Finally, regardless of who our anonymous IPs belong to reverting is a crude tool for achieving consensus, and Wikipedia's assumption of good faith requires that we shouldn't jump to conclusions about the actions of anonymous users. I may or may not be able to scare up some of the sources I mentioned tonight, depending on my schedule. --Clay Collier 21:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe this article is a bit one sided. Budhism over Hinduism it is. Far from being useful as an objective reading materials, this article has made Hinduism as an OK religion. I would suggest to add the doctrine of catur yoga (Bhakti, Karma, Jnana, Raja) as a strong point for Hinduism, while Budha was simply emphasizing on Karma. But He did well to spread out his teaching/way to achieve moksha for all classes of men (more egalitarian the Karma yoga way it is). He strengthen this way of liberation with authentic points. But yet His enhanced way, is one of the 4 paths of Hindus to attain liberation. A well versed Guru once said that "Sidharta was a most accomplished figure in a way of Karma." I will be back with citation in near future. ~~semar

We've all heard these talking points before. Buddhism existed before this four path idea came along, and can't be fit into that box. Arrow740 09:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

user Arrow740's vandalism

This user is unwilling to discuss his views on Wikiepdia 'discussion' forum before going and making changes. He has been reverting my changes. - Rebel XTi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebel XTi (talk • contribs) 02:18, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I was responsible for some of the reversions that you are attributing to Arrow740. In response to your question regarding the list of quotes from various sutras that I removed: all of those sutras contain the words 'brahman', but it is far from clear, given the lack of context, who is speaking and how the term is being used. It may be that the Buddha is redefining or repeating terms used by one of his interlocutors; it may be that someone other than the Buddha is speaking; it may be that the quotation is meant to taken literally. Without this context, it is impossible to assess what the sutras are actually saying with regards to Buddhist (or the Buddha's) views regarding such concepts as Brahman. Furthermore, deciding- or presenting an argument- for what these sections of sutra mean is outside the scope of what Wikipedia does; presenting an argument and supporting it with primary sources is almost always going to run afoul of the NPOV policy. This specific area is problematic because Buddhism uses many of the same terms as Hinduism, while giving them different meanings. There are many cases in the sutras where 'brahman' may be being used in a totally different sense than is indicated by the Upanishads. This is the case in the section 'Technical Language', where your addition ('So then this means that The Buddha and early Buddhists believed in the concept of a Brahman (God) as 'Brahmin' in Sanskrit means, "Knower of Brahman".') entirely contradicts the point being made in that paragraph and gives the impression of being a 'summing up' of the section, when in fact it is drawing a conclusion that is at odds with the rest of the paragraph.

With regards to some of your other edits that have been reverted by myself or other users: in some cases, you are altering text that has a citation. If you have looked at the citation and believe that the text does not reflect it accurately, you need to bring that up on the discussion page before changing what the source is being presented as saying. It may be that the source is being misinterpreted or that we need a different source, but changing a sourced statement without explanation is almost always going to trigger a revert.

Finally, several of the additions that have been reverted are in the form of drawing conclusions for the reader: 'therefore Hinduism has impacted Buddhism tremendeously with the ideas of karma', etc. From the text that precedes it, it is obvious to the reader that the Hindu concept of karma has had an important impact; there's no need to re-emphasize that again. Adding these sorts of conclusions, taken on the whole across the article, gives the appearance that the article is endorsing a specific POV held by some Hindus, who believe that Buddhism is essentially a subset or a particular flavor of Hinduism. Buddhists, naturally, disagree with this perspective. Independent scholars tend to acknowledge the Buddhist debt to Hinduism more readily than Buddhists, while also pointing out that in many cases significant distinctions, philosophically speaking, are concealed by borrowed terminology. Wikipedia needs to present all three of these points of view without taking sides among them, and the best way of doing so is by avoiding broad statements and preferring instead to indicate 1) who believes what you are presenting, and 2) providing a source that shows that this group indeed believes that. --Clay Collier 09:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the reason why the 'So then this means that The Buddha and early Buddhists believed in the concept of a Brahman (God) as 'Brahmin' in Sanskrit means, "Knower of Brahman", was added was because Lord Buddha obviously does believe in a Brahman (Knower of Brahman) by karma. So then it is completley appropriate. It cannot just be the non-Hindus that can edit on this article and add ideas with a reference.

To answer, "With regards to some of your other edits that have been reverted by myself or other users: in some cases, you are altering text that has a citation", that is simply not true. For example there is no scholarly consensus on the Bhagavad Gita. I have taken out the Astik Buddhistic quotes which Nastiks Buddhists despise so much. I have left some of the other added material. Leave it at this, or they will be added once more- Rebel XTi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebel XTi (talk • contribs) 04:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The beliefs of a man who has been dead for over 2000 years and whose teachings are attested to by a variety of variant traditions spread over an entire continent are never just 'obvious', and I am certainly not attempting to limit who can edit the article. If there are scholarly sources that state that early Buddhism included a belief in Brahman as it is currently understood by Hindus, then attribute the statement to the source and indicate where it originates. Furthermore, the place where that line is added ("So then...") still makes no logical sense. In a paragraph where what is being discussed is the use of the same word to hold different meanings by the Buddhist and Hindu tradition, presenting "so the historical Buddha believed in this Hindu concept" as a conclusion- particularly without citation- is an absolute non sequitur. Further, you are still not understanding my point regarding altering cited text. It seems (though I don't have access to the source) that we have one source that is saying that there is a consensus regarding the dating of the Bhagavad Gita. If that consensus does not exist among scholars, than surely there must be an academic source that states outright that such a consensus does not exist. If you wish to alter the statement that provides dating for the BG, you need to provide a source which demonstrates that the previous content is incorrect or under dispute. We simply need to be clear about attributing- both in terms of sources, and in terms of who holds these particular beliefs- the ideas in this article, rather than adding sweeping statements that claim to present the 'true' teachings of Buddha. None of us have the 'true' teachings of Buddha- what we have are traditions that have been passed down and interpreted over the years. Each tradition has its own opinion on what the true situation is. Wikipedia's role- and ours as editors- is not to decide which one is correct, but to present objectively the views of the different sides. --Clay Collier 08:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Buddhists and Jain's Practicing Hinduism?

I've looked at the sources for this line ("Many members of both religions also practice Hinduism as they believe in the concept of Brahma-Nirvana."), and I don't understand how they relate. We've got two primary sources here- the BG and a Tibetan homage to the bodhisattva Manjushir- and I'd like to figure out what claim exactly is being made with this sentence. Is the line saying that in the modern world, practitioners of Buddhism and Jainism are self consciously participating in practices or rituals that have their origins in Hinduism? I don't see how two historical sources can support that claim. Or is it saying that "according to the Hindu perspective, what Buddhists and Jains are doing is still Hinduism"? Either way, I think a different source is required- I don't see how you can get from either of the sources provided to this conclusion without engaging in original research. --Clay Collier 08:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

A Hindu is a person who practices karma or bhakti for the achievement of Nirvana with God or "Brahman". In Hinduism, Nirvana means to be a part of Brahman. And it appears from many early Buddhist (as well as some Jain) texts that Brahman is identified. - RebelXTi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebel XTi (talk • contribs) 05:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You're using a definition of Hinduism which is not very relevant for nonsectarian comparison of the concepts of "Hinduism" and "Buddhism".—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 05:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The fact that the term "Brahman" is used in Buddhist texts doesn't mean that Hindus and Buddhists are talking about the same thing. Most scholars of Buddhism tend to regard Buddhist teachings as having specifically denied Brahman in the sense that it is depicted in the Upanishads. Union with God or Brahman is not the goal of Buddhist practice, and is explicitly denied as such in pretty much any contemporary book on Buddhism that you pick up- Nirvana is seen as being very different in the Buddhist usage. The idea that Buddhism is a sect of Hinduism- with the same ultimate goals- is a point of view specific to a certain groups, and does not reflect general Buddhist or scholastic understanding of the relationship between the two. --Clay Collier 05:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"Notable Views"

This section is kind of a grab-bag as it stands, and I wonder if it belongs in the article at all. We don't have any clear criteria for who should be included, and whether we want only views on both Buddhism and Hinduism, views on Buddhism by Hindus, views on Hinduism by Buddhists, etc. It also seems ripe for future abuses- people stacking the section with "authorities" whose views reflect their own, leading to inevitable edit-warring. I moved the section dealing with Dr. Ambedkar, into the section on caste, and I wonder if this isn't a better way to deal with the section- if someone's view relates specifically to a topic under discussion, put it there. If it doesn't, then get rid of it. Walpole Rahula, for instance, is quoted several times already- is another summation of his views on Buddhism (which are, unfortunately, being presented in some cases as the "official" Buddhist line) really needed? --Clay Collier 10:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Teachings of the Buddha

Can I just point out for now that all statements of the form "The Buddha said/taught ..." etc. (of which there are a fair few in this article) should be expunged from Wikipedia (except of course inside quotes, as there is no consensus among scholars as to what the Buddha taught? See for example Lopez, Buddhism in Practice, Princeton, 1995, page 4:

"The original teachings of the historical Buddha are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to recover or reconstruct."

Peter jackson 14:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. There are a lot of problems of attribution in this article as it stands now. --Clay Collier 16:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Is article POV?

I came across this article and I can't believe the amount of pro-Buddhist propaganda made by Buddhists as if Buddhism has some sort of advantage over Hinduism in it's teachings and philosophy. Many of the pro-Buddhist claims has been challenged by scholars. First off, the oldest Buddhist text, the Dhammapada was not even put into writing until 200 BC, well after many of the Vedic text was already written with the exception of a few (mainly Puranas). Buddha's birthdate is highly debated among scholars with so many differing dates. The new date given now is actually much later then thought before. Lastly, sure Buddhism, Hinduism and even Jainism has had a long and complex history. They shared, learned and grew together in many ways. But some people are making it seem like Buddhism had some major influence on Hinduism when there is no indication that it did. Just because Buddhism became the majority religion under King Ashokas rule (the history of Buddhism is virtually unkown before this) does not mean it had vast influence. And if you believe it did then you also have to take into account the vast influence Hinduism has had on Buddhism in it's early stages, which Buddhists here are so quick to deny. This is all a part of a pro-Buddhist western bias. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker81 (talk • contribs) 18:41, September 4, 2007

Can Buddhist Propagandaists please stop re-editing articles in favor of Buddhism.

