Many individuals “know” that that the Buddha “was born a Hindu.” However this, just like the concepts that he was a prince and that he left dwelling after seeing “the 4 sights” can also be unfaithful.
The “Hindu Prince”
Writers usually bundle fable of the Buddha having been born a Hindu collectively along with his supposed princely standing. For instance, an internet site known as “Sensible Historical past” says:
The person who grew to become often known as the Buddha was a Hindu prince, named Siddhartha Gautama, who was born within the fifth or sixth century B.C.E. to a royal household—the leaders of the Shakya clan—dwelling in what’s now Nepal.
This is only one of many locations making this declare. The issue is, as I’ve mentioned in earlier mythbusting articles, that many writers simply repeat what different writers have mentioned. They don’t examine this info in opposition to the scriptures, that are our earliest and most dependable information to the Buddha’s historical past. And so myths can go unchallenged for hundreds of years.
This presentation of the Buddha as a former Hindu is only a horrible, horrible, no-good, very unhealthy account of historical past.
Brahmanism versus Hinduism
Practitioners of the non secular traditions round on the time of the Buddha didn’t essentially give names to their religions. There was nothing known as “Buddhism.” Followers of the Buddha simply mentioned they have been “followers of the Buddha” or or his Dharma. They didn’t say they have been “Buddhists.”
Brahmins don’t appear to have had a reputation for his or her custom both. Buddhist say they have been Brahmins who had “mastered the Vedas” (vedānaṁ pāragū). Or they describe them as “completed within the Vedas” (vedasampanno). Which may be how they described themselves, too.
These days we name this spiritual custom “Brahmanism.” Its not known as “Hinduism,” which is a a lot later time period.
It’s true that Brahmanism was one of many phenomena that, mixed with others, grew to become Hinduism. However it wasn’t Hinduism.
Wikipedia summarizes the present understanding of the connection of Brahmanism and Hinduism by saying: “Brahmanism was one of many main influences that formed up to date Hinduism, when it was synthesized with the non-Vedic Indo-Aryan spiritual heritage of the japanese Ganges plain (which additionally gave rise to Buddhism and Jainism), and with native spiritual traditions.” [Emphasis added]
One other Wikipedia article says, “Hinduism developed as a fusion or synthesis of practices and concepts from the traditional Vedic faith and parts and deities from different native Indian traditions.”
Brahmanism was an affect on Hinduism, which emerged later, nevertheless it was only one affect.
The baffled Hindu time-traveler
Let’s think about you have been to take a contemporary Hindu again to the time of the Buddha. They most likely wouldn’t settle for that they and the Brahmins again then have been doing the identical factor.
The fashionable Hindu would see Brahmins reciting the Vedas, and assume, “Cool!”
However then they’d see them sacrificing cattle and be shocked.
The fashionable Hindu would see no temples within the Buddha’s India. He’d hear Brahmins speak of an afterlife in heaven or with the ancestors, however no speak of reincarnation. However he’d hear Buddhists speaking about rebirth on a regular basis. He’d additionally hear Buddhists, however not Brahmins, speaking about samsara.
The fashionable Brahmin would see animist cultures worshipping native deities and imagine that this was “Hinduism,” however the Brahmins of the Buddha’s time wouldn’t acknowledge the animists as being a part of their very own spiritual custom and the animists would sure not regard themselves as being a part of Brahmanism.
As Bhikkhu Sujato says in a chat on whether or not the Buddha was a Hindu, “what we perceive of as Hinduism immediately didn’t even remotely exist within the time of the Buddha.”
Buddhism is older than Hinduism
One factor that may shock many individuals is that Buddhism is older than Hinduism. The Buddha established the Buddhadharma throughout his lifetime, some 2,500 years in the past. Hinduism is way youthful.
When one thing comes about by means of a gradual technique of amalgamation and innovation, it’s arduous to say when precisely it began. The formation of what we now name Hinduism came about from concerning the fifth to the eighth centuries, in response to Bhikkhu Sujato, in the identical speak I simply talked about. This, he says, was the delivery of Hinduism. Man Welbon, in “Hindu Beginnings” places the important synthesis relatively earlier. He wrote, “It is just at or simply earlier than the start of the Widespread Period that the important thing tendencies, the essential parts that will be encompassed in Hindu traditions, collectively got here collectively.” The disagreement arises just because it’s not doable to pin down exactly the road when a slowly evolving entity stops being one factor and begins being one other.
