Do You Agree That Buddhism Should Not Be Viewed As An Independent Religion But As Part Of Hinduism???

Question

Firstly, Buddha never actually intended to establish a new religion. Many people wrongly assume that Buddha rejected Hinduism and wanted to establish a new path because Hinduism was false. This is a completely inaccurate version of History. When Buddha was alive, Hindu people were very spiritually corrupted. For example, they would do good deeds and dharma but only so that they could have good rewards in subsequent lives. Lord Buddha wanted to correct this attitude. Lord Buddha was of the persuasion that the Hindus were forgetting that the purpose of life was “moksha” (nirvana) and it was not to earn “good karma”. He wanted to remind Hindus of this purpose of life. The only reason that Buddhism actually became a separate religion was because Buddhists (followers of Buddha) chose to establish their social, cultural and political identity independent of mainstream Hindus. That does not mean that Buddhism itself should be viewed as a separate religion. Afterall, Hinduism...

...has witnessed many prophets and other realised souls who have also, like Lord Buddha, endeavoured to correct flaws of human living. Buddha was supposed to be such a prophet within Hinduism. He was not a prophet who endeavoured to establish a new religion.

Secondly, when one examines the major teachings of Buddhism and it’s fundamental ideologies and religious edicts, they have all been directly borrowed from Hinduism. Virtually everything that Buddhism teaches was already taught in Hinduism. Such as the concept of karma, Dharma, the cycle of Reincarnation and re-birth, the relationship between the soul and divine, the concept of moksha (nirvana), the purpose of life, the concept of Maya (illusion), the theories of life, space and time, the cosmic universe being god etc. Please don’t take my words in a wrong way and I don’t mean to sound disrespectful, but Buddhism never actually gave anything that Hinduism hadn’t already given to the world.

Buddhism is an inseparable part of Hinduism, but what Buddhists do is that they take a part of Hinduism and they specialise in that, while leaving other parts of Hinduism (such as the worship of Gods And Goddesses). Just because they do this, it does not mean that Buddhism is an independent religion. At the end of the day, Hinduism and Buddhism are 90% identical. Hinduism and Buddhism have many many many more similarities with each other, than the Abrahamic religions have with each other. One must remember, that strictly speaking, there is no religion called “Hinduism” but the term “Hinduism” is an umbrella term which contains many different sub-religions and has contrasting beliefs and religious practices.

Thirdly, even the methods of worship are practically identical and they both propose the exact same methods of realising god. Yoga, meditation, trance, the recitation of Sanskrit mantras, chanting, fasting, living a simple and hard working life. etc.

Most Hindus love Lord Buddha just as much as they love Krishna and Ram. Furthermore many Hindus do not view Buddhism as a separate religion. The Indian constitution does classify Buddhists as Hindus, but this not because there are not many Buddhists in India (there are many) but because Hindus have never regarded Buddhism as a separate religion. One must bear in mind that although Buddhists are followers of Buddha, Lord Buddha was himself Hindu and he preached Hindu teachings. The logic that Buddhists are a distinct religious group would also imply that followers of Sai Baba are also a distinct religious group and that followers of ISKON are also a distinct group etc. Buddhists and Hindus should feel proud that they share the same religion.

Mr J.P, Contrary to popular perception, Buddhism DOES believe in God (Brahma). The idea that Buddhism is an atheist religion is one of the biggest misconceptions of Buddhism. Even the Dalai Lama laughs at the fact that so many ignorant (mainly westerners) people perceive Buddhism to be an atheist religion.

Those of you that have used the argument of Jesus being a Jewish, to refute the fact that Buddhism and Hinduism are the same religion, your argument does not fly. I will explain why: Although Jesus was a Jewish, nobody is going to say that Christianity is a part of Judaism because afterall, the teachings of Jesus were a sharp departure to that of conventional Judaism. Whereas in stark contrast, the teachings of Buddha were NOT a sharp departure those of conventional Hinduism. Quite the opposite, Buddha wanted to enforce Hindu philospohy more accurately.

Thank you Aradhna. Finally I have received a decent answer to this question.

Answer 1

Before I start words of some eminent people:

Gautama was born and brought up and lived and died a Hindu...There was not much in the metaphysics and principles of Gautama which cannot be found in one or other of the orthodox systems, and a great deal of his morality could be matched from earlier or later Hindu books." (Rhys Davids)

"Buddhism, in its origin at least is an offshoot of Hinduism."

(S.Rahdhakrishnan)

I am just putting some similarties here:

1. Both emphasize the illusory nature of the world and the role of karma in keeping men bound to this world and the cycle of births and deaths.

