ChatGPT on Buddhists versus the Vedas

What were some of the Buddhists' strongest arguments against the authority of the Vedas?

Buddhists, particularly the early Buddhists, challenged the authority of the Vedas on various grounds. Here are some of their strongest arguments:

1. Empiricism: Buddhists believed in the primacy of empirical knowledge gained through personal experience rather than relying on scriptural authority. They argued that the truth can be discovered through direct observation and personal experience rather than through the authority of the Vedas.
2. Rejection of Brahminical rituals: Early Buddhists rejected the Brahminical rituals and practices, which were heavily based on the Vedas. They believed that these rituals did not lead to liberation from suffering and were merely a means for the Brahmins to maintain their social status.
3. Universalism: Buddhists believed in the universality of their teachings and rejected the idea that the Vedas were meant only for a specific group of people, namely the Brahmins. They argued that their teachings were accessible to anyone regardless of their caste, class or gender.
4. Criticism of Brahminical worldview: Early Buddhists criticized the Brahminical worldview, which upheld the caste system and social hierarchy based on birth. They believed in the equality of all beings and rejected the notion of superiority based on birth or social status.
5. Non-theistic philosophy: Buddhism does not rely on the existence of a supreme being or a divine power to explain the nature of reality. Therefore, Buddhists rejected the Vedic notion of the existence of a supreme being as the ultimate authority.

In summary, Buddhists rejected the authority of the Vedas on the grounds of empiricism, rejection of Brahminical rituals, universalism, criticism of Brahminical worldview, and non-theistic philosophy.

How was authority in the Vedas reestablished?

The authority of the Vedas was reestablished through a number of factors over time. Here are some key developments:

1. Emergence of Hinduism: Over time, the various Vedic schools of thought were consolidated and integrated into what is known today as Hinduism. Hinduism emerged as a dominant religion in India, and the Vedas were regarded as the most sacred and authoritative scriptures.
2. Commentaries and interpretations: Commentaries and interpretations of the Vedas were produced by various scholars over time. These commentaries helped to establish the authority of the Vedas and to clarify their meanings for subsequent generations.
3. Philosophical systems: The Vedas were also incorporated into various philosophical systems, such as Vedanta, which sought to explain the nature of reality and the ultimate goal of human life. These philosophical systems helped to establish the Vedas as a foundational text for Indian philosophy and religion.
4. Rituals and practices: The Vedas were also used as the basis for various religious rituals and practices, such as yajnas, which were performed by Brahmins. These rituals and practices helped to reinforce the authority of the Vedas and to maintain their relevance in society.
5. Colonialism: During the colonial period, the Vedas were used as a symbol of India's cultural heritage and were promoted as a means of establishing a sense of national identity. This helped to further establish the authority of the Vedas in modern India.

In summary, the authority of the Vedas was reestablished through the emergence of Hinduism, commentaries and interpretations, philosophical systems, rituals and practices, and the use of the Vedas as a symbol of India's cultural heritage.

What were the most important philosophical arguments put forward by followers of the Vedas against the above-mentioned Buddhist arguments?

Followers of the Vedas put forward a number of philosophical arguments against the Buddhist criticisms of the authority of the Vedas. Here are some of the most important ones:

1. The concept of Shruti: The Vedas are believed to be divine revelations that were heard by ancient sages or rishis during states of deep meditation. This means that the Vedas are considered to be timeless and eternal, and their authority is based on their divine origin rather than on any empirical evidence or personal experience.
2. The concept of dharma: The Vedas provide a comprehensive system of dharma, which encompasses all aspects of human life, including social, moral, and spiritual duties. The concept of dharma is based on the idea of cosmic order or rta, which is maintained through the performance of various rituals and practices prescribed in the Vedas.
3. The concept of karma: The Vedas explain the law of karma, which states that all actions have consequences that determine the course of a person's life. This concept provides a moral framework for human behavior and reinforces the importance of following the prescribed rituals and practices in the Vedas.
4. The concept of Brahman: The Vedas describe Brahman as the ultimate reality, which is beyond the realm of empirical knowledge or personal experience. This concept provides a philosophical basis for the authority of the Vedas, as they are considered to be the means for realizing Brahman and attaining liberation from the cycle of birth and death.
5. Criticism of Buddhist metaphysics: Vedantic philosophers criticized Buddhist metaphysics, which denied the existence of a permanent self or soul. They argued that this view was inconsistent with the experience of self-awareness and that it led to nihilism and despair.