Bhikkhu Sujato factors out, “If India has at all times been a Hindu nation, how come for a whole bunch of years within the archaeological report — almost a millennium in reality — we discover nothing of Hinduism and loads of issues of Buddhism and Jainism?”
Observe that this isn’t some trick of language — that “Hinduism” is a brand new time period, whereas the faith itself dates again to the Buddha. No, the faith itself dates from a interval a number of centuries to a millennium after the Buddha. What got here earlier than was a set of completely different spiritual traditions that didn’t take into account themselves to be doing the identical factor.
Sakya was not Brahmanical
However even when we have been to stretch the definition of Hinduism — means past credibility — in order that it have been to embody the Brahmanical practices of the Buddha’s time, the Buddha’s folks didn’t even observe mainstream Brahmanical teachings.
I’ve searched the scriptures in search of a single encounter between the Buddha and a Brahmin in his homeland, Sakya, and located nothing. I’ve seen point out of “Brahmin villages” in surrounding territories (these have been lands gifted by kings to Brahmin settlers) however none in Sakya.
The truth is the single point out I’ve come throughout of a Brahmin being in Sakya was in a dialog the Buddha had with somebody known as Ambaṭṭha, who recounted to the Buddha how he had as soon as, on the instruction of his trainer, visited the capital, Kapilavatthu, and had been handled with an utter lack of respect. The Sakyans, he mentioned, giggled at him and wouldn’t even supply him a seat. The Sakyans handled him like an alien curiosity, not as a non secular trainer. Ambaṭṭha doesn’t speak about having met another Brahmins in Sakya.
Sakya was not Brahmin-friendly.
Sakya was against Brahmanical beliefs and practices
The Sakyans had a perception system that was at odds with that of the Brahmins. Brahmins have been obsessive about caste, or varṇa, which was a four-fold system of socioreligious purity, with themselves on the prime. The Buddha’s folks noticed themselves as warriors (khattiyas, which accurately means “homeowners”). They noticed themselves as superior to the Brahmins.
The Sakyans being khattiyas doesn’t imply that soldiering was essentially their career. Sakya didn’t have a standing military. Most males dwelling there would have been farmers, craft staff, or merchants, though most likely all males had some martial coaching.
The factor is: the truth that they noticed themselves as superior to the Brahmins completely conflicts with Brahmin perception. To the Brahmins, the fourfold social-religious hierarchy with themselves on the prime was ordained by the gods and spelled out of their scriptures. The Sakyans insisting they have been superior to the Brahmins was a rejection of the Brahmin world view, and of their spiritual scriptures.
The Sakyans had fully completely different beliefs of social courses. To the Brahmins, one’s caste was an intrinsic a part of one’s being, and you can no extra change your caste than you can change your species. One of many Buddha’s arguments in opposition to the Brahmin’s views on social and non secular hierarchy was that there have been locations — Sakya was certainly one of them — the place there have been solely two social courses: masters and servants, and it was doable for a grasp to grow to be a servant and vice versa. There was nothing intrinsic about one’s social value, and these class distinctions have been simply social conventions. To the Sakyans, caste, within the Brahmanical sense, didn’t actually exist. This can be a big deal. It’s an utter rejection of a key a part of Brahmanical teachings.
The Sakyans’ faith
One of many Buddha’s epithets was Ādiccabandhu, or “Kinsman of the Solar.” Some folks have prompt that the Sakyans have been subsequently sun-worshippers. However there’s no direct proof they have been, and actually there’s no point out within the Buddhist scriptures of any gods the Sakyans might need worshipped. Whoever or no matter they worshipped, they apparently did it with out the assistance of Brahmin clergymen.
They did appear to treat sure bushes as sacred, and used them as shrines. The oldest recognized shrine in Sakya was a sacred tree on the Buddha’s birthplace, Lumbini. Bushes as particular locations crop up on a regular basis within the Buddhist scriptures. The Buddha was born beneath a tree. He realized that he’d beforehand had a glimpse of the trail to enlightenment whereas he’d been sitting beneath a tree as a boy. He acquired enlightened beneath a tree. He taught beneath bushes, inspired folks to meditate on the foot of bushes, and died beneath a tree.
