Did Lord Buddha accept the authority or reject the vedas?

[tiltbillings]

I thought it is useful to come her to learn as I guess that there is no much to read about what is the motivation in once mind.

I think you read English as poorly as you write it, so try to take a bit more care with your reading. The question is one of history, not the "motivation in once [sic] mind."

[Hanzze]

_/\_

[Prasadachitta]

Worldly it is needed, spiritual not.

Please explain your meaning. Spiritual here is not well defined. I think of the word as tending towards an ideal while worldly tends towards the limited or relative.


Metta

Gabe

[Sobeh]

The Vedas, in the time of the Buddha, were being reformulated according to the Upanisads. These texts were giving a symbolic twist to Vedic ritual life such that the last quarter of ones life was spent as an eremite performing Vedic ritual in a purely meditative way, rather than physically. Two of these sorts of meditating wanderers would instruct the Buddha after he left the home life, and the Buddha rejected their teachings as not leading to the cessation of suffering - though he still learned meditation from them. When you read about wanderers of other sects in the Suttas you are reading about other Upanisadic eremites (later anchorites as well), Jains among them, and in all cases the Buddha teaches by the Middle Way, neither affirming nor denying the metaphysical assertions of his contemporaries.

[Prasadachitta]

My understanding is that he neither rejected them or accepted them. He saw clearly what was of benefit and what was not. This clear seeing comes from and is not different than seeing the true nature of reality. With this vision he was able to skillfully help those who had faith in the Vedas to reject those ideas which were harmful or at least not that helpful.


Metta

Gabe

There are harmfull ideas contained inside?

My understanding of the Vedic culture from the time of the Buddha is mostly informed by my reading of translated Buddhist scripture as well as commentary by more scholarly types a few of whom are on this very chat board. It is my understanding that the contemporary Vedic culture used animal sacrifice and other forms of ritual divination to attempt to influence favorable conditions within nature. Also this practice was strictly limited to a certain cast of people who made their living and derived power over others with this monopoly. The Buddha repeatedly showed through discourse how the cast of an individual indicated nothing about their character or capacity to help others. The Vedic culture held that certain casts were intrinsically more pure and righteous than others. This is still a very influential and harmful system within India to this very day. It is one reason that millions of lower cast Indians are converting to Buddhism. It is my opinion that there are more subtly harmful ideas but I think these are enough for now. There were many practices which came out of the culture which the Buddha praised as beneficial. He transformed contemporary expressions for the sake of common understanding so that they pointed toward the truth which he had discovered. This is one reason why Buddhism can sound a bit similar to other Indian traditions. However the Buddha was communicating something fundamentally unique to all his contemporaries. What he communicated usually contradicted the basic assumptions of those he spoke with.


Metta

Gabe


Take care


Gabe

[Hanzze]

_/\_

[mikenz66]

Hi Satori,

Since TiltBillings hasn't got back to you with references yet, I suggest reading:
What the Buddha Thought, by Richard Gombrich
http://www.wisdom-books.com/ProductDetail.asp?PID=19312" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This book is easy to read and contains some informed discussion of the Brahminical thought that the Buddha was interacting with.

Mike

[DNS]

A brahman was considered accomplished if he knew (i.e. was able to recite from memory and to explain) the three Vedas.

For the Buddha, a person was spiritually accomplished if he has realized the Three Knowledges (tevijja); arising and passing away of beings according to their kama, and the knowledge of the destruction of the defilements (Anguttara Nikaya I.165).

The Vedas are believed by Hindus to be an eternal (sanātana) revelation (śruti) of divine origin (apauruṣeya). Those who deny the authority of the Vedas are said to be 'impure' (nāstaka). The Buddha said that nothing is eternal, he considered revelation to be an unreliable means of knowledge and he rejected the idea of a supreme god as unconvincing. He also cast serious doubts on the claim that the authors of the Vedas had divine knowledge. Once a brahman asked him what he thought of the belief that the authors of the Vedas had direct experience of the divine. The Buddha replied, 'What do you think about this? Is there one brahman who says, “I know. I see. This alone is true, all else is false?”

No Gotama.

Did any of the teachers of the brahmans or even their teachers going back through seven generations ever say that?

No Gotama.

Then what of ancient brahman sages who composed the Vedic hymns, who chanted, uttered and compiled them and which the brahmans of today still chant and recite, just repeating what has been repeated and chanting what has been chanted? Did they ever say “We know. We see. This alone is true, all else is false?”

No Gotama. They did not.

Imagine a string of blind men each touching each other. The first one does not see, the middle one does not see and neither does the last. The claim of the brahmans is like this. The first one does not see, the middle one does not see and neither does the last. So it seems that the faith of the brahmans turns out to be groundless (M.II,169-70).