2. Both believe in the transmigration of souls and the cycle of births and deaths for each soul.

3. Both emphasize compassion and non violence towards all living beings.

4. Both believe in the existence of several hells and heavens or higher and lower worlds.

5. Both believe in the existence of gods or deities on different planes.

6. Both believe in certain spiritual practices like meditation, concentration, cultivation of certain bhavas or states of mind.

7. Both believe in detachment, renunciation of worldly life as a precondition to enter to spiritual life. Both consider desire as the chief cause of suffering.

8. The Advaita philosophy of Hinduism is closer to Buddhism in many respects.

9. Buddhism and Hinduism have their own versions of Tantra.

10. Both originated and evolved on the Indian soil. The founder of Buddhism was a Hindu who became the Buddha.


Finally, Buddhism is the greatest gift of India to mankind. Now who can say its different from hinduism.

Answer 2

Ok. But one problem... hinduism, even if you don't count buddhism, is not really one religion anyway. Your illustration of Hinduism and its concepts and rituals is simplistic, at best. That is our western perception of Hinduism, but that perception is inaccurate. That right there shoots down your argument. For the sake of argument, though, let's treat Hinduism like one, single belief system. Offshoot of the many hindu religions? Sure. Part of hinduism? Hardly. That is like saying Islam is part of Christianity just because they believe in the God of Abraham.

In any case, when you say "the only reason that Buddhism actually became a separate religion was because Buddhists (followers of Buddha) chose to establish their social, cultural and political identity independent of mainstream Hindus," you are basically giving a good reason why Buddhism should NOT be considered merely a part of Hinduism. Most religions sprung from something, but then they evolve into their own thing. Buddhism has clearly done this very thing. Yes, there are similar roots and some similar beliefs, but that is true of any two religions, or pretty much any belief system or concept. Similar is not the same. Buddhism is its own thing.

Answer 3

This is very difficult to answer, as Hinduism has never liked the Buddha much, as during his lifetime, they even thried to assasinate him several times.

The Buddha was brought up in a Hindu caste system, however his teachings is everything else but Hindu and was/is a threat to Hinduism. Not in an aggresive way, but because the teachings are opposite of the Hindu lifestyle, which is capitalistic, discriminating and not to forget theistic.

The buddha had many inspirations and some of this might have of from some parts of hinduism. He collected inspiration from many sources in his quest to save humanity from all suffering - He was unsuccesful though, but instead he found a realisation which was much more constructive - an individual system of psychological practice.

The Buddha didn't go after anybodys throats. His aim was to search for a solution to the suffering of the world. In this quest he was rather openminded about it. It is a coincidence, that he established a system that was a threat to the Hindu lifestyle and society.

The system Buddha was discovering was not based on ANYTHING at all!!! It is a system based on observations and experiences.

Answer 4

As we know the Buddhism was born to correct the Hindu religion of its wrong practices and purify it. It was later that the teachings of Buddha were taken as a religious discourse and preached so by the disciples of Buddha far and wide. It was also patronised by the Maurya dynasty thus it came to be known as a distinct religion. Even in Buddhism many conferences were held to sort out differences in understanding of teachings of Buddha but eventually it declined as the people lost interest with the emergence of the Brahmins in the Gupta period and went slowly into oblivion. So a debate at this point whether Buddhism is a separate religion or a part of Hindu religion is immaterial for the Hindu religion being liberal and broadminded tried to absorb all the new thoughts, ideas, sects and even other religions to be stronger and alive even today. In other words, the Hindus irrespective of their traditions, orthodoxies, practices, social evils are able to absorb the new and the best in other sects and religions and survive and thrive for which no proofs are required.

Answer 5

If you classify Buddhism as Hinduism today, imagine the confusion that will come about?

Although Buddhism might have some concepts like moksha and reincarnation in common, it does not make it a part of Hinduism.

Perhaps Buddhism is a branch of Hinduism, or perhaps Hinduism is a branch of Buddhism. This point might have offended some by now, but what I am saying is how can we ever know when we have not been there to witness it?

We cannot forcibly try to change other people’s views, like no one can forcibly change yours.

Similar to Christianity, Islam also has a concept of Heaven/Hell. Does that mean they are both Islamic or vice versa? I can assume, Muslims would not like to be called Christians, and Christians would not like to be called Muslims. If they can have their own identity despite having few identical beliefs, why can't Buddhists?

You are entitled to your views. You can view Buddhism as a part of Hinduism, but to make everyone do the same thing is not right.

Answer 6

Off hand, I would say that sounds a bit like categorizing Christianity as part of Judaism.

However, when you look closely at Buddhism and Hinduism it does sort of seem like Buddhism isn't so much a different religion as it is a new method of practicing the mystical portion of the Hindu religion.

Did the Buddhists originally separate themselves from Hinduism voluntarily? Or did the Hindu Brahmans sort of force them out? Unfortunately, I don't know much about the history of Buddhism in India. All I know is that it started in India, but didn't end up doing real well there.