Honestly, this entire article seems like it is written mainly by Buddhists. I thought it was an article to give a general comparisan of the two religions in a fair manner but there is obviously pro-Buddhist bias here. Might as well rename this article "Buddhist view on Hinduism" because they do not give a fair and accurate representation of Hinduism and actually go as far as to claim the Gita is of Post Buddhist origin when the Dhammapada and other Buddhist texts was not even written until the Gita was already finished (200 BC. There is no indication that the Bahagavad Gita has any Buddhist influence.

Someone also keeps removing the section on caste. Caste is a complex issue within Hinduism and there is much scholarly evidence that Buddhism was not a religion in protest to the caste system nor did Buddhism fight any social opression in the countries it penetrated through. To imply that Buddhism was a religion that repudiated caste is false at the least.

Also, please stop removing the section on the symbols. All of those symbols such as Mudra, Chakra are also a part of Hinduism. The Chakra is of pre-Buddhist origin and is associated with Vishnu and Krishna and I have scholarly material to back this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker81 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Very mixed content above. The Dhammapada is not the oldest Buddhis text; no scholar says it is. The earliest Buddhist texts written down were in the last century BCE. When were Vedic texts written down, not composed? The Buddha's date is indeed much debated, death dates varying between 487 & 368 BCE, with perhaps 410-400 favourite. A major influence of Buddhism on Hinduism was the abolition of animal sacrifice; & yes, no doubt there were major influences the other way. The dates of both the Gita and early Buddhist texts are continuing matters of debate among scholars. Caste: it depends what you mean; in early Buddhist texts the Buddha makes fun of the caste system. Modern Sinhalese Budhism is run mainly on caste lines. Peter jackson 11:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Truthseeker very incorrect on facts

Truthseeker, you are incorrect. Buddhism is not older than Jainism, Mahavira lived at the same time as Buddha and not older. Mahavira is mentioned in Buddhist texts Nigantha Nataputta. The oldest Jain texts have been lost, according to Jains themselves. So please read more before you say Buddhists are shelling out propaganda.

the Buddha Nirvana calendar (with a zero point in 544 BC) may actually be significantly older

than the Kaliyuga calendar. And so, quite possibly, is the Mahavira Nirvana calendar of

the Jains (with a zero point in 527 BC). (source: Amartya Sen, India through its calendars — 2 Vol I : issue 1)

According to calendars alone, Buddhism is older than Jainism.

• You claim that Vishnu is in the Vedas. True, but Vishnu is a very minor diety in the Vedas, he's like all the other Gods and less important than possibly Indra and Agni.

• You are also incorrect about Buddhism and caste in that Buddha clearly states that the Sangha is CASTELESS . This is explicitly mentioned in the Buddhist Udana where he states all the castes merge in the sangha as rivers into the ocean. So the Sangha of the Buddha is a true refuge in India's caste ravaged society.

• Buddhist scriptures were written down and recorded before any Hindu scriptures were. Buddhist scriptures were written down in 1bce by Sri Lankan King Vatagamini.

---

Hindu scriptures are undoubtedly MUCH older then Buddhist scriptures, this is a ridiculous statement.

As far as Buddha on caste, there is no evidence it all that Buddhism was entirely casteless. I'm not saying Buddha was castiest, I am sure he tried to unite people and was undoubtedly a great teacher, but then again so was Krishna and the Vedas preaches brotherhood as well. All Hindu texts defined varna based on qualities, karma and action.

Buddhism gave India an alternative to a caste ravaged society? lol. I know this has given some Buddhists some thing to boast about with all the anti-Hindu non sense out there but anyone with a clear mind would know this is nothing but modern anti-Hindu propaganda specifically aimed to blame Hinduism for everything bad in society and label Buddhism and other religions as saving the masses from so called "Hindu opression". Of course, Buddhists are only feeding off of this non sense by parading Buddha around as a social reformer and gaining at the expense of anti-Hinduism. Similar to how Christians and Muslims gained at the expense of Anti-Judiasm, which was followed by a holocuast. The goal for you all is the same: Detach yourself completely and blame the elder on all the problems in society. Truth: No religion has been free from discrimination.

Want some evidence?

1: In Japan, where Buddhism is practiced, Buddhists incorporated some Shinto teachings which traditionally considers death as a form of defilement. This belief was connected with the Buddhist teaching against the killing of animals. As a result, people involved in working with the dead, the slaughter of animals or tanning came to be shunned. This led to a kind of caste system in which such people were referred to as eta hinin -literally "abundantly polluted non-humans". This system was legalized in the Edo Period. The social outcasts (untouchables) were labelled as burakumin, as they were only allowed to live in designated hamlets (buraku) and do certain jobs.[7].

Buddhists actually perpuated untouchability in Japan, where it never existed before!

2:W. W. Hunter has written: "It would be a mistake to suppose that Buddhism and Jainism were directed from the outset consciously in opposition to the caste system. Caste, in fact, at the time of the rise of Buddhism was only beginning to develop; and in later days, when Buddhism commenced its missionary careers, it took caste with it into regions where up to that time the institution had not permeated. Many others among the early Orientalists have confirmed this from different angles.

3:D.D. Kosambi, points out that in the recruitment of monks, the candidate's social position was not entirely disregarded: "..savage tribesmen, escaped criminals, the chronically ill were denied admission into the order." In Kosambi's Marxist opinion, the spread of Buddhism had nothing to do with a liberating social message..."

4:More recently, i.e. after the political myth of Buddhism as an anti-caste movement became internationally popular, the Dutch Buddhologist Prof. Zurcher has written: "In modern popularizing writings, one often reads that 'egalitarian' Buddhism was essentially a 'protest movement' against the Brahminical caste system......But neither the Buddha himself, nor any pre-modern Buddhist teacher after him has combated the caste system.

5:Buddhism's non-interest in social reform is also demonstrated by its career outside India. After centuries of profound impact of Buddhism, Tibetan society was in such a state that the Chinese Communists could claim in 1950 that 95% of the Tibetans were living in slavery;...the fact remains that Buddhism had not rendered Tibet's traditional feudalism any more egalitarian than it had been in the pre-Buddhist past.

Outside India, a number of independent sources confirm that Buddhist monasteries employed slaves: "There are numerous references to prove the existence of slaves in the Buddhist monasteries in China.

Prof. Rhys Davids has given details about caste practices in over 100 Buddhist communities.

There, all of this without help of a single Hindu! You cannot us as scapegoats this time!

This should be enough evidence for you. I don't care what the scripture says.Every Hindu scripture also says that varna is based on merit, not birth or lineage...but reality equals something else entirely.

--149.4.42.55 20:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It's getting hot here... Greetings, Sacca 13:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

When I edit something it becomes an issue but when Buddhists here take out information that Hindus put then it's not considered a problem. The fact is, this entire article is extrmely bias and from a strict Pro-Buddhist point of view. It is set up to malign Hinduism as well. Everytime I add something with REFERENCE some Buddhist takes it out, but leaves what they wrote intact.

This article is a Buddhist view on Hinduism, NOT a comparisan of the two religions. I suggest the title be changed or else someone here is going to have to make some serious considerations beause the Buddhists here are getting away with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker81 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Truthseeker

=...only the Vedas and a few Upanishads are older, i.e. Brihadaranyaka which are only a couple of hundred years older and from Mithila, the other Upanishads are post-Buddhist and some are Buddhist influenced:

Dating texts: The question of chronology has usually been considered a difficult one. Hany students of Hinduism after proclaiming the impossibility of ascribing dates to early Brahmanical works, then not only proceed to do so, but give them very ancient ones with little or no justification. This is true not only of Hindu traditionalists, but also of many Western orientalists, who in the words of Nirud C. Chauduri "have succumbed to Hindu chronological fantasies" [Hinduism (1979), p.33]. It may be mentioned that the antiquity claimed for the Hindu texts contrasts strongly with the lateness of all extant epigraphcial, iconographical and archelogical evidence. In contrast to this morass of uncertainty the dates of the Buddha (563 - 483 BCE) have been established with little or no error. In fact the Buddha is perhaps the first truly historical figure to emerge in India, just as the Buddhist remains are the earliest religious archeological evidence unearthed. And the earliest Buddhist literature contain abundant information on the rival systems of belief prevalent in the India of that time. These references cover both the main Brahmanical religion based on the Vedas, and the emerging dissentient views proclaimed by the new sramana philosopher-teachers of the time (the "gymnosophists" of the later Greek observers of the Indian scene).

The Brahmanical literature to which there is clear reference in the Buddhist literature are the "Three Vedas", and the Brahmanas based on these three sa.mhitas (the latter only insofar as the practices recommended by them are castigated). The three Vedas are, of course, the Rig, the Sâma, and the Yagur. The absence of any references to the fourth Veda (the Artharva) is an indication that this was not then known as an independent one. This is borne out by an inspection of this Veda which shows that it is quite different to the other three, being closer to the Upanishads in some parts, and to a more primitive magic and sorcery in others. It is therefore a polygot compilation of later times.

