Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Alex23
My opinion is that Siddhārtha Gautama was actually a very self centered man who by manipulating other religions was able to create his own where he is the spear head. If you read things he actually said and look at religions of the time it becomes pretty obvious. The story of sitting under the tree to reach enlightenment is actually eerily close to the Jainist story of Mahavira who sat by a river to do the same, before the Buddha who was a contemporary.
In fact the Dhammapada itself takes exact verses from Hindu writings.
|
It is sad indeed that you have this opinion. I do not know what gives you this impression. If you study historical data regarding ANY and ALL Indian mystics you will notice that 99% of them gained what they believe to be enlightenment at the foot of a tree or in a cave. That's just how they did and still do it here in India even now in the modern age. No one is copying anyone it is standard practice for monks to leave the trappings of society for forests and caves to meditate in seclusion. I live in India and have studied both teachings and have numerous friends who have been brought up in both teachings. Let me try to help you understand a few things.
1)You see Mahavir was a contemporary of the Buddha and their teachings grew alongside each other. As they both passed on, their followers competed with each other and maligned each other. I have seen many instances of attempts to malign the other religion in the texts of each religion but if you truly understand the teachings of both men you would realize that this is something that they themselves would never do. It's a corruption their followers were responsible for.
2) At the time of the Buddha and Mahavir there was no such thing as "Hinduism". In those days we had what was called the Vedic religion expressed in two forms, one called Brahminism where the priestly class undertook rituals for the masses and themselves to attract the favor of the gods and the other was what is described as asceticism, which is the path of the lone monk who spends countless hours meditating in seclusion away from society living a simple celibate life, the opposite of the priestly class. Both the teachings grew and developed from this latter form of spiritual practice.
3) The Buddha and Mahavir both used terminology known at that time to explain their teaching so as to minimize confusion. Therefore you find "Hindu/Vedic" words in their vocabulary this does not mean they "stole" anything from Hinduism, it just means they used the same language and concepts to get their message heard and understood faster. Of course being in a place where the vedic religion was practiced meant that their philosophies were also influenced by vedic philosophy to an extent.
4) It is interesting to note that there are many similarities between the two teachings and many of the Jain Tirthankars of the past have the exact same names as Buddhas from the past. Both teachings share 4 out of 5 precepts which are the basic requirements to be considered a true follower in spirit. And both talk of the same historical cycle (where an enlightened person arises to teach the way, then passes away, the teaching inevitably gets corrupted, then a new enlightened teacher arises). Thus with regards to this even though there is no archaeological or historical evidence to support it both teachings claim to be older than their historical founders.
5) The only real difference was that the Buddha said that intention is also kamma and important for the cessation of kamma, while Mahavir laid more emphasis on action rather than intention. Let me give you an example. If a blind man walks over an ant and kills it as far as the Buddha is concerned he has not generated bad karma (kamma in pali) because he did not intend it, it happened by mistake, but as far as Mahavir is concerned the man has generated negative karma regardless of the fact that he did not intend it. Which is why fundamentalist Jains where a white mask to prevent small organisms from being accidentally inhaled and killed.
Also I disagree with your first post that the Buddha caused the decline of Jainism (it is still very strong especially in western India and as I said above any negativity between the two can be attributed to less developed competitive followers of both teachings. In fact it is doing better in India than Buddhism is).
Also Jains do not believe that all points of view are equally valid. I do not know where you read that. The Jains believe that the supreme goal is release from the cycle of birth and death (as do Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists) but they believe this is only possible when your negative karma has been paid off in full. Which is why the monks engage in hardcore ascetic practices which are often painful or lead to their death. Obviously all points of view are not valid, just the points of view that lead to their karma being extinguished even if it means suicide by fasting (santhara) which the Buddha was against.
Linear Mode