In summary, the philosophical arguments put forward by followers of the Vedas against the Buddhist criticisms of their authority include the concepts of Shruti, dharma, karma, Brahman, and criticism of Buddhist metaphysics. These arguments helped to establish the Vedas as a foundational text for Hindu philosophy and religion.

Consider this statement: "The Vedas are perfect." What were the specific Buddhist arguments against proposition? And what were the responses to the Buddhists in defending this proposition?

The statement "The Vedas are perfect" implies that the Vedas are without any flaws or errors and represent the ultimate truth. While many followers of the Vedas would agree with this proposition, Buddhists have offered specific arguments against it. Here are some of the Buddhist arguments against this proposition and the responses from the Vedantic philosophers defending it:

1. Impermanence: Buddhists believe in the impermanence of all phenomena, including the Vedas. They argue that the Vedas were composed by human authors at a specific time and place and are therefore subject to human limitations and errors.

Response: Vedantic philosophers agree that the Vedas were composed by human authors but argue that they are not the product of human intellect or imagination. They argue that the Vedas were divinely revealed and are therefore free from human errors or limitations.

2. Subjectivity: Buddhists argue that the Vedas are subjective and reflect the biases and cultural norms of the society in which they were composed. They argue that the Vedas are not universally applicable and that their authority is therefore limited.

Response: Vedantic philosophers argue that the Vedas represent the ultimate reality, which is beyond the limitations of any particular time, place, or culture. They argue that the Vedas are universally applicable and provide a comprehensive system of dharma that is relevant for all people, regardless of their cultural background or social status.

3. Lack of empirical evidence: Buddhists argue that the Vedas make claims that are not supported by empirical evidence and are therefore not credible. They argue that the authority of the Vedas should be based on reason and evidence rather than blind faith.

Response: Vedantic philosophers argue that the Vedas represent a higher form of knowledge that transcends empirical evidence and reason. They argue that the Vedas provide a means of direct perception of reality and that their authority should be accepted on the basis of this direct experience rather than on the basis of empirical evidence or reason.

In summary, Buddhists have offered arguments against the proposition that "The Vedas are perfect" on the basis of impermanence, subjectivity, and lack of empirical evidence. The responses from Vedantic philosophers have emphasized the divine origin of the Vedas, their universality, and their direct perception of reality as the basis for their authority.

Where can I go to get more information about this?

There are many resources available to learn more about the philosophical debates between Buddhists and followers of the Vedas. Here are a few suggestions:

1. Read primary texts: One of the best ways to gain a deeper understanding of these debates is to read the primary texts themselves. The Buddhist texts include the Tripitaka, which is the collection of the Buddha's teachings, and the Abhidharma, which provides a philosophical analysis of Buddhist doctrine. The Vedas include the Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda, and Atharvaveda, as well as the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, and other Hindu scriptures.
2. Consult secondary sources: There are many books and articles written by scholars and experts that provide analysis and commentary on the philosophical debates between Buddhists and followers of the Vedas. Some recommended books include "The Essentials of Buddhist Philosophy" by Junjiro Takakusu and "The Upanishads" translated by Eknath Easwaran.
3. Attend lectures or seminars: Many universities and cultural organizations offer lectures and seminars on these topics. Attending these events can provide an opportunity to learn from experts and engage in discussions with other interested individuals.
4. Explore online resources: There are many online resources available that provide information and analysis on these topics. Some recommended websites include the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies.

By exploring these resources, you can gain a deeper understanding of the philosophical debates between Buddhists and followers of the Vedas and develop your own perspective on these complex and nuanced topics.

Neo-Ahteistic Attacks on ISKCON

by Damodara Das (BVKS)

-----------------------------------------------

I thought it is wise to publish this small excerpt from a larger work that refuted the "Women Diksa Guru" book of H G Kaunteya Prabhu. The arguments herein are relevant to the current misconception that he is trying to propagate through his various writings. He feels that the endeavors of sincere followers of Srila Prabhupada who are trying to propagate his varnasrama mission are actually bringing smarta considerations and are thus smartas in the garb of Srila Prabhupada's followers. He thus sees it as an attack of smartas on ISKCON. He has thus started a mission against them to undo that effect. 

I am posting this excerpt only with an intention to convey the proper understanding and thus try to be an instrument of the parampara in try saving those sincere and dedicated devotee souls who may become influenced by the Neo-Atheistic attacks of Kaunteya Prabhu and like. Others may take it or leave it. 