It is now generally recognized that the religion of the Vedas with its deification of the forces of nature, its constantly professed awe at the basic human functions of breath and speech, its blending of sacrifice, ritual and magic, its confounding of states of intoxication (produced by imbibing the Soma libation) with states of mysticism, and so on, relate to a very primitive stage in the development of the religious consciousness (and scientific knowledge) of man. The so-called "Vedic wisdom" exhibited is of a very rudimentary kind, and explicable more in anthropological terms rather than in metaphysical or philosophical ones. Likewise its "eternal truths" are no more than the simple hypotheses inspired by the general ignorance of the times. It is also well-known that the characteristic doctrines of later Hinduism (like the soul-theory, re-incarnation, karman, moksha, devotion to some concrete manifestation of an omnipotent Godhead, etc) are either totally absent or present in a very rudimentary form. While the beginnings of the caste system are traceable it had not yet assumed the rigid religious form of the later Dharmashastras. Yet the Vedas contained the potential for all these developments.(source:HINDUISM IN BUDDHIST PERSPECTIVE by Dr. V.A.Gunasekara

=======================================================

Truly truthseeker, let's see if you can handle the truth I will only put down the truth, and by this truth you will put up the Buddhist version on your own:

=======================================================

Buddha on Caste: members of Sangha (one of the three refuges)are casteless -- a refuge from the caste based indian society:

Just as whatever great rivers there are... on reaching the great ocean lose their former names and identities and are just called 'the great ocean,' so also (those of) the four castes ; nobles, brahmans, merchants, and workers; having gone forth from home to the homeless state in the Dhamma and Discipline made known by the Tathagata, abandon their former names and identities and are just called 'recluses, the followers of the Sakyan son.' This is the fourth wonderful and marvellous quality in this Dhamma and Discipline...Udana 5.5 Uposatha Sutta The Observance

Hinduism on Caste Discrimanatory by caste, age and sex:

For boys only, according to the Grihyasutras (see Sutra), the Upanayanam for a Brahmin should be performed when the child is eight years old; for a Kshatriya at the age of 11; and for a Vaishya, at 12. Upanayanam was determined traditionally by birth and age and was performed differently for each caste -- after a certain age, no longer fit for upanayanam.

Without it, one became a shudra or member of the 4th caste and was considered degenerate. Many rituals to be performed for the sacred thread.

===================================================

waiting to see "truthseeker's" reactions and then will post more truths :)--149.4.104.161 19:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice try but WRONG.

Hindu scriptures do not support birth based caste but a class system based on qualifications where everyone works together in harmony and love

Vedas are all-embracing, and treat the entire humanity with the same respect and dignity. Vedas speak de Mantra numbered 5-60-5 in Rig Veda, the divine poet declares, “All men are brothers; no one is big, no one is small. All are equal.”Mantra numbered 16.15 in Yajur Veda reiterates that all men are brothers; no one is superior or inferior.Mantra numbered 10-191-2 in Rig Veda calls upon humanity to be united to have a common speech and a common mind.Mantra numbered 3-30-1 in Atharva Veda enjoins upon all humans to be affectionate and to love one another as the cow loves her newly-born calf. Underlining unity and harmony still further:Mantra numbered 3-30-6 in Atharva Veda commands humankind to dine together, and be as firmly united as the spokes attached to the hub of a chariot wheel. The Bhagavad Gita, which contains the essence of Vedas and Upanishads, has many shlokas that echo the Vedic doctrine of oneness of humanity:In shloka numbered V (29), Lord Krishna declares that He is the friend of all creatures (suhridam sarva bhutanam) whereas shloka numbered IX (29) reiterates that the Lord has the same affection for all creatures, and whosoever remembers the Lord, resides in the Lord, and the Lord resides in him.Shloka numbered XVIII (61) declares that God resides in every heart (ishwar sarva bhutanam hrudyeshe Arjun tishthti).

Guna (Aptitude) and Karma (Actions)

Hindu scriptures speak only about ‘varna’ which means to ‘select’ (one’s profession, etc.) and which is not caste or birth-based.As per shloka numbered IV (13) of the Bhagavad Gita, depending upon a person’s guna (aptitude) and karma (actions), there are four varnas. As per this shloka, a person’s varna is determined by his guna and karma, and not by his birth. Chapter XIV of the Bhagavad Gita specifies three gunas viz. satva (purity), rajas (passion and attachment) and tamas (ignorance). These three gunas are present in every human in different proportions, and determine the varna of every person. Accordingly, depending on one’s guna and karma, every individual is free to select his own varna. Consequently, if their gunas and karmas are different, even members of the same family can belong to different varnas. Notwithstanding the differences in guna and karma of different individuals, Vedas treat the entire humanity with the same respect and do not sanction any caste system or birth-based caste system.

The sacred thread:

Among all sanskara rituals, those who study the Vedas consider that the initiation rituals of Upanayanam as the most important. In the ancient times, it is said to have been available to both men and women of all communities desiring to study the Vedas. Some of the Brahma gnanis like Parasara, Vyasa, Sathyakama and Padmapada are not born in the 'high castes' but organized the Vedas and compiled all the karmas for the upanayanam . As the traditions changed after the eighth century AD, it was restricted to person born in some families of the 'upper' classes only and was denied for women. Upanayanam is usually performed at the age of seven or eight, because, that is the age when a child stops getting the benefits of the karmas of their parents and will have to learn and perform their own karmas. Upa means near and nayanam means going; that is the act of going to a teacher to learn.Manu Smirti also stated that women were allowed in ancient times but no longer(obviously disciminatory but at a much later date).It also says EVERYONE is a Shudra at birth but can become qualified to study given they follow the discipline and rules.

Not EVERYONE is fit to observe the rules for becoming a Brahmachari. There has to be some restrictions in society. This is in every society. Is everyone fit to be a Buddhist monk? No you have to follow the discipline and work your way up to become one. Same thing in Abrahamic societies, if you do not observe the rules for marriage, sex, staying free from intoxicants, have belief in scriptures then you are either not born again and you are an infidel. In the same way, everyone is a Shudra by birth and becomes suitable for monkhood by discipline. Those who are not fit are the servants of society. This of course doesn't mean we should treat others badly, which many Hindus did in later stages of Indian history. No Hindu scripture says to mistreat any human bieng.

(Principles and Practice of Hindu Religion a Comprehensive Study of the Ancient Tradition and the Perennial Philosophy)

Dating of texts

You are wrong. Most scholars do not agree to the dating of text by Orthodox Hindus who proclaim the texts are older. For example, according to Hindus, the Gita dates back to 3102 BC but according to MOST scholars it dates from 500-200BC with some differing dates that prescribe to to as early as 600BC to as late as 150BC from start to finish. The Vedas are as old as 1500 BC for sure but many scholars believe it to be older (orally remembered). All scholars date most of the Upanishads between 900-400BC and some are later. So the dating of the texts by most scholars are authentic just as much as Buddhist texts are.

Buddhas birth date is highly debatable(that's if he is a historical person). There in NO history of Buddhism until King Ashoka. The Bhagavad Gita, MOST of the Upanishads and the Vedas are all dated Pre-Buddhist and some along the time Buddha may have lived. The only Post-Buddhist texts are some Upanishads and all of the Puranas, they may have had some Buddhist influence but as for the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads, there is hardly any indication that Buddhism had any influence on them. The only reason why some scholars began speculating that the Gita may have had Buddhist influence was the use of the word Nirvana. Their stance was not fact but possibilty. But this is in no way any indication of a "strong" Buddhist influence as propagated by some Buddhists. As I have said, the possibilies are far fetched.In fact, many scholars state the Bhagavad Gita resembles the early Upanishads more then anything else.

The chakra symbol is also of pre-Buddhist origin if you don't believe me then you can read the "Materials for the study of the early history of the Vaishnava sect" and find out the truth for youself.

Buddha was the first historical person in India? I don't know

The historicity of Buddha is accepted by all.But his biography raises difficulty. In Sri Lanka, 483 BC is accepted as the date of his nirvana while in Burma 544 BC is accepted. In Tibet it is believed to be 835 BC, while in China, 11th century BC is the accepted date. Buddha was an Indian and the Indian Puranic tradition believes that the nirvana took place in 1793 or 1807 BC However, in the educational institutions, the chronology prepared by the British scholars is taught and according to them, the Ceylonese date i.e., 483 B. C is the date of nirvana.

There were many sects and sages in India 2500 years ago, but their teachings were transmitted orally. The Buddhist Dhamma was not written down for centuries after it had been first enunciated. The various Sanskrit and Pali texts which purport to contain the original teachings are therefore the product of evolution, and it is impossible to say which of the divergent interpretations, if any, represents the pristine form.What is quite certain is that the underlying philosophy had a great deal in common with ideas prevalent at the time(ie. Vedic). It bears some resemblance to the contemporary Jainist movement.

The breakaway from Hindu ritualism was not a unique innovation; neither was there anything new in the founding of an order of monks. Various sects were already organized as mendicant monks, and it was an established custom for them to meet periodically and proclaim their teaching in public(ie. Upanishads). The early Buddhists followed this familiar pattern. They made modifications, of course, and one feature was the rejection of the severe austerities which were practiced by some of the sects.

Not only have we no six-century record of the rules of the Buddhist Sangha, as the order was called, but it did not claim to be a new teaching.

It seems quite probable in the light of these facts that any number of teachings attributed to "the Buddha" may have been in existence either before or at the time when Gotama was believed to have lived. They might all have been attributed to a sage with the title of "the Blessed One." They might include teachings that were ascribed later to Gotama.

WOMEN and HINDUISM

Yes, I can agree that there were restrictions on women in later stages of Indian history but you can't refute the fact that women SAGES contributed to parts of the Vedas and Upanshads and their status in the Vedas is rather high. Proof:

I am the banner ,I am the head ,I possess excellent eloquence; My husband co-operates with me And follows my will.- Rig Veda 10/159/2

Confusion on Buddhist teachings

Buddhist texts are not always in agreement about which texts are canonical, and the various recensions of the Buddhist Canon contain widely varying numbers and types of texts. (Buddhist texts-wikipedia).

The Manu Smirti which contains rigid ritual purity and caste rules was propagated in Post-Buddhist India not Pre-Buddhist. As I have shown you with PROOF that Buddhism perpuated untouchability in other countries so you can't blame Hinduism for everything.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker81 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

====="truth"seeker==================

Wow, I used to be a Hindu and I'm pretty embarrassed at the lack of knowledge of most Hindus on Buddhism.