The Buddha also rejected the practice of animal sacrifices, the efficacy of rituals and the caste system, all of which are legitimized by the Vedas. Those who say that the Buddha was a Hindu or that Buddhism is a reformed version of Hinduism are seriously misinformed.

http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Vedas" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.buddhisma2z.com/content.php?id=441" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Hanzze]

_/\_

[Prasadachitta]

Did Lord Buddha accept the authority or reject the vedas? = Did Lord Buddha accept or reject the authority of the vedas?
thanks

It seems obvious to me that the Buddha implicitly denied the authority of the Vedas.

[Hanzze]

_/\_

[Paññāsikhara]

Did he?

He rejected their authority.

But he used the term "tevijja", which originally has the same meaning as "three Vedas (knowledges)" and one who knows them, to mean instead of a brahmin who has studied and memorized the three Vedas, but rather a bhikkhu who has realized the three knowledges of past life recollection, the arising and ceasing of living beings, and the destruction of outflows (mental impurities).

In Gombrich's terms, he "ethicized" the idea of "Veda" (Skt; Pali = vijja) to mean knowledge of mental purity, rather than memorized of a text.

[Paññāsikhara]

Reforming? No. What we call Hindhuism, as exemplified by such as the Bhagavad Gita, is pretty much a something that arose in response to Buddhism. The Buddha rejected the basis of the Brahmanism that existed at his time.

Well, Lord Buddha , seems to have taken ideas from Hinduism, in the pali canon , there is mentioning of Hindu deities, such as Yama. There is also mentioning in rebirth and karma , which I thoughted was Hindu ideas.

The very idea of "hindu" is a modern invention, a term coined by the British I believe, for everything East of the Sindhu River (which now splits Pakistan and India). Even the word "India" is from this name. So, to use it to refer to anything at the time of the buddha is an anachronism (ie. historical mistake).

Pre-Buddha, there were two main cultures: In the west, from the Sindhu to the Yamuna, it was Brahmanic culture, based on the Vedas (first three, and a fourth added later). In the East, from the Yamuna to the mouths of the Ganges, it was Magadha culture, which religiously speaking was Sramanic (not Brahmanic). At the time of the Buddha, up to a century or two afterwards, these two cultures merged, especially under Asoka's reign.

After the Vedas, just before the Buddha, we see the Upanisads as religious literature. A couple of these mention few basic ideas on rebirth and karma, whereas the Vedas do not. However, we are still not sure if these couple of Upanisads are before or after the Buddha. In Sramana religious thought, before the Buddha, there is the idea of karma and rebirth, eg. in Jainism, and Ajivikism. However, these are based purely on action, rather than the ethical content of action.

After the Buddha's and Jaina's time, these ideas influenced the western Brahmanic thought, especially interpretation of the Upanisads, the Mahabharata, and the Bhagavad-gita (which is part of the Mahabharata). So, actually, the influence goes the other way, from Buddhism into Brahmanism, and then later this gets called "Hinduism".

The Buddha said our actions affect our rebirth in the rounds of rebirth.

Yes. As above.

I also thought that both Buddhists and Hindus believe there are six realms of existance.

It was only after the Buddha and the Jaina that non-sramana teachings slowly took up these ideas. It starts kicking in during the Bhagavad-gita, which post-dates the Buddha.

[tiltbillings]

The following lengthy essay covers a lot of the history at the time of the Buddha in relation to the Brahminacal thought of the time:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZlyDot ... 22&f=false

[Sylvester]

The very idea of "hindu" is a modern invention, a term coined by the British I believe, for everything East of the Sindhu River (which now splits Pakistan and India). Even the word "India" is from this name. So, to use it to refer to anything at the time of the buddha is an anachronism (ie. historical mistake).

After the Vedas, just before the Buddha, we see the Upanisads as religious literature. A couple of these mention few basic ideas on rebirth and karma, whereas the Vedas do not. However, we are still not sure if these couple of Upanisads are before or after the Buddha. In Sramana religious thought, before the Buddha, there is the idea of karma and rebirth, eg. in Jainism, and Ajivikism. However, these are based purely on action, rather than the ethical content of action.

After the Buddha's and Jaina's time, these ideas influenced the western Brahmanic thought, especially interpretation of the Upanisads, the Mahabharata, and the Bhagavad-gita (which is part of the Mahabharata). So, actually, the influence goes the other way, from Buddhism into Brahmanism, and then later this gets called "Hinduism".

It was only after the Buddha and the Jaina that non-sramana teachings slowly took up these ideas. It starts kicking in during the Bhagavad-gita, which post-dates the Buddha.

Dear Bhante

Hope you'll throw in the Puranas as well, since so much of devotional "Hinduisms" today owe much of their provenance to this class of literature, rather than the more abstract stuff in the Upanishads.