I know that there will hardly be any effect either in favor or against him by this small writing because factually speaking the fight is not of ascertaining what is the right philosophy or what is the right thing. It has taken more a shape of a political game and thus the discussion only reaches at the most up to the level of vitanda (sophistry). Therefore, I am not enthusiastic to enter into a thorough discussion unless it is an official one and has some concrete results attached to it. Today is the age of internet in which anyone can speak anything and propagate and thus mostly it is a number game to decide who is able to influence the most people. Writing something doesn't take much time but to defend it requires a constant endeavor and time which is worthless if there is no concrete result attached to it. 

Therefore, I am open to discuss everything with H G Kaunteya Prabhu, threadbare, if that is arranged on an official and an open-to-public platform. Otherwise, Hare Krishna.

Contents of this excerpt are applicable even today to Kaunteya Prabhu and the like, in fact, it has only become more so. After reading this section, you can just pick up his other books that came out after this (i.e. after sep 2020). You will find more and more examples of this mentality or neo-atheistic outlook. 

In short, H G Kaunteya Prabhu is very upset if some sincere followers of Srila Prabhupada try consult Sri Vaisnavas for certain issues and thus he calls them Neo-smartas. Of course in utmost disgust, anger,  and envy he calls even Sri Vaisnavas smartas although Prabhupada never called them that way. However, what would you call him (and the likes) who try to judge the statements of Srila Prabhupada's books by consulting the rascal scholars of mundane universities? That is why I have kept the title of this article as "Neo-Aheistic Attacks ISKCON." Many of these scholars are beef eaters, wine drinkers, etc. and many belong to the universities that are well known for "debunking" Vedic culture as mundane, sastras as mere some mythical books, and so on.

When Srila Prabhupada says women are less intelligent, these greatly intelligent devotees like H G Kaunteya Prabhu show evidence from modern scientists and statisticians to show that Srila Prabhupada's statement cannot be true. Now, because they cannot outrightly say that Prabhupada was wrong so they try to interpret his statement in which they look so foolish. 

For instance, Srila Prabhuapada, to establish that women are less intelligent, gives as an example that "Up to date in the history there is not a single woman  who  is  a  great  scientist  or  great  philosopher."  Answering to this, Kaunteya Prabhu says in his recent book on Racism and Sexism in SP's books—

In  the  conversation  we  quoted above,  Srila  Prabhupada  said,  "Where  is  woman philosopher,  mathematician,  scientist?  Not  a  single." (Morning Walk, Bombay, 9 Jan 1977) This is demonstrably incorrect. 

And a little later he interprets Srila Prabhupada by saying, 

So, Srila Prabhupada did acknowledge that there have  been  women  scientists  and  philosophers;  but  they weren't  "great"  -  whatever  that  means.  (p.415)

So he gives much more credence to modern scientific data statistics than to Srila Prabhupada. One should beware from getting influenced by this subtle poisonous tendency. 

An Excerpt from a short refutation to Women Diksa Guru book of H G Kaunteya Prabhu

Ø  p.237-9 —Wearing sacred thread by women was a part of Vedic Culture

The  authors, showing this icon of Pāravatī sculpted during Chola Kingdom, say,

“the sculpture was made by humans living in South India more than a thousand years ago; it shows that their culture was familiar – and apparently comfortable – with the idea of females wearing the sacred thread.”

-          This icon is also almost naked (bare chested). Does that mean that women in Chola Kingdom were living naked and that the culture was “apparently comfortable” with the idea of females’ being naked. We may get the idea of authors’ level of intelligence from this.

-          Mānasāra, the renowned text on śilpa-śāstra, does mention sacred thread for male deities (50.10) but doesn’t do so for any of the female deities.[1]

-          There is old commentary by a śilpa-śāstrī V. Venkatasubrahmaniya Sastri, who published a book in Tamil with Mānasāra verses presented in Grantha-lipi. It says that it is probable what appears to be a sacred thread on those iconographs are actually other ornaments such as Vaikakṣika that is adorned in a sacred thread fashion. However, this point is still under research and those who want more information and the book scans can contact us.

-          Besides this, even if we accept that the icon wears sacred thread, it is worth considering that the deity is that of Pāravatī, a goddess, not a human of mortal world. It is foolish to conclude what applies to gods applies to humans also

-          How the people of that time took it? Simple. People understood the fact that “Pāravatī can wear it, we can’t. what is applicable to gods is not to be imitated by humans.”

 

Ø  Ahteism in the authors’ works exposed

·         Just have a short look-back. In the first part, the author said that the sacred thread was not a fixed part of brahmana’s attire and in the latter part they say that even the women wore sacred thread showing Pāravatī idol wearing sacred thread.

·         Now what’s going on here? If the sacred thread is not an age old tradition then it shows that the authors think Pāravatī is not from age-old times but is of recent origin.