I used to Sandhya puja and recited the Gayatri, so I find it hilarious that this person is trying to teach me...

1) Initiation

• a)Buddhism: You can be anyone and enter the ARYA Sangha. The 1)Arya Sangha isn't just the order of monks and nuns, it's ANYONE who takes refuge in the Triple Gem and practices to attain STREAM ENTRY -- no matter what age, sex, caste...

b)This is different from the institutional form or the monastic Sangha who are not asked about caste or race or age. They are asked about sex, since the rule of Brahmacharya applies to both and they are separated.

• Hinduism: only by gotra and lineage are you allowed to have Upanayanam -- Upanayanam asks one's Gotra, you must say your gotra even in the performance of the Sandhya.

a) Upanayanam cannot not be performed for men over 24. b) MOST HINDU SUTRAS (Dharma sutras) clearly state ONLY BOYS of a certain age can have it, past that age you are not allowed to perform the Upanayanam and are a shudra. c)You are only an Arya if you get upanayanam.

Winner: Buddhism : Any age, any sex, any caste. You can practice Buddhism on your own or in a monastary at any age and become an Arya through self effort and faith in the Triple Gem of Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha.

2)Women:

• Buddhism:

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/227.htm

The Buddha was criticized by the prevailing establishment when He gave this freedom to women. His move to allow women to enter the Holy Order was extremely radical for the times. Yet the Buddha allowed women to prove themselves and to show that they too had the capacity like men to attain the highest position in the religious way of life by attaining Arahantahood. Every woman in the world must be grateful to the Buddha for showing them the real religious way of living and for giving such freedom to them for the first time in world history.

They include Prajâpati Gotami, who was the first Bhikkhuni, Uppalavannâ and Khema, who are traditionally regarded as "foremost of the Bhikkhunis", Kisâgotami and Patacâra, who figure in the best known stories in early Buddhism. The members of the order belonged to all walks of life. Some were former courtesans like Ambapâli and Vimala, others were of royal lineage like Sumeda and Sela. There were distinguished exponents of he Dhamma like Dhammadinnâ, scions of noble or merchant families like Bhadda Kundalkesa, Sujâta, and Anopama, not to mention those of humbler origins like Punnika the slave girl, or Chanda the daughter of a poor Brahmin. The actual numbers of Theris involved is not known. Patacâra is credited with having 500 personal followers, and there are several unnamed Thens to whom sayings are attributed.

women disciples of Buddha

" (Sam.Nik., 1, 5, 6):

yassa etâdisa.m yâna.m ittiyâ purisassa va sa ve etena yânena nibbanasseva santike ti This is the only vehicle Be it a woman or be it a man The one who takes this vehicle Can reach the peace of Nibbâna

Buddhist Women -- the greatest number of women saints in the history of the world.

Famous Buddhist works by women:

Therigatha -- by various women from nobles to slaves and beggers. Itivuttaka -- written by lay woman and slave. Several famous suttas in the Tipitika are by women.

"Free I am free I am free from the three crooked things: mortar, pestle, and my crooked husband. I am free from birth and death and all that dragged me back".

"A woman-child, 0 Lord of men, may prove to be a better offspring than a male" (San. Nik, iii, 2, 6).

Even in the later Jatakas it is sometimes stated that woman who live in fear of their husbands are not true wives (No.537).

• Hinduism hates women:

Female infanticide:

"Tasmat striyam jatam parasyanti ut pumamsam haranti"(Hence they reject a female child when born, and take up a male.) [Taitt. Samh. VI.5.10.3] [Muir I 26]

Atharva Veda.6.2.3 : " Let a female child be born somewhere else; here, let a male child be born." -- [ Ath.Ved.VI.2.3 ] [ cf. Peri ]

"whilst her husband is absent, she shall sleep with one of her female relatives and not alone"[Vasishta’s Padma Purana]

"Husbands are not supposed to have intercourse with a wife who bore only daughters."[Hindu Law and Custom, p.145]

"And as women, Sudras and the inferior members of the twice-borne classes were unfitted for hearing the Veda, and were infatuated in desiring the blessings, arising from the ceremonies, the muni, with a vision to their felicity, in his kindness composed the narrative called the Mahabharata."[Bhag.Pur. I.4.25] [Muir III,p.42]

"They [women and Sudras] are debarred ... from being competent students of the Veda"[Vedarthaprakasha of Madhava Acharyya on the Taittriya Yajur Veda, quoted in Muir III,p.66]

Sati:

"If a woman’s husband dies, let her lead a life of chastity, or else mount his pyre"[Vishnusmrti xxv.14] [Clayton 13] "It is the highest duty of the woman to immolate herself after her husband,"[Br.P. 80.75] [Sheth 103]

"..is enjoined by the Vedas,"[Br.P. 80.75] [Sheth 103]

Vishnu Dharmasutra XXV.14 contains the statement:

On her husband’s death, the widow should observe celibacy or should ascend the funeral pyre after him.

Several of Krishna’s wives performed Sati upon his death, including Rukmini, Rohini, Devaki, Bhadraa and Madura [M.Bh. Mausalaparvan 7.18] [Alld.Ch. 977, 1018-1019: Rukmini] Madri, second wife of Pandu, considered an incarnation of the goddess Dhriti, performed Sati [M.Bh. Adiparvan 95.65] [Alld Ch 985] Rohini, a wife of Vasudev, Krishna’s father, who gave birth to Balram ( Devki’s child) and later became a Sati. [Alld. Ch. 1018]

"The 8 queens of Krishna, who have been named, with Rukmini at their head, embraced the body of Hari, and entered the funeral fire. Revati also embracing the corpse of Rama, entered the blazing pile, which was cool to her, happy in contact with her lord. Hearing these events, Ugrasena and Anakadundubhi, with Devaki and Rohini, committed themselves to the flames."[Vishnu Pur. 5.38] [Vishnu Pur. {Wilson} p.481]

Winner Buddhism: Buddha clearly states that women are equal in enlightenment to men. It's women who have to overcome their own shortcomings.

3)Outcastes: Matanga

• Buddhism -- outcastes can attain the highest by practicing the Buddha Dharma quite easily:

Matanga the outcaste: one can change one's future by practicing Buddha Dhamma:

22. "Know ye by the example I now cite (the fact that by birth one is not an outcast). There was an outcast's son, Sopaka, who became known as Matanga.

23. "This Matanga attained the highest fame so difficult to gain. Many were the warriors (kshatriyas) and brahmans who went to attend on him.

24. "Mounting the celestial chariot (the Noble Eightfold path, and driving) along the passion-free high road, (Sopaka, now a monk), reached the Brahma realm having given up sense desires. Sn 1.7 Vasala Sutta Discourse on Outcasts

• Hinduism:

It's too hard, don't try.

'Sakra said, 'One born on a Chandala cannot, by any means acquire the status of a Brahmana. Do thou, therefore name some boon so that all this labour of thine may not prove fruitless--Thus addressed by the chief of the celestials, Matanga became filled with grief.

Mahabharata Book 13: Anusasana Parva Anusasanika Parva:29

Winner: Buddhism.

Again, am waiting for *ahem* "truth" seeker's response. --149.4.42.82 20:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Response from Truthseeker

So now you need to announce that you used to be a Hindu? For what? To imply that you have knowledge of Hinduism that I should be aware of? Or that you know from personal experience that Buddhism is greater? Religion is a personal choice for one, so I can really care less what you follow, that’s your business. In fact, you should be more concerned with really following the tenants of your religion then boasting to me about what you follow. And you know, it's also probably a good thing that you left Hinduism because it sure doesn't need ego maniacs like you.

Also, am I supposed to be impressed that you used to chant the Gayatri Mantra? Excuse me, but chanting prayers doesn't mean anything if you don't follow the discipline within the scriptures. Seriously, once you grow a brain bigger then a size of a dime then I suggest you come back and debate. You being a so called ex Hindu does not mean you have complete knowledge of the religion(in fact, most Hindus are nominal Hindus) therefore, your stance means nothing as far as I am concerned. Further, you have not been able to state nothing but non sense from anti-Hindu sites. I have already provided evidence with proof that Buddhism was not entirely caste free and Buddhism was never a mass social movement as propagated by some westerners. I never said Buddhism was or is not worthy of social upliftment or that Buddhism is a primitive religion, I simply stated that Buddhism's history is not what some Buddhists make it out to be and many of the comparisons in this article are incorrect.

You stated: "Buddhism=winner"

So now this is also a game for you? Not even Buddha's teachings could get rid of your egotistical non sense. You know it's funny to see someone come here to prove that their religion is a "winner" because they are so insecure. Just so you know, I did not engage in this debate to prove "Hinduism is a winner" over Buddhism, I engaged in this debate to simply show some facts propagated by some Buddhists here are not only wrong but also how hypocritical some people can be. I have shown proof of it while you have done nothing but rant.

You keep stating the Upanayanam and I have already stated that there were no restrictions for study by women and men and members of all castes until much later. You don't believe me, read Manu Smirti yourself. It's all public knowledge. However, you seem to keep re-stating the same garbage. Probably because at this point you are desperate in gaining a win over me.

And just for your knowledge, I know about quite a bit about Buddhism, and there has been a strong speculation about the nature of women in Buddhism and Buddhists societies. Sure, not all Buddhist societies laid restrictions on women, but many did. The nature of Buddha's attitude towards women is also a matter of debate. A monk who was able to combat the charges of sexism that surround Buddha thanks to that scene in the Tripitaka where he first doesn't want to ordain women, and then he lays the "Eight Heavy Duties" on nuns after Ananda convinces him to allow nuns. Not to leave out the fact that throughout South East Asia, historically, many Buddhist males discriminated against women.

Is Buddhism sexist? I don't know.

In order to find out whether or not the Buddha discriminated against women, the Tripitaka is the only appropriate historical source for reference. Nevertheless, the method is not simple.

