Ishwa helper Reged: 03/03/02 Posts: 553

Re: Achievement [Re: willie] #17132 - 06/06/02 05:58 AM Edit Reply Quote

The diversity is not necessarily something caused by the population. It is more the case of separation of similar cultures by some kind of change or isolation due to geographical boundaries, immigration, etc. The demographical point might play a role in the case of substrata. Still I don't know what the three are, Willie. What do you mean by northern and southern Buddhism? Are you talking about Mahayana and Hinayana? Mahayana is very similar to Hinduism, especially in relation to the Tantra and Ishtadevta and Murtii. (Did you forget about the Mantrayana and the Vajrayana? What about the Yogachara, Madhyamika and Sautantrika schools?) Zen is nothing more than the translation of Chinese Chana from Prakrit Jhana=Sanskrit Dhyana. This Yogic system was introduced by Indian monks in China, Bodhidharma if I can recal. Bodhidharma was the last direct patriarch of southern Buddhism. It is a phenomenon to try to understand with "modern" data (mostly outdated 19th century axiomata and methodology), the past, without taking into consideration the proper time and situation and the most recent academical findings, like the changed attitude towards ancient India with disproving the Aryan invasion, with new looks at traditional historical and textual data, etc. Buddha was an Arya. Then the word Hindu wasn't used by Indians when speaking about themselves and their culture. What is so strange about a teacher in the specific Indian manner rising, not to establish a new movement, but to re-stating the older one. He was in no way different from the philosophies of his time. His was of course very charismatic and the prototype of the role Jesus played later in the NT. There were many teachers like Buddha who came on the scene to say something and get followers. Shankara did the same. Now no one would say that Shankarism is a different religion, which differs so much from non-Vedantic and even Dual Vedantic Hinduism. Would anybody say that Jainism is a different religion? That movement is even more ancient than Buddhism, and is very similar to Buddhism in many respects. Jainism was also followed in many parts of the Indian subcontinent. The central question is why Buddhism is classified as different, when and by whom? It was certainly not outside Hindu Dharma, then called Arya Dharma till the Middle Ages. It was always considered as part of and a movement within Hinduism. But no so with the European classificatory system. (Is something like being the religion with the most followers a criterion to divide? This would be for sure a demographic reason) I don't really understand what you mean with disssatisfaction. What's the relation with Buddhism as being classified as non-Hinduism. If you mean the caste system. That is a despicable system. Hinduism was always a living tradition with a very plastic and open approach. It lost something of this magic, and needs again this attitude in social matters. And I think it will, because no tradition has explored this faculty as Hindus have, so they'll find a way.