Is Buddhism a Part of Hinduism?

 

Is Buddhism a Part of Hinduism?

Dr. Amritpal Kaur

 

(Translated from Hindi to English by SR Darapuri I.P.s. (Retd)

Buddhism is often portrayed as merely a branch or part of Hinduism—a claim that is utterly baseless. No religion employs such abusive language toward its own branches or constituents as the Hindu scriptures have directed toward Buddhism. The *Valmiki Ramayana* states:

"Just as a thief is deserving of punishment, so too is the Buddha (and his followers)—for he is opposed to the Vedas. The *Tathagata* and the atheist are to be categorized in this very same class. Therefore, for the welfare of his subjects, if an atheist can be subjected to punishment by the King, he must indeed be punished just like a thief; however, regarding an atheist who lies beyond one's control, a learned Brahmin must never engage with him—nor should he enter into any conversation with him." (Srimad Valmiki Ramayana, Gita Press, Gorakhpur, p. 303)

The *Ashokavadana* reveals that a Brahmin named Pushyamitra Shunga assassinated Brihadratha—the last emperor of the Mauryan dynasty—and seized power. Operating under an agenda of counter-revolution against Buddhism, he orchestrated the massacre of Buddhists, razed Buddhist monasteries to the ground, and upon reaching Sakala (Sialkot), issued a proclamation: "I shall reward one hundred *dinars* to anyone who brings me the severed head of a Buddhist." This is the reason why, in Chinese Buddhist literature, the name of Pushyamitra is never uttered without an accompanying curse. Rather than simply saying "Pushyamitra," they refer to him as "Pushyamitra—may he perish!"

In his book *In the Footsteps of the Buddha*, René Grousset notes that the Chinese traveler Xuanzang recorded how Mihirakula, the King of Kashmir, demolished Buddhist stupas, destroyed monasteries, and slaughtered hundreds of Buddhists. According to Waters' *Yuan Chwang's Travels* (Vol. 2), the Chinese traveler also recorded that King Shashanka had the Bodhi Tree cut down, replaced the statue of the Buddha with an idol of Maheshwara, and destroyed the Buddhist faith.

The *Shankara Digvijaya* contains a vivid account of King Sudhanva massacring Buddhists in accordance with the directives of the Hindu preceptor Kumarila Bhatta:

"Thereupon, issuing a decree for the extermination of the anti-Vedic Buddhists, the King declared: 'Throughout the entire territory stretching from the Himalayas to Rameswaram, whoever encounters a Buddhist—be it a child or an elder—must slay him. Whosoever fails to do so shall be slain by me.'" (1/92-93)

In his renowned treatise *Tantravartika*, Kumarila Bhatta characterized the Buddha's teachings—particularly those regarding *ahimsa* (non-violence)—as impure, futile, and worthy of rejection, likening them to milk spilled upon a dog's hide. Following him, the preceptor Shankara, in his commentary on the *Brahma Sutras*, described the Buddha as a "babbling enemy of the world" (3-2-32).

While expounding upon one of Panini's aphorisms (2-4-9) in his *Mahabhashya*—written in the 2nd century BCE—the grammarian Patanjali sought to provide an illustration of groups characterized by perpetual mutual antagonism; in doing so, he cited the Buddhists and the Brahmins, whose reciprocal hostility was likened to the relationship between a cat and a mouse, or a snake and a mongoose.

Emperor Ashoka had the words of the Buddha inscribed upon stone edicts—a practice that deeply offended the Brahmins. To cast Ashoka as a villain, these very Brahmins—along with their grammarians—went so far as to alter the rules of grammar itself. In his edicts, the emperor prefixed his name with the title *Devanam Priya* (Beloved of the Gods); however, by inserting a specific, novel rule into their grammatical framework, the Brahmins declared that *Devanam Priya* signified "a fool." (Katyayana, c. 150 BCE). In this context, these terms were interpreted to mean "fool."