There are a lot of mentions of yakkhas (native spirits that inhabited bushes, mountains, and many others.) within the Pāli texts, which can imply that the Sakyans worshiped not the bushes themselves, however the spirits they believed resided in them. To my thoughts it’s extremely doubtless that the Sakyans have been animists.
I’ve seen no point out of animal sacrifice of formality fires in Sakya, or of formality bathing or different purification rituals, all of which have been essential elements of Brahmanical observe. Sakyans buried the cremated stays of their useless in burial mounds often known as stupas. This was not a Brahmanical observe.
So the Buddha’s tribe (presumably together with different tribes in what’s now southern Nepal) appear to have had their very own spiritual custom, solely separate from what the Brahmins have been doing.
The thriller of the identify “Gautama”
The only strongest argument that the Sakyans have been a part of orthodox Brahmanism is their gotra (clan) identify, which was Gautama, or Gotama. That is historically a Brahmin identify. The truth is it’s the identify of a Brahmin seer (rishi), from whom the Sakyans claimed descent. This descent wasn’t genetic, by the way (the rishi was not their ancestor), however cultural and symbolic.
How would non-Brahmins find yourself with a Brahmin identify?
Bhikkhu Sujato explains:
Because the brahmins unfold throughout India, certainly one of their chief duties was to ally with the native kings and supply legitimization for kingship by way of their rituals and traditions. There have been completely different Brahmanical lineages in response to the specifics of how the rituals have been carried out and the texts transmitted, and these are generally raced again to the traditional seers (rishi) who originated the lineage.
For the reason that Sakyans didn’t embrace something like Brahainical orthodoxy, we’d safely assume that this reference to the rishi Gautama was pretty superficial. It might be {that a} monarch who the Sakyans have been vassals of, pressured them to bear some sort of ritual blessing by a brahmin of the Gautama lineage. This might be just like the way in which during which some pagans, beneath the affect of Christianity, underwent “conversion” however carried on with their outdated methods regardless.
The Sakyans weren’t alone in being recognized with an historical seer. The neighboring Mallas have been known as Vāseṭṭhas, after one other historical rishi, the sage Vāseṭṭha (Skt. Vasiṣṭha). They, too, have been khattiyas (warriors), relatively than Brahmins.
So the Buddha was not a Hindu.
First, Hinduism didn’t exist.
Second, the Sakyan folks didn’t comply with and even agree with Brahmanical practices.
Myths as propaganda
To say that the Buddha had been a “Hindu prince” is horribly inaccurate. It additionally feeds into Hindus’ claims that theirs is “India’s oldest faith” — which is just propaganda.
Hindus declare that the Buddha was actually a Hindu, and even that he was an incarnation of Vishnu (seen within the illustration above) . The most typical motive given is that the Buddha/Vishnu got here to argue in opposition to animal sacrifice (which has a really historical historical past within the Vedas.)
Hindus usually speak about their faith being very tolerant. However that tolerance can take the type of saying “It doesn’t matter what you assume, we take into account you a part of our faith. And since you’re a part of our faith, we’re accountable for you.” For instance, for a very long time, Hindus have claimed possession over the Buddhist holy web site of Bodh Gaya. In spite of everything, Buddhism was “a part of Hinduism.” Not too long ago, Buddhist monks have been on starvation strike to protest the Indian legislation that offers management of a Buddhist web site to Hindus.
A court docket case pressured Hindus to provide Buddhists a minority say within the working of Bodh Gaya, however nonetheless gave Hindus final management over the location. Simply to be clear, it’s a hundred percent a Buddhist web site with no historic reference to Hinduism or its predecessor religions. And it’s managed by Hindus.
The parable of the Buddha having been born a Hindu feeds the parable of him having been a “Hindu reformer.” And this supplies gasoline for Hindus who wish to applicable Buddhist holy locations.
Hinduism and fascism
Hinduism’s tendency to “tolerantly” soak up and exert dominance over Buddhism and different spiritual traditions has developed into what’s known as the “Hindutva” motion, which is a mix of Hinduism with concepts borrowed from European fascism. Hindutva is a “political ideology encompassing the cultural justification of Hindu nationalism and the assumption in establishing Hindu hegemony inside India,” in response to Wikipedia.
Claims that the Buddha was born a Hindu are propaganda, feeding that unhealthy political development. Such claims aren’t simply inaccurate, however are politically dangerous in a means that’s damaging to Buddhism itself.