The interpretation of Buddhist texts depends largely on the method employed in the reading, i.e., taking the words literally as many traditionalist Buddhists do, or using a more holistic approach to understanding, as many modern scholars do.

The latter also requires critical analysis and the art of reading between the lines. Like most religious texts handed down from antiquity, the Tripitaka offers conflicting information regarding the status of women.

One of the key references that strongly discriminates against women is the legend of the origin of the nuns (bhikkhuni), in which the Buddha showed his strong disapproval of women's ordination as requested by Prajapati Gautami, his aunt and stepmother. Ananda, the Buddha's close attendant stepped in and negotiated on her behalf. As a result, the Buddha laid down a set of special rules, or the so-called Eight Heavy Duties (Garudhammas) that established the conditions for women's ordination, and nuns were required to strictly adhere to them for the rest of their lives.

The Eight Heavy Duties are:

1. A nun, even if she has been ordained for 100 years, must respect, greet and bow in reverence to the feet of a monk, even if he has just been ordained that day. (Monks pay respect to each other according to their seniority, or the number of years they have been ordained.)

2. A nun is not to stay in a residence where there is no monk. (A monk may take an independent residence.)

3. A nun is to look forward to two duties: asking for the fortnightly Uposatha (meeting day), and receiving instructions by a monk every fortnight. (Monks do not depend on nuns for this obligatory rite, nor are they required to receive any instruction.)

4. A nun who has completed her rains-retreat must offer herself for instruction to both the community of monks and to the community of nuns, based on what is seen, what is heard and what is doubted. (Monks only offer themselves to the community of monks.)

5. A nun who is put on probation for violating a monastic rule of Sanghadisesa must serve a 15-day minimum probation, with reinstatement requiring approval from both the monk and nun communities. (The minimum for monks is a five-day probation with no approval by the nuns required for reinstatement.)

6. A woman must be ordained by both monks and nuns and may be ordained only after a two-year postulancy, or training in six precepts. (Men have no mandatory postulancy and their ordination is performed by monks only.)

7. A nun may not reprimand a monk. (A monk may reprimand a monk, and any monk may reprimand a nun.)

8. From today onwards, no nun shall ever teach a monk. However, monks may teach nuns. (There are no restrictions on whom a monk may teach.)

The legend recalls that, after memorising the Eight Heavy Duties, the Lord Buddha's disciple Ananda returned to inform Prajapati the aunt, of the Buddha's words. She accepted all eight rules without reservation. Delighted, she said:

"I accept all the Eight Heavy Duties, and shall abide by them without fail throughout my life, like a young girl or boy who enjoys her beauty, having bathed and shampooed, accepts a garland of jasmine or lilac, accepts it with her hands and puts it on her head."

Apart from these discriminatory regulations against women, the Buddha further prophesised that because of the women's ordination the core teaching of his religion would be cut short from 1,000 to 500 years. This is stated in the following passage in Tripitaka"

If this is true, then there is only one conclusion: the Buddha was a sexist. However, the word "sexist" is too strong for most Buddhists. No traditional Buddhist would want to acknowledge the Buddha's prejudice. Instead, they usually stand up to defend the message of the Eight Heavy Duties, claiming, "This is the way things are. This is the Dharma of the Universe, and there is nothing we can do but accept them [the Heavy Duties] as they are authentic messages of the Buddha."

Source:http://americanbuddhist.net

Hinduism doesn't hate this woman

Now aside the fact that I am a woman myself, I don't need to show you the verses about women as there are many of them in the Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagavad-Gita, and other texts and some women sages contributed to Vedas and Upanishads. Also, there are hundreds of thousands of Hindu converts, many of them bieng women who have no restrictions in many religious practices. Women and men have different roles in Vedic society but women can clearly study the Vedic scriptures as stated so in ancient times and many women today are, including myself. I know from personal experience so I don't need you to tell me. Also, no one really is required to follow the Upanayanam now and these days and many Hindus don't follow it.In the Vedas, it clearly states all human biengs, including women have the same rights to study and the rules enshrined in the Vedas always prevails over all others, therefore those restrictions are clearly not a requirement. Further, half of the stuff you quoted are from Manu Smirti and some Puranas which are Post-Buddhist, which means they were composed at a much later date.

Also, I never denied Hinduism has had a history of discriminating against women and lower castes but it's really in the latter stages more so then earlier and I have provided proof of that, so in other words your arguing to prove something to yourself, more so then me. My only strife with you is you are not willing to acknowledge or look into the history of your own religion but come here and bark out non sense in regards to others.

Aside from the numerous references that varna is based on qualities and is open to all and there is SO much evidence of this happening in Hindu scriptures is enough to refute your claim. But since you quoted from Mahabharata, I’ll use the Mahabharata which CLEARLY says varna is based on qualities not birth and anyone can attain the state given they follow the discipline:

Many passages in Mahabharata describes the flexible caste system which in later periods was totally forgotten by the Indian society. An example is the conversation between Yudhisthira and Naga Nahusha (3:179):

Naga:- "O Yudhishthira, say, Who is a Brahmana ?"

Yudhishthira"-"O foremost of Nagas, he, it is asserted by the wise, in whom are seen truth, charity, forgiveness, good conduct, benevolence, observance of the rites of his order and mercy is a Brahmana. "

Naga:- "O Yudhishthira, truth, charity, forgiveness, benevolence, benignity, kindness and the Veda which worketh the benefit of the four orders, which is the authority in matters of religion and which is true, are seen even in the Sudra."

Yudhishthira:- "Those characteristics that are present in a Sudra, do not exist in a Brahmana; nor do those that are in a Brahmana exist in a Sudra. And a Sudra is not a Sudra by birth alone, nor a Brahmana is Brahmana by birth alone. He, it is said by the wise, in whom are seen those virtues is a Brahmana. And people term him a Sudra in whom those qualities do not exist, even though he be a Brahmana by birth."

Naga:- "O king, if thou recognise a person as a Brahmana by characteristics, then, O long-lived one, the distinction of caste becometh futile as long as conduct doth not come into play."

Yudhishthira:- "In human society, O mighty and highly intelligent Naga, it is difficult to ascertain one’s caste, because of promiscuous intercourse among the four orders. This is my opinion. Men belonging to all orders beget offspring upon women of all the orders. And of men, speech, sexual intercourse, birth and death are common. And to this the Rishis have borne testimony by using as the beginning of a sacrifice such expressions as—of what caste so ever we may be, we celebrate the sacrifice. Therefore, those that are wise have asserted that character is the chief essential requisite. The natal ceremony of a person is performed before division of the umbilical cord. His mother then acts as its Savitri and his father officiates as priest. He is considered as a Sudra as long as he is not initiated in the Vedas. Doubts having arisen on this point, Naga , Swayambhuba Manu has declared, that the mixed castes are to be regarded as better than the other castes, if having gone through the ceremonies of purification, they do not conform to the rules of good conduct, O excellent Naga! Whosoever now conforms to the rules of pure and virtuous conduct, him have I, here now, designated as a Brahmana."

Societies with caste based on choice

Mahabharata provides evidence of societies where caste was just a matter of personal choice. At (MBh 8:45) is the following passage:- Among the Bahlikas one at first becomes a Brahmana and then he becomes a Kshatriya. Indeed, a Vahika would, after that, become a Vaishya, and then a Shudra, and then a barber. Having become a barber, he would then again become a brahmana. Returning to the status of a brahmana, he would again become a slave. One person in a family becomes a brahmana: all the others act as they like. The whole narration is the opinion of Karna on the tribe of Shalya viz. the Bahlika tribe, Shalya was disliked by Karna due to some circumstances. So this opinion is biased against the Bahlikas. Yet, it gives evidence that the Bahlikas had a society where caste was a matter of personal choice.

Conclusion

You tell me I don't know about Buddhism but I question what you really know about Buddhism AND Hinduism yourself. I don't need to lie through my teeth about Hinduisms short comings, like some Buddhists (and Muslims and Christians)do about the history of their religion. Honesty if the best policy, which of course, you are desperately lacking at this point.

Response to "truth"seeker=

This is quite hilarious, your ignorance of Buddhism is quite obvious...since your ignorance is so profound, let's do it one topic at a time.

1) tell me about Hindu initiation...have you been initiated into any sect of Hinduism that you are writing for Hindus????

• Do you know even Hindus have the right to read the Vedas or are initiated by real 'brahmins' who according to the Puranas are not entitled to perform any Vedic rites let alone read the Vedas in Kaliyuga????

So do Hindus even have a valid religion? According to the Puranas -- NO.

According to the Puranas themselves (regarded as a fifth Vedas) there are no "brahmins" authorized to initiate people into the Vedas in Kaliyuga (story of Gautam).

Hinduism = false brahmins giving false initiations.

• Buddhists (men, women, children, old people -- anyone at any age) can become initiated with the Triple Gem and take minimally the 5 precepts of morality -- Buddhists are required to be moral right in the initiation. Hindus don't have any such requirement to be moral...so tell me where there is any borrowing?

Answer this basic question and let's see how much you know about Hinduism.--149.4.42.27 19:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to enter into a personal debate about views on religion. This talk page is for discussing improvements and clarifications to an encyclopedia article. Furthermore, personal attacks are not acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. --Clay Collier 19:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

personal attacks Please read before accusing people: Debate is an essential part of the culture of Wikipedia. Different contributors often do not agree on some of the content within an article. Contributors often are members of opposing communities who wish to have their viewpoints included in articles. Synthesizing these views into a single article creates a better, more NPOV article for everyone. Every person who edits an article is part of the same larger community - we are all Wikipedians.

Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack.

This is a debate on what constitutes Buddhism and Hinduism and if the assertion that "Buddhism borrowed from Hinduism" or "Hinduism borrowed from Buddhism" is correct and where it is incorrect.