In ancient Sanskrit plays, one frequently encounters scenes where Buddhist monks are beaten, mocked, and openly reviled. One such ancient and renowned Sanskrit drama is *Mṛcchakaṭikam* (The Little Clay Cart); in its seventh act, the protagonist, Charudatta, sets out to meet the heroine, Vasantasena, and along the way, he spots a Buddhist monk. He exclaims:

"Oh! Why have I encountered the inauspicious sight of a Buddhist monk right at the very outset?"

Furthermore, while cautioning the public against the *Buddhadhamma* (Buddhist doctrine), various Puranic texts also heaped condemnation upon the Buddha and his teachings. The *Brahma Purana* asserts that Vishnu, having assumed the incarnation of the Buddha, destroyed the religion of the Shakya people and foisted upon them a "counterfeit commodity"—that is, Buddhism. The *Bhavishya Purana* claims that the Buddha turned Brahmins, Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas—who were adherents of the *Devadharma* (the religion of the gods)—away from the Vedas, thereby spreading ignorance and darkness everywhere.

This superstition directed against the *Buddhadhamma* was deliberately propagated so that people would begin to shun even the mere sight of Buddhists. Under such circumstances, who would possibly wish to listen to their ideas? This served as a weapon of social ostracism, with superstition acting as the instrument. How could any religion unleash such a torrential barrage of invective and condemnation against a mere branch of its own faith? A religion would resort to such measures only when it faces a formidable challenge from a rival...!!!!

Is Narayan Guru Part of Sanatan Dharma?

 

            Is Narayan Guru Part of Sanatan Dharma? 

                Ram Puniyani 

 

Recently (31^st December 2024) while inaugurating the Conference as a part of Sivagiri pilgrimage, Pinarayi Vijayan supported the proposal of Swami Satchitanand’s to stop the practice of removing shirts, to keep the torso bare while entering temples. It is believed that this practice came into being to identify those wearing sacred thread, upper caste which alone were privileged to wear it. Some people doubt it, but it is unlikely that there was any other reason for keeping one’s torso uncovered. The one’s not having sacred thread was to be prohibited from entering the temple. Vijayan also said that there are efforts to propagate that Guru was part of Sanatan tradition. He was far away from it as Guru propagated, ‘one caste, one religion, one God’. This equality irrespective of caste and religion is far away from the core of Sanatan Dharma.

Vijayan also pointed out that Guru’s life and work is very relevant today as violence is being orchestrated by instigating religious sentiments. Guru was not merely a religious leader; he was a great humanist. His critics are also criticizing Vijayan that during his tenure as Chief Minister Hindus are being troubled. They give the example of Sabrimala where the ruling party decided to support the Supreme Court ruling of entry of even menstrual age women to the sacred temple. BJP spokespersons are up against Vijayan for insulting Sanatan Dharma in this instance also.

The debate around Sanatan seems to have come to the fore for the second time. First it came up when Dayanidhi Stalin spoke against Sanatan. BJP-RSS is stating that Santan can’t just be reduced to caste and Chaturvarnya. Incidentally in 2022, Kerala had submitted a float for republic day parade. It displayed Narayan Guru. The jury from the Defense ministry stated that the Kerala float should display Shankarachaya from Kaladi rather than Guru. This was a major reason for rejecting the float.

As such Sanantan stands for eternal and has been used for Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism. Hindu is a religion, which has no single prophet or no single holy book. Word Hindu does not find mention in its holy scriptures. It has two major streams, Brahmanism and Shramanism. Brahmanism is based on graded inequality and patriarchal values. Ambedkar renounced this Hinduism as he felt that Hinduism is dominated by Brahmanical values. The Shramanic traditions include Nath, Ajivikas, Tantra, Bhakti traditions which are away from the values of inequality.

Today in popular parlance Sanatan Dharma and Hindu dharma are interchangeable. Some of the ideologues claim that Hinduism is not a religion but a way of life based on Dharma. As per them Dharma is not the same as religion. As such Sanatan Dharma stands for primarily Varna system, caste inequality and sticking to these traditions. Dharma is best understood as religiously ordained duties. What is being opposed by social reformers is rejection of a religion which is based on inequality.