·         However, śāstras say that Pāravatī is jagad-dhātrī, the creator and maintainer of universe

·         This brings us to the platform of atheism which declares that Pāravatī etc. icons as mere imaginations that different cultures depict in their own ways as per the culture they are living in.

·         This is contamination resulting from secular atheistic scholarly pursuit

·         They opine that because in the Chola Kingdom women wore sacred threads, they depict Pāravatī wearing sacred thread. Sculptors from other cultures depict her in a different way. Thus we can get an idea of a culture by looking at the icons that are sculpted by the people of that culture.

·         Some of them use such iconography to prove that women did not cover breasts in Vedic culture.

·         However, our devotee friends (the  authors), tyring to support FDGs, borrowed arguments from the canons of such atheistic scholars and thus ended up with atheism.

·         Readers may be reminded of a similar approach by the propounder of Krishna West, who says that Srila Prabhupada depicted Lord Krishna according to Indian culture he was brought up in. He opines that Krishna did not wear dhoti and that dhoti is not necessarily a Vedic dress.[2]

·         Besides this, almost all secular atheistic scholars repeatedly use one trick to establish liberalism: quoting one or two exceptional examples from whole Vedic canon to establish them as norm. For instance they give examples of Gārgī and Maitreyī to establish that all women in Vedic culture got upanayana, underwent brahmacarya, and studied the Vedas. What we know now from our acharyas like Śankarācārya, Rāmānujācārya, and our known tradition was actually instituted by evil minded, male dominated, brahmanas, who created many dharma-sastras like Manu-samhita. (see p.240 for such a conclusion reached by the  authors).

·         However, the vedic method (SB 10.33.31) says,

“The statements of the Lord’s empowered servants are always true, and the acts they perform are exemplary when consistent with those statements. Therefore one who is intelligent should carry out their instructions.”[3]

·         Thus, proper method to know anything about the Vedic Culture is to approach those who have lived it and believe in its eternity, who have unflinching faith in guru-sādhu-śāstra.

For those who want to see the full version of the book against FDG refuting the works of Kaunteya Prabhu and the like on FDG, you can order the below book. 

Contact, Sridhar Srinivasa Das: +91 7373089272

---

[1] Chapter 50 belongs to male deities, Chapter 54 to female deities

[2] <insert link some Krishna West material or lecture for these points>

[3] īśvarāṇāṁ vacaḥ satyaṁ  tathaivācaritaṁ kvacit | teṣāṁ yat sva-vaco-yuktaṁ  buddhimāṁs tat samācaret ||

Bhaktivinoda Thakura's Siddha Pranali chart in English

Posted by – Śrīdhara Śrīnivāsa dāsa

             The dīkṣā succession is described a siddha-praṇālī process of disciplic succession. 

Schism in the Śrī Vaiṣṇava Sampradāya

By Śrīdhara Śrīnivāsa dāsā

How the Śrī Vaiṣṇava Sampradāya separated into the Vaḍagalai and Teṅkalai sects

The Śrī Vaiṣṇava Sampradāya has two major sects, one is called Vaḍagalai and the other Teṅkalai. The two sects have existed for more than 350 years and arose on account of a bitter schism. The foundation of this schism is based on eighteen ideological differences on the topic of mokṣa-dharma propounded by post Rāmānujācārya-era ācāryas Pillailokācārya and Vedānta Deśika during the 1200-1300 AD period.[i] During this period Vedānta Deśika was the first one to detect or disagree with certain works of Pillailokācārya. Maṇavāla Mamuni (Mahāmuni), who appeared right after Vedānta Deśika, primarily subscribed to the doctrines of Pillailokācārya.

The eighteen differences between the two groups of these ācāryas centered on the questions as to who can ultimately award liberation (Lord Nārāyaṇa alone or Mother Lakṣmī as well?) and whether action on the part of the jīva is required in obtaining liberation. Pillailokācārya and his followers maintained the view that liberation can be attained only by the mercy of Lord Nārāyaṇa and not by a jīva’s actions (mārjāra-nyāya – like a kitten relying on a mother cat to lift it and move), whereas, Vedānta Deśika maintained that along with the mercy of Lord Nārāyaṇa, the jīva is required to do his bare minimal devotional activities (markaṭa-nyāya – like a baby monkey holding onto the mother monkey for conveyance). Pillailokācārya propounded that it is not even up to Mother Lakṣmī to influence Lord Nārāyaṇa in the matter of awarding liberation, whereas Vedānta Deśika categorically states that Mother Lakṣmī being the inseparable consort of the Lord also has equal powers to award shelter and liberation.