Accusing Buddhists "of getting away" with biases by truthseeker without any justification is a personal attack which this debate is answering. The person has constantly removed Buddhist referenced materials for a Hindu POV article.--149.4.42.27 20:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do believe some Buddhists here are getting away. I never took out any material, I only added material to provide readers with a different point of view. If this is an article portraying the relationship between Hinduism and Buddhism then we have to be fair. I have provided references for my contributions as well. However, my contributions still get removed but any contributions by Buddhists remain intact. Any sane person will know this is bias. Also, I have not personally attacked anyone here, I believe it's you who comes off with rather emotional and baseless responses. Oh, and no the Puranas are not regarded as the 5th Vedas.I won't even tell you, you can find out for yourself. At least you'll do something productive rather then bicker at me about Hinduism.

Calling someone ignorant, mocking their username, and personally challenging them to prove their knowledge on a topic certainly falls outside the boundaries of spirited debate. You're no longer discussing content, you're discussing qualifications to write on a particular topic. Furthermore, in line with the principle of WP:NPOV, we're not here to somehow decide the relationship between Buddhism and Hinduism based on quotes from primary sources. We're trying to represent the opinions of recognized authorities on this matter. The discussion on this page has been moving more and more towards making claims based on scriptures, etc. That's ultimately not going to be to the benefit of the article. Pretty much everyone who has edited this article (myself included) are guilty on this count, but the solution is not to continue to martial primary sources to try and prove a specific point. --Clay Collier 21:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please try to understand the issues. You are using bad sources and producing original arguements. Read WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:V. Arrow740 01:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There are people here using no sources it all then why are they left intact? My sources are just as credible as the sources you and others here have used. I am even more assured now that this entire article is edited solely by Pro-Buddhists, aside from Clay who seems to be the only neautral person here. Arrow, I have read your articles on your page (quite weak) which tries to shove the usual Pro-Buddhist views in the name of Anti-Hindu propaganda, against very scholarly people that have challenged this notion. I also am well aware that you are actively working on this page as well as other Buddhist pages which are related to Hinduism, again pushing your Pro-Buddhist views in the name of Anti-Hinduism. Therefore, you are hardly a reliable and trust worthy person to have power over what goes in and out of this article to begin with. You are just as biased as the other person who so desperately tried to refute me. I hope Clay and others look into what's going on here and anyone who reads this should know that this is hardly an accurate article. As I have said before, this article should be renamed "Buddhist view of Hinduism". I doubt anything will be done about this as all the moderators here seem to be Buddhist but this is a great injustice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker81 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Title

It seems to me that the title could be more descriptive, such as "Buddhism and Hinduism in Comparison" or some such thing. Sylvain1972 16:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, this article is bound to be confusing and messy, as it is similar to 'Apples and Oranges'...rudy (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Some commentators assert

I removed the following statement from the article: "However, some commentators assert that the Bhagavad Gita predates Buddhism." It is sourced to P. 109 Bhakti Karuna Agape with Raimundo Panikkar By Marko Zlomislić. The source is fortunately available online here: [4]. What it actually says is: "The Bhagavad Gita presents [emphasis mine] a conversation taken from the pre-Buddhist, sixth century epic of Great India, the Mahabharata." This is different from saying that the work itself is pre-Buddhistic. I have read in other works that the Bhagavad Gita is post-Buddhistic, and hope to add more sources later. Mitsube (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the source is clear that Bhagvad Gita is taken from a Pre-Buddhist text. This leaves nothing to interpretation that the author believes it to be pre-buddhist. The editor had not made an assertion but cited a properly sourced third party assertion which was legitimate. Contrary to what you might have read from orientalist and Buddhist sources, millions of Hindus regard Bhagvad Gita to be Pre-Buddhist. I think the editing out of a legitimate third party assertion, properly sourced, shows a little lack of neutrality. The right approach should be to allow assertions from both sides and leave the judgement to discerning reader.--Satyashodak (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

"conversation taken from the pre-Buddhist, sixth century epic of Great India, the Mahabharata" clearly implies that the conversation existed in that pre-Buddhist text.

How can something be taken from something else unless it exists in it?--Satyashodak (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Literary works present situations that are not necessarily true. Mitsube (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

See also here: "The Bhagavad Gita is an interpolation". Mitsube (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I humbly disagree. If that is a 'literary work', it can be made clear to the reader. There is no point in suppressing a published opnion. I have tagged the section. Suppresion of properly cited opinions is against wikipedia rules. Let us seek the help of other editors to resolve this. Thanks.--Satyashodak (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You are misreading it. The Bhagavad Gita is an interpolation into the earlier Mahabharata, that's why the Gita is said to present a conversation there. There is no scholarly dispute on this. Mitsube (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I know what an interpolation means. It is merely an opinion of scholars of particular persuasion that it is an interpolation. You cannot state with such categorical affirmation that it is an 'interpolation' like the way you have done. At the best you can cite it as opnion when a competing claim is available from another tradition. This is an encyclopedia which means all favorable and unfavorable opinion from published sources need to be adduced to give widest possible coverage to a subject.

Secondly how can Bhagvad Gita in the Mahabharata 'present' a conversation unless the conversation exists there in some form in first place. I think some liberties are being taken with the meaning of the sentence to arrive at the prejudiced conclusion that suits one's own thesis. Let us resolve this by involving other editors. I think you and I have reached a stalemate on this. Please do not remove the NPOV tag before a third editor has looked at the dispute. Thanks --Satyashodak (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You said, "You cannot state with such categorical affirmation that it is an 'interpolation' like the way you have done. At the best you can cite it as opnion when a competing claim is available from another tradition." You have not provided a source contradicting the claim that it is an interpolation. Your entire argument thus far has been "millions of Hindus don't believe this so it is POV to include it." That is not a valid argument. Mitsube (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No that is not my argument. You are twisting it around. My argument was the the reference provided by the other editor cannot be construed to mean that Bhagvad Gita is post-Buddhist. I have added two more references as follows.

However, some commentators, notably Georg Feuerstein and Ken Wilber , consider it very conceivable that Bhagvad Gita is Pre-Buddhist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyashodak (talk • contribs) 00:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem quoting Worthington: [5] who has an interesting summary. This is the first I have heard of a scholar thinking that it is pre-Buddhist; note that she doesn't name anyone specific with this view. You have completely misconstrued the second source: [6] who is only saying that Krishna sang something to Arjuna on a battlefield in ancient times, but that the text we have now was written between 500 and 400 BC. In fact the last paragraph on the page notes the Buddhist influence. Mitsube (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Lets agree that is a controversial subject and scholars on both sides of the divide have something to say about it. Without suppressing either viewpoint, it is best to provide coverage to both competing commentaries and agree to disagree. I do not think I have misconstrued the second source. Ken Wilbur says that "original song was probably imparted by Krishna on the battlefield of kuru-ksethra two millennia before Buddha" which clearly means Bhagvad Gita as it literally means "Song of Divine". It cannot mean just "something". It is a clear reference to Bhagvad Gita. To say that entire Bhagvad Gita is interpolation, as you are trying to assert, is not supported by Ken Wiber's reference. Thanks.--Satyashodak (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The word Nibbana or Nirvana is also Pre-Buddhist

One editor has made the following assertion:

"The word nirvana (Pali: Nibbana) was first used in its technical sense in Buddhism"

Please explain if Buddhism was the first sect to use this word , how is this word found in the Jain texts and tradition which pre-dates Buddha by many centuries?

The fact remains that the idea of Nirvana existed in wider Indian religious context much before Budhha spoke about it. This needs to be made clear in the article to enhance its authenticity and neutrality--Satyashodak (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The material is directly quoted. If you disagree, you must find a source that disagrees, then include both opinions with attribution. Mitsube (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no 'conensus' as claimed on the dating of Bhagvad Gita

It was claimed that there is an "academic consensus" on the dating of the Bhagvad Gita. With so many well-known scholars diverging including Ken Wilbur et al. It is utterly preposterous to claim an 'academic consensus'. I have edited the artcile accordingly to reflect the lack of consensus in the scholarly community. Please discuss here on discussion page if somebody has an objection. Thanks.

The text of the edit is provided as follows for discussion and consensus building as per Wiki norms:

Eminent Indian scholars such as Tilak, Radhakrishnan and Bhandarkar et al believed without any reservations that Bhagvad Gita is pre-Buddhist.

Don't have access to the third source, but the first two are not directly describing the dating of the Gita; furthermore, in response to comments re: Ken Wilbur, my impression is that dating an ancient Sanskrit text falls outside of his area of research. We would need to know what source he's using in order to assess. Here's what the Gale Encyclopedia of India has to say about the Gita. It's recent (2006), it's authors and editors include lots of modern scholars of Indian history of politics, and the Gita article itself is written by Hartmut Scharfe, who is an expert in the field of ancient Indian literature. These encyclopedias attempt to synthesize current primary research in the field, so they're exactly the sort of source that should be using for Wikipedia, rather than trying to synthesize the primary research ourselves:

Part of the gigantic epic

Mahabharata, the Gıta was composed sometime around the third or second century B.C. Whether it was an early or later episode in that epic as it evolved in the oral tradition, it is now a central element of that entire work. Attempts by some scholars to show it as an interpolation are now generally regarded as oversimplifications, attributed to a lack of appreciation for the character of

oral literature.