If we take the example of Ambedkar himself, he regarded Buddha, Kabir and Jotirao Phule as his Gurus. What matters to him is rejection of inequality of caste and gender. In medieval India the saints Kabir, Tukaram, Namdeo, Narsi Mehta and their likes harped on opposition to the caste system and some of them had to face attacks from upper caste rulers. As such Narayan Guru comes in as a great social reformer against the caste system and transcends religious divides. No wonder the present ruling Government, guided by Brahminical Hinduism, can't accept the float from Kerala which shows Narayan Guru.

Narayan Guru was a deeply humane person. During the course of his growing up he went into a deeper engagement with spiritualism and the practice of Yoga. During the course of his philosophical journey in 1888, he visited Aruvippuram where he went in meditation. It is during his stay there, that he took a rock from the river, consecrated it and called it as an idol of Shiva. This place since then has been known as Aruvippuram Shiva Temple. This act later came to be known as Aruvipuram Pratishta. It created a lot of social commotion and opposition especially from amongst the upper caste Brahmins.

They did not accept Guru's right to consecrate the idol. He replied to them "This is not a Brahmin Shiva but an Ezhava Shiva". This quote of his later became very famous and has been used against casteism. To fight against casteism he committed his life. His steps were a big practical means in challenging the deepset caste system. The revolutionary understanding of Guru was ‘one caste, one religion, one God.’

He goes much beyond the caste and religious divides to proclaim, single humanity. Later on he went on to open the school, which was open even to low castes, quite on the line of what Joti rao Phule did in Maharashtra. Like the principles of Ambedkar’s Kalaram Temple movement he went on to build temples which were open to all the castes.

The recent suggestion of Swami Satchitanand supported by Pinarayi Vijyan also argues that a bare torso may be medically bad as it may transmit diseases. There are many practices which need to change with time. One recalls that women did not have the right to cover their breasts. There was a breast tax if women covered the top. It was Tipu Sultan, when he annexed Kerala, when he abolished breast tax and women gained their dignity as they were permitted to cover their breasts.

Temples are a part of our community life. Such changes in dress code have to accompany the changes in social patterns. The opposition to this is like putting the clock back. The politics in the name of religion at most of the places is against the social changes and change in political values. Kerala also shows many contrasts in diverse fields. It was here that on one hand the Acharya from Kaladi Shankar countered the Buddhists in debate. The Buddhists argued on materialist ground to focus on the issues of this world, while roughly speaking Shankar tried to argue the World is an illusion supporting the idealist philosophy.

At present times in India, Kerala included, we need to follow the path of Saints like Narayan Guru and Kabir, whose humane values gave a direction of amity to the society. The conservative ‘status quo’ in most matters retards social progress.

Nehru and Buddhism

Nehru and Buddhism 

"Just one month before his death I was privileged to meet him. I found him in a very pensive mood soon after a 'stroke'. I posed to him a question -Are you a Buddhist?" He smiled at me and in a tone of great calm told me that in his 'autobiography' as well as in the "Discovery of India" he has made references to Buddha. He told me that as an Indian he respected two historical personalities and used them for ' his own guidance.' They were Buddha and Emperor Ashoka. He said, " in the world these two great figures dwarfed many other leaders in the international scene. Then he revived my own memory to bear witness to his choice in commending the 'Dharmachakra' to replace the spinning wheel in the Republic of India's flag. He remarked that he chose the 'Sarnath lions' as the official emblem of the Republic of India. With deep reverence and fervour, he told me that he left no stone unturned to make the 2500th Buddha Jayanti celebrations a great success. He took the initiative to make it possible for the Buddhist pilgrims to visit the Holy places connected with the legend of the Buddha. Then he suddenly turned towards me with a smile and posed a question. "Well, what do you think I am? Have I the right to say that I am a Buddhist?" This last meeting ended up with a promise by him that he would instruct the Museum at Sarnath to make the two exact replica of the Sarnath Buddha image and send them as gifts from him to Sri Lankar'rnaya in Singapore and also to Brickfields Temple in Kaula Lumpur. These gifts did arrive after he had died." Extracted from the 'Random Thoughts and Reminiscences' of Venerable Ananda Mangala Thera of Singapore.

Courtesy-'The Young Buddhist  Singapore

(Samta Sainik Sandesh- September, 1984 by Bhagwan Das)