Answer 7

I would redirect you to read the lectures of Swami Vivekananda on Buddhism. He says, "Buddhism was a rebel child of Hinduism," at one place and at another he says, "Buddhism came as a fulfillment of Hinduism," and at some other he says, "Without the heart of Buddhism Hinduism can't survive and without the intellect of Hinduism Buddhism can't survive" and so on.

Well, historically there were no Hindus as such but there were people who aleged their faith to Vedic revelations, Tantric books and Pauranics in this country. Then there were Buddhists, Jains, and of late the Sikhs. Therefore, When Buddha was preaching there were too many religions and he defeated theologians from almost all religions in North India. He is said to have defeated people in religous arguments as well as from miracle mongers and black magicians and won converts from a peasant to an emperor who belong to the secular world. In the course of time, Buddhism itself evolved in to a great and big religion, until the time more modern Shankaracharya, Ramanuja and others came to win converts for the then evolving modern Hinduism. Probably we can trace back our present day Hinduism to the time of Shankaracharya and not before. From that time onwards Hinduism is a different religion from Buddhism and Jainism.

Otherwise the present day Hinduism was many sects at the time of Buddha and Shankaracharya.

Answer 8

In your elaborate essay a vital clue is missing. As you have rightly said there is no religion by name “Hinduism”-the word is coined from the Sanskrit word Sindhu-The letter “Si’ in Arabic is pronounced as “Hi”. Many people write that the Religion practiced on the banks of the river “Sindu”(now in Pakistan) is Hinduism –is not correct –“Sindhu”=(means)the land surrounded by Ocean-Dweepam-implicitly the entire Earth-.and the word Hinduism spread from West Asia to Europe. However the syllable can be retained broadly to denote all Religious practices(can we call it as “components” (within parenthesis-)of “Hinduism” for convenience of argument) in Vogue in Indian Sub-continent before the entry of Christianity and Islam—Vaideeki (Vedic) Dharmam-Buddhism-Jainism-and the the post-Islamic- youngest religion Sikhism. Among the “Shat Dharsanas” (Six systems of Religious Philosophies-)—Nyaayam, Vaishesikam, Saankyam, Yogam, Meemaamsam, Vedhaantham –the first three are accepted by all the “components” without any reservation and Yogam(Padhanjali) about 90% accepted-and the last two are totally NOT accepted by any “components’ except the Vedic Dharmam—this is where Buddhism and Jainism differ from Vedic religion-ignorantly refered to as Hinduism.Some parts of Vedhaantham is acceptable to Sikhism-the Syllable “Brahmam’ comes many times in sri.Grand Sahib”. Except for Vedic Dharmam for all other components of Hinduism,the term Meemaamsam is totally ALLERGIC. The doctrine of “Vedic Karma” was given atmost importance by Meemaamsikas –propagated by sri.Kumarila Bhatta and sri.Mandan Mishra( the Mythili Pandits –Gangetic Pandaas and to some extent by Kashmiri Panditsand in general Gauda Desam=between Vindya Parvat and Himalayas and Dravida desam=below Vindyas).According Meemaamsikas “Karma”(they meant Vedic Karma only-please refer to sri.Ayodhya Pande’s works) is even Superior than G-O-D=Eeswara—and with Karma one can bind even GOD also-sri.Krishna partly accepts this in sri.Bhagavad Geetha and in sri.Sahadeva'sSamvaadham.This is what do you mean by “When Hinduism was spiritually corrupted- sri.Siddhartha(Gautham Buddha) started his teachings etc”. Taking the clue from Saankyaa Philosophy(Aradhana talks about Kapila Muni-his works are Extinct now-not available-only his students Eeswara Krishna’s and Vigjnaana Bikshu’s works are Extant now-Buddhists believe in Prakruthi(Psycho-Somatic Body) and Purusha(Jiva Aathman-Avyaktham) .They do not believe in Parama Aathman= Brahman=the Universal Soul or Spirit.It is in contrast to Vedic Philosophy or Vedhaantha. Out of 4 Purushaarthaas -Dharmam, Artham, Kaamam, Moksham- Buddhists do not accept Moksham(Mukthi)---“Nirvaana” is a different Concept from Moksham(Mukthi)-it will result in a very long(and Boring!!!) "Lecture" if we go into it.So I stop here

Answer 9

The same can be said of Christianity since it's not clear that Jesus intended to establish a new religion. The case for both is that a new religion was established by the followers without the consent of the master and each resembles their parent very little now.

Answer 10

Only if you also agree that Christianity is not really an independent religion, but merely a sect of Judaism.

Jesus didn't really intend to create a separate religion either, it just happened.

But today, their belief structures and central teachings are divergent enough, I definitely think you can call them separate religions.