However, my feeling is that this discussion of who predates what is going off on a tangent with respect to this article. Why is it necessary to catalog every text that did or didn't predate the Buddha? The article is about the relationship between the two traditions. That being the case, it seems better to stick to a few basic facts: certain teachings in Buddhism are believed to be reactions to early teachings in the Vedic/Hindu tradition (site which scholars and which teachings). Certain Hindu scriptures make references to the Buddha (site which ones). Certain Hindu teachings may have been constructed as a response to the teachings of the Buddha, though obviously in cases where the Buddha is not mentioned explicitly this belief will not be universal (again, cite which teachings, who believes so, and who dissents). For the purpose of this article what use, for instance, is multiple lists of which Upanishads might pre-date the Buddha? If they don't mention the Buddha, Buddhist teachings don't reply to their message, or they don't reply to Buddhist teachings, than they aren't relevant to this article, regardless of where they are in the chronology. --Clay Collier (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent points, could you please edit? Mitsube (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Clay, thanks for this insightful opinion. I agree with you that part has gone off tangents somewhat but excerpting of dissenting and consenting views had become necessary because theoretical speculaton and subjective opinons of scholars of particular persuasion was presented as consensus or as a necessary fact. This is highly objectionable and showed that the previous editor failed to satisfy NPOV guideline. Wiki guidelines do not permit synthesis or dissection/questioning or disparaging of source....so we can just quote Updhayaya, Zaehner,Radhakrishnan, Ken Wilber et al without questioning or dissecting them ad hominem. Ken Wilber is perhaps the most renowned contemporary scholar on Eastern religions and his neutrality and methodological approaches are generally considered unimpeachable. Secondly, he shows full knowledge of Upadhayaya's paper in his response to this convroversy, which shows that he had considered all divergent opinions on the subject before articulating his own. I think it would be arbitrary and not in keeping with wiki guidelines to place the authority of a relatively obscure scholar lik Hartmut Scharf over such a reputed scholar on Eastern religions like Ken Wilber, . It would only reflect subjectivity and bias on the part of the editors

If we were to go that route of questioning the sources ad hominem then Upadhaya is a product of partisan Sri Lankan pro-Buddhist scholarship (he got part of his education in Sri Lanka) and Zaehner was linked with Chrisitian evangelists. All of these persuasions are known to be anti-Hindu with a clear agenda to disparage Hindu sources. But we cannot dissect them like this within the wiki guidelines and same would apply to Ken Wilbur, Radhakrishnan, Bhandarkar et al. The latter two were quoted because Upadhaya wrote this paper in response to them. If the references to these authors is problematic ...so should be reference to Upadhayaya because he polemicizes purely in response to them in his paper alleging Bhagvad Gita as an interpolation.

Let us discuss these issue and try to reach a consensus amicably. I will get back to this issue as I get time. Meanwhile let us all refrain from any radical edits in this section without establishing a consensus on the discussion page first. Regards.--Satyashodak (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Wiki NPOV Policy

Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterise disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view. --Satyashodak (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The point that I am trying to make is that we want to be summarizing positions in general, rather than rehearsing the positions of particular scholars because it inevitably degenerates into who trusts who. In particular, we should be looking at summaries prepared by the academic community as statements of where most scholars stand on these issues, as we're not trying to produce a literature survey. I've re-edited the section in question to present what I think is a reasonable compromise; it retains most of the cited sources except where it was departing from the focus of the article, and cuts down the passage significantly. I think it's easier to present what I'm talking about rather than try and describe it, which is why I took the step of editing. --Clay Collier (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Your edit is acceptable and constructive. I have just restored Ken Wilber's citation in the footnote which should not been deleted as it was very significant, given he is precisely responding to the polemic after reviewing Upadhahaya's work which has also been cited in the forgoing text. thanks.--Satyashodak (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Vedic schools (Upnishads) as originators of the concept of reincarnaton which was adopted by other South Asian traditions (Source:The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology)

This article has a clear anti-Hindu bias. The way it has been edited till now has been by supressing anything favorable or objective about Hinduism and parading theoretical speculations/opinions favorable to other traditions, Buddhism in particular, with a semblance of necessary fact or consensus. I will get into those issues in detail later as I see clear violation of saveral Wiki guidelines. This has got to stop now.

The following edit is based on the very reputable source like Oxford Handbook of Eschatology and it is clear about the fact that the idea of reincarnation was "Fundamental contribution of Upanishads to Hindu - indeed, South Asian- eschatology". The only implication of this statement is that vedic schools/Upnishads developed the idea of reincarnation, independent of any external influence, and that other South Asian eschatologies, namely, Jainism, Buddhism, etc borrowd this concept from Upnishads. I don't see why anybody can have any objection to quoting of this claim , especially since it has been quoted in third person merely as an opinion from an extemely reputable source. The exact quote and the reference has also been provided for the discerning reader to make their own judgement. Let us us show some respect to the reader as well here and not try to spoon feed them. Please explain your objections before editing or modifying it. Thanks.

Some other scholars , however, see the evolution of idea of life after death into a more specific and concrete idea of reincarnation, i.e, rebirth in the same world, as internal to the unfoldment of thought and exegesis in the vedas over time, without any external influence. The Rig Veda mentions life after death in heavens. The ritual system of the vedas was central to Vedic life and thought and depended 'on the notion of constant sacrifice, the reintegration of multiple elements into a moment of unity before a new dispersal into being'. According to this view, by the eighth-seventh century BC , Vedic schools had fully refined the idea of transmigration or reincarnation, which was a contribution of Upanishads not only to Hinduism but to all other eschatologies developed in South Asia. An obvious corollary of this view is that it precludes the notion that vedic schools integrated the concept of reincarnation from any external source

Neutral point of view (Lets not forget these with regard to this article)

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterise disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular; detailed articles might also contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from taking sides.

No one denies that the Brahmans came to believe in reincarnation. That is all your source is saying. We are maintaining NPOV, and it is important to exclude your unsourced interpretations or misinterprations. You are inventing the opposing points of view. Mitsube (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The point is Upnishads had promulgated reincarnation before it occured to any South Asian spiritual tradition (according to Oxford reference). This is clearly indicated in the source without any need of interpretation and synthesis. Needless to say that I disgree with you and will be left with no option but to reverse all of your edits which are in violation wiki guidelines. --Satyashodak (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, this accumulation of sources and counter-sources has departed entirely from the point of the article, which is not to explain where the concept of reincarnation entered into Indian thought. Reincarnation certainly exists in the Upanishads, and might exist in some form (or at least be implied) in the Vedas. No controversy. Buddhism broadly accepts the idea of reincarnation presented in the Upanishads (a series of lives in various realms of existence) but modifies the metaphysical details to fit with Buddhist views on (an)atman. No controversy. Presenting competing theories of how the idea of reincarnation developed is outside the scope of this article. It tells the reader nothing about the relationship between Buddhism and Hinduism. --Clay Collier (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you to a great extent. The entire section is written in a destructive polemical style. Since I did not wish to remove Mitsube's edit I think the citation about the development of reincarnation within vedic shools and their contribution of it to all other South Asian eschatologies had become necessary to restore the balance and neutrality of the article ( Ref: "Fundamental contribution of Upanishads to Hindu - indeed, South Asian- eschatology"). I am ready to work with you re-edit this entire section. For starters remove the text that insinuates that vedic scriptures co-opted reincarntation from external or imaginary aboriginal sources. If you would retain that then it becomes necessary that Oxford reference which contradicts this view is also given same space and weight.

Also, I must caution other editors not to use this article for sectarian propaganda or to advance positions which are controversial as 'consensus'. I have a slew of reputable citations from reliable sources to counter each one with the actual facts and will be left with no option but to go through this entire article with a fine toothcomb and remove/edit/augment those edits which are patently biased , or insiniations, or half-truths or comprising undue weight, or other clear violation of wikipedia rules . Regards,--Satyashodak (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You are writing "an obvious corollary to this is" and that is your own original research. The Rig Veda says that there it no reincarnation. That is undeniable. Scholars say that reincarnation, samsara etc. came from non-Vedic proto-shramanas and then the ideas were adopted by Brahmins. Mitsube (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have included the sentence that you are relying on. Let us accept things as they are as a compromise acceptable to no one, and so probably a good one. Mitsube (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Meditation

"The sages of the Upanishads did not derive their insights from meditation." then where would have they received them from? i just hope the referred author knows what he is talking about. Twipley (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be slightly reworded. He is deducing this partially from the fact that the old Upanishads do not discuss meditation. Mitsube (talk) 05:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Dispute : Do not remove POV tag untill dispute is resolved

A dispute tag has been placed. Please do not remove the tag. Kindly do not try to hide the dispute. This article needs neutral editors. Unfortunately neither Clay Colier nor Mitsube have shown that they are neutral. Clay Colier is only a subtler and sophisticated version of Mitsube who has been criticized and challenged by a number of other editors for hostile propandisitc edits against Hindu/Vedantic sources. The rules are being subjectively and arbitrarily being used by them to push a highly opinionated agenda using strawmen and selective application of editing rules.--Satyashodak (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You have confused me. Mitsube (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to have the dispute tag there. I do, however, think that you should identify the specific material that you object to rather than making a large revert that removes sourced material. It's very difficult to address your concerns without you identifying what, exactly, the problem is with which content. I'm worried that in the meantime, good addition to the article will be removed because it is difficult to tell where they were added from. I have no confidence that the three of us will be able to resolve this, and declining confidence that the article can make progress overall. I've opened a request on the ANI board for some admin involvement in the particular issue concerning the reverts tonight and hopefully some insight on next steps in terms of helping the page improve. --Clay Collier (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the disputed tag. Until you describe in detail what language you are currently disputing, it isn't necessary. Disputes from months ago aren't relevant and a dispute over whether there should be a tag doesn't count either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Reversion

From WP:RV: "Revert vandalism and other abusive edits upon sight but revert a good faith edit only as a last resort. A reversion can eliminate "good stuff," discourage other editors, and spark an edit war. So if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible - reword rather than revert. Similarly, if only part of an edit is problematic then consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit - don't throw the baby out with the bathwater." (emphasis mine) This article has long been the scene of something approaching WP:BATTLEGROUND. The mis-use of reversion has been a major portion of this problem. Please avoid removing sourced material through reversion, or reverting a lot of work to the article because you disagree with a particular change. This article would benefit greatly from the addition of neutral sources comparing the two traditions and stating their positions clearly, and by the removal of unsourced material. --Clay Collier (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

We have time and again requested neutral moderation for this article. Unfortunately, it has fallen on deaf ears with the result that his article has been abused for hostile propaganda by Buddhist chauvinists against Hindu/Vedantic sources. A large amount of the edits you were referring to did not show any respect for NPOV. I have restored a lot of edits by humming bird which were well-intentioned and properly sourced. Others will be restored progressively.--Satyashodak (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide some examples? This talk page hasn't been touched since March by my review, and before that, December, yet the article seemed pretty active during that period with no issues. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Similarities / Differences of Persons - new subsection?

