Abhidhamma & the Commentaries indistinguishable from Hinduism?

[robertk]

This fact shows how "discounted" Abhidhamma & the Commentaries were, whose teachings are held by scholars to have caused Buddhism to become indistinguishable from Hinduism

I saw this on another thread. If the scholars who say this could be cited, it might be a base for a useful discussion.

[DooDoot]

If the scholars who say this could be cited, what they said it might be a base for a useful discussion.

Buddhism's distinctiveness also diminished with the rise of Hindu sects. Though Mahayana writers were quite critical of Hinduism, the devotional cults of Mahayana Buddhism and Hinduism likely seemed quite similar to laity, and the developing Tantrism of both religions were also similar. (Harvey 2013)

Religious convergence and absorption Wiki

Do you know why Buddhism disappeared from India? Different people say for this, that or the
other reason: for example, because foreign enemies came in and oppressed the religion. I don't
think that is the case. I think that Buddhism disappeared from India because the followers of
Buddhism began to interpret the principles of Buddhism incorrectly, explaining Paticcasamuppada,
the heart of Buddhism, as a form of having a self. This is, I believe, the de facto reason for
Buddhism's disappearing from India. Buddhism became simply an appendage of Hinduism

There is no person who spins around in the cycle of birth, death and rebirth. Buddhism has no being or person, but yet it
turns out that in the form of Paticcasamuppada which covers a span of three births, there is a being, a person who is caught up in the spin. This is, indeed, the dissolution of Buddhism

### There is no written evidence before the time of the Visuddhimagga of Paticcasamuppada being
explained in terms of three births with rebirth consciousness. Rebirth consciousness is the
beginning leading to a new becoming with results (vipaka). And then there are defilements
which lead to a future becoming. There is clear written evidence dating from 1,500 years ago

In summary, it is hard to say whether or not the basis of the dhamma was still pure before the
third council in B.E. 300. After that it became sullied through the acceptance of a self. An incorrect
Dhamma began from that time. As you can see, Buddhism disappeared from India. But why didn't
the Jain religion, the religion of the naked ascetics, more properly called the Saina, disappear
from India? Because it hasn't yet changed any of its principles from the original teachings.

Buddhism's basic principles changed from positing no self to positing self and it disappeared. It
automatically disappeared at that very time; as soon as the self concept entered Buddhism, it
disappeared from India. This is the phenomenon of Paticcasamuppada being incorrectly explained.
The written evidence begins with the Visuddhimagga. For now, I merely wanted to talk about
when Paticcasamuppada began to be explained in a way contrary to the Buddha's intent

Buddhadasa page 47

Note ###: It appears this paragraph appears not accurate because the above ideas appear found in primitive form in Abhidhamma

[robertk]

If the scholars who say this could be cited, what they said it might be a base for a useful discussion.

Buddhism's distinctiveness also diminished with the rise of Hindu sects. Though Mahayana writers were quite critical of Hinduism, the devotional cults of Mahayana Buddhism and Hinduism likely seemed quite similar to laity, and the developing Tantrism of both religions were also similar. (Harvey 2013)

Religious convergence and absorption Wiki

Do you know why Buddhism disappeared from India? Different people say for this, that or the
other reason: for example, because foreign enemies came in and oppressed the religion. I don't
think that is the case. I think that Buddhism disappeared from India because the followers of
Buddhism began to interpret the principles of Buddhism incorrectly, explaining Paticcasamuppada,
the heart of Buddhism, as a form of having a self. This is, I believe, the de facto reason for
Buddhism's disappearing from India. Buddhism became simply an appendage of Hinduism

There is no person who spins around in the cycle of birth, death and rebirth. Buddhism has no being or person, but yet it
turns out that in the form of Paticcasamuppada which covers a span of three births, there is a being, a person who is caught up in the spin. This is, indeed, the dissolution of Buddhism

There is no written evidence before the time of the Visuddhimagga of Paticcasamuppada being
explained in terms of three births with rebirth consciousness. Rebirth consciousness is the
beginning leading to a new becoming with results (vipaka). And then there are defilements
which lead to a future becoming. There is clear written evidence dating from 1,500 years ago

Buddhadasa page 47

Note: It appears the last paragraph appears not accurate because the above ideas appear found in primitive form in Abhidhamma

Thanks,

I will look over this and compose a reply when time permits.

[robertk]

Buddhadasa page 47

Note ###: It appears this paragraph appears not accurate because the above ideas appear found in primitive form in Abhidhamma

Actually I did a close study of this book by the Ven. Buddhadasa about 20 years back and wrote a couple of letters.

But as this thread might include diverse scholars I made a new thread to look only at Buddhadasa's interesting critique of Buddhaghosa:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=39913

[robertk]

Buddhism's distinctiveness also diminished with the rise of Hindu sects. Though Mahayana writers were quite critical of Hinduism, the devotional cults of Mahayana Buddhism and Hinduism likely seemed quite similar to laity, and the developing Tantrism of both religions were also similar. (Harvey 2013)

Religious convergence and absorption Wiki

thanks for the link. I think I agree with most of that about caste system and the various Mahayanic ideas. But it isn't about Theravada ?

One thing that I wonder about is the Buddha statues that we all bow down to . I think not a big problem but still it wasn't a custom in the early days, right?