Differences in Scriptures

Apart from the ideological differences, there were differences of opinion on what śāstras are to be emphasized—Sanskrit Veda or Draviḍa Veda. The Draviḍa Veda (Tamil Veda) is also known as the Nālayira Divya Prabandha, composed by the Ālavāras, who were saints devoted to Lord Viṣṇu and widely revered in South India. The followers of Vedānta Deśika, from Kāncīpuram, northern part of Tamil Nadu, placed more importance on the Sanskrit Vedas as compared to the followers of Pillailokācārya and Maṇavāla Mamuni, from Śrī Raṅgam, southern Tamil Nadu, who placed more importance on the Draviḍa Vedas in their respective fights against the Advaitins and the Śaivaites.

Most of the of present day Śrī Vaiṣṇavas acknowledge that the formal distinguishing features of the schism were established only much later in time (after 1650 CE). Nonetheless, it appears that tensions started to build up right from the periods of the manifest presence of both Pillailokācārya and Vedānta Deśika. The Śrī Vaiṣṇavas in Kāncī, or the northern sect, found it necessary to use the Sanskrit Vedas as their primary weapon for overcoming the Advaitins, who were all experts in Sanskrit. The Śrī Vaiṣṇavas from the South found it necessary to use the Tamil Vedas because they had to deal primarily with Śaivaites, who were expert in the Tamil compositions of the Nāyanmārs, who were also widely revered saints like the Ālavāras but devoted to Lord Śiva.

The Schism

The differences in scripture combined with the differences in ideology between the two groups exacerbated the tensions between them and eventualy drove a deep wedge into the Śrī Vaiṣṇava community, their daily practices of devotional service, temple services, temple rights, privileges, honors, and cultural activities. Śrīman M.A. Venkatakrishnan Swami (Teṅkalai), professor and former head of the department of Vaiṣṇavism, Madras University, Chennai, says that although the ideological differences originated during the 12th and 13th centuries, he believes that the circumstances leading to the formation of the schism were more on superficial issues associated with temple rights, practices, honors, and privileges and were formally established only after 1650 CE. He recollects that around 1650 CE, an incident involving the king of Mysore and the devotees (Teṅkalais) taking care of the Viṣṇu temple at Tirunārāyaṇapuram, Melkoṭe, was the first episode leading to the establishment of the formal schism.

The episode is as follows:

In the 1650’s the Melkoṭe temple was originally managed and controlled by Teṅkalais (Professor M.A.V. Swami agrees that the Vaḍagalais would dispute his claim). The King of Mysore, being dissatisfied with the Teṅkalai devotees of that temple, conferred the rights of temple worship on the other group (Vaḍagalais), who supported the King. The Teṅkalais used to recite the praṇāma mantra of Maṇavāla Mamuni (śri-śaileśa dayā-pātram dhībhaktyādi guṇārṇavam. . .) as part of their temple worship. However, with the transfer of rights to Vaḍagalais, the Vaḍagalais started to recite the praṇāma mantra of Vedānta Deśika (śrī-rāmānuja-dayā-patram jñāna-vairāgya-bhūṣaṇam. . . ) and stopped the recitation of the praṇāma mantra of Maṇavāla Mamuni. This change disturbed the Teṅkalais, and they protested against it.

The King later realized his mistake in interfering with the temple worship and practices, and he then ordered both the praṇāma mantras to be recited as part of the worship. But the followers of Maṇavāla Mamuni and Vedānta Deśika became so alarmed over this incident that to ensure such a thing could never happen in the temples each had control over, they institutionalized their own groups with respect to worship processes and rights. Temples controlled by Teṅkalais followed a process that significantly differed from that of temples under Vaḍagalais. Thus, it was this incident at the Melkoṭe temple that triggered the formalization of the schism between Vaḍagalais and Teṅkalais all over South India, especially in Tamil Nadu.

In order to make their respective sects explicitly different from each other, their ācāryas introduced several variations and differences in their own practices: in the tilak that they wore, the praṇāma mantras that they recited, the choice of reciting Sanskrit Veda versus Divya Prabandham in temples, the number of times they would offer obeisances to the Lord and devotees (Vaḍagalais must offer two, or an even number or more to all, but Teṅkalais would offer only once), and even the first item of mahā-prasādam that they serve to devotees in a feast (Vaḍagalais will first serve ghee and rice whereas Teṅkalais must serve first a salted item such as a sabjī followed by ghee and rice). Among such numerous variations between the two sects, it is still common that staunch members do not enter into marriages with each other or visit each other’s āśramas or temples (certainly not officially).[ii]

Author’s comment on Schism