Would it be useful to add new subsections for "Persons" within the "Similarities" and "Differences" sections -- or at least within the "Differences" subsection? This question occurred to me recently when I noticed:

• Dhrtarastra exists in both Hinduism and Buddhism (see Dhritarashtra in Hinduism and Dhṛtarāṣṭra in Buddhism). Their names are spelled the same way, and they are both kings, so perhaps they were ultimately drawn from the same historical individual. But within the two traditions, their biographies and functions are totally different, so they could certainly constitute an item in a "Differences / Persons" section.
• Similarly, the Buddha's status is obviously a bit different (as discussed already on the page).
• Are there any other individuals who have the same name but are understood very differently? If so, perhaps such a subsection would be worthwhile.

Health Researcher (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Interesting issue, but perhaps difficult to set any limit on what could be included in such a section unless some clarity is there on historical divergence points. Consider for comparison if you were doing an article on "Judaism and Christianity" and needed to list every Old Testament figure in both camps. Or even more recently, an article on "Catholicism and Protestantism" would need to overlap quite a bit. Since the number of notable persons who may be eligible for coverage could be large, if this is done at all, would it be better to have a separate article for such a list? I am not sure about Wikipedia rules about lists. Buddhipriya (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

My concern was that there would be too little content, but I suppose too much content is also possible. I don't think we need to worry too hard about the "too much" issue unless people list more candidates for inclusion beyond my short list, which I myself can't expand based on my prior knowledge. But if there is enough content to make it worthwhile, then perhaps one recommendation would be to only include individuals who are already mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia with reference to both Hinduism and Buddhism - 2 separate mentions that would translate into 2 separate internal links. Otherwise, they're probably not important enough. Sound viable? Health Researcher (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not try to get more opinions on the merits of this from other editors? Personally I don't feel that adding such a list to this article directly would be beneficial, but others may have different views. I do agree that it is interesting to compare some figures in the two traditions. I also agree with your point that some criteria for inclusion would need to be defined, probably including being able to document some notable difference in the way a particular figure was thought of between the two religions. An example could include the deity Yama, who has separate pages for him in Buddhist and Hindu tradition (Yama_(Hinduism)). Those two pages have quite a bit of overlap which may point to a problem with keeping two versions of things unless the figures are really quite distinct. Buddhipriya (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, more opinions are needed. Maybe we can just sit back and wait. But the fact that no-one else has commented suggests to me that it may not be much of an issue - there may not be many shared personalities/names other than those we've already mentioned. Which would mean we could probably just drop it. But such an inference based on silence is not terribly solid, so if you know of an appropriate place to solicit further input, that might be useful. Health Researcher (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Consider doing a request for comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Buddhism. You could also ask for suggestions on what figures might be most interesting to contrast and compare. Buddhipriya (talk) 01:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Buddhipriya raises some good points. It would be more useful to start with a section on the devas in the two religions. That is more important (and in my view more interesting). And there would be more sources for that. I will not be able to devote time to that myself but I would encourage others to do so. Mitsube (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not think Dhrtarastra is worth mentioning as the two have nothing in common except the name. Though a section on common deities or deities which originated from the other religion is a good idea, examples I know of: Buddha, Ganesha (see Ganesha in world religions), Varahi and Vajravarahi, Chinnamasta, Indra and Brahma as attendants of Buddha, Kubera and Vaiśravaṇa (a name used in Hinduism too), Yama, Sarasvati and Benzaiten.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You might like to consult Christianity & Islam, as characters are often differently treated in the Bible & Koran. With much larger numbers involved they've very likely discussed the question before. Peter jackson (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Boxes

I think it is time to but the boxes in the order "Buddhism" then "Hinduism", as in the article name, so as not to imply that Buddhism is Hinduism, which the current situation does. Mitsube (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

...without objection. Mitsube (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the Core Difference?

I'm not sure this article gets to the heart of the matter, since I've read it and I still have no idea what the heart of the matter is. I'm far from an expert on these matters, so if I accidentally offend anyone, please put it down to my extreme ignorance. I understand historically there has often been great conflict between Hindus and Buddhists, a major reason Buddhism is so much smaller in India today than it has been in the past. In particular, Hindus have generally considered Buddhism to be sufficiently different from Hinduism to be essentially heretical, and it is at least held completely distinct from Hinduism itself. However, my understanding of Hinduism is that it is a general confederation of Indian religious traditions which embraces a vast variety of doctrines and rituals (even sects that have come into conflict with each other), and for example the particular gods who are worshipped have varied completely from place to place and time to time, and many 'orthodox' Hindu philosophers have taken positions as wide as atheism, monotheism, and full-on polytheism, to the extent that doctrine about the nature of the divinity, though important, cannot be the main criterion for discerning Hindus from other religions. This article seems to imply that this is indeed the biggest difference, and that other fundamental doctrines (dharma, karma, the illusion of existence, the cycle of rebirth) are essentially very similar in these two religions. Why, then, is Buddhism generally not considered another sect of Hinduism with its own specific rituals and paths? I'm not trying to make a point, but am genuinely asking what were really the top few core doctrinal differences which split them so much more than others, and if these could be made clearer in the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.115.52 (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

File:3rdDalaiLama.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:3rdDalaiLama.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Common Origin

Can shramanas & Vedic streams be considered as streams with different origin even though they existed in the same region of Ancient India? Isn't it possible that they have a common origin & then got split up into two streams due to different perceptions?

Is there any example in the history of Ancient Philosophy that counter the above argument? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushikesh.tilak (talk • contribs) 18:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Rushikesh.tilak (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

They are actually chronologically separate. Many tertiary and secondary references consider Shramana to have arisen earliest by 8th-7th century BCE. By that time, the Vedic and early Upanshadic era was almost over. So some corrections need to be made in the lead. I haven't really edited this article in a long time and am currently bogged down by other issues. Could you cite the sources and make the changes yourself? Regards. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 00:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Changes concerning the lead

That "buddhism or jainism never prescribed to vedic deities, sacrifices or caste."

Book, The Buddhist Religion: a historical introduction, p. 139 reads "Buddhists assume their caste identity not only in their dealings with Hindus but also among themselves. Only members of the vajracarya and sakya-bhiksu castes, for instance, are allowed to live in temple compounds." So it can be included under the source, but when you add such information to the lead, you may have to attribute this information, or else it is simply misleading. Today, caste identification also exists among jains, buddhists. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

POV

In pre-Buddhist Vedic culture, karma has to do with whether the actions performed in rituals are done correctly or not. Therefore, there is little emphasis on moral conduct in its conception. This statement is so broad and subject to question that it requires more than one reference to support it or at least that it be prefaced with something like "In the opinion of...".Mike Hayes (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Buddhist focus

The article seems to me to be overly focused on Buddhism. I do not feel that there is enough information on Hinduism in the article. It would be more simple to direct the reader to the Buddhism page instead of reading all of the information that is focused on Buddhism entirely. Afterall, this document is about Buddhism and Hinduism. PS, sorry if this note is in the wrong location, I am new to Wiki, and not sure where exactly to mention something like this. Orduin talk 00:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you got any good ideas that how we can provide balance? Bladesmulti (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Buddhism and Hinduism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061030015441/http://www.hinduismtoday.com/in-depth_issues/RKMission.html to http://www.hinduismtoday.com/in-depth_issues/RKMission.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070926235132/http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/3/24/en1 to http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/3/24/en1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding my edit on Hinduism and Buddhism page.

Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Buddha/message

Hi Joshua. Buddha was an atheist. He never preached about God. So your bias is incorrect. "Hinduism" did not have origins in 500 BCE . may be Buddhism but not Hinduism. Please Read Satyarth Prakash by Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati. at www.aryasamajjamnagar.org or vjsingh.info Eeshaputra (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

End of copied part

Hi Eeshaputra. I don't know what your statement "Buddha was an atheist. He never preached about God. So your bias is incorrect." refers to; anyway, it's not a valid reason to remove sources. The Ganges culture of around 500 BCE is not the only origin of Hinduism, but it is one of them; "Hinduism" as such, as an amalgam of various Indian traditions, is younger than 500 BCE. And Dayananda Saraswati is not WP:RS. Regarding your edits:

• diff, removed sources, added "Buddha was influenced by many ancient indian theories", edit summary "Read Satyarth Prakash and other important books. Satyarth Prakash was written by the great Sage Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati. All books written by him is highly necessary to write anything about the so called "Hinduism" ." Removal of WP:RS without good reason, let alone replacement of reliable sources by non-reliable sources is not accepted. "influenced by many ancient indian theories" is vague and non-informative, and unsourced.
• diff: removal of sourced info.
• diff: removal of WP:RS.

Please familiarize yourself with basic Wiki-policies, such as WP:RS and WP:NPOV. If your only aim is to promote a religious POV, then just quit Wiki right-away; otherwise you'll be blocked from editing very soon. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Buddhism and Hinduism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070321133243/http://img.search.com:80/0/0f/300px-Buddha_image_-_stone_-_with_disciple.jpg to http://img.search.com/0/0f/300px-Buddha_image_-_stone_-_with_disciple.jpg
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.buddhistinformation.com/buddhist_attitude_to_god.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130808043640/http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol4/kamma_in_context.html to http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol4/kamma_in_context.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402225915/http://www.atmajyoti.org/up_brihadaranyaka_upanishad_text.asp to http://www.atmajyoti.org/up_brihadaranyaka_upanishad_text.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120217121958/http://vedabase.net:80/sb/3/28/41/en to http://vedabase.net/sb/3/28/41/en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080615015447/http://www.byomakusuma.org:80/EnlightenmentBuddhismVis%C3%A0VisHinduism/tabid/72/Default.aspx to http://www.byomakusuma.org/EnlightenmentBuddhismVis%C3%A0VisHinduism/tabid/72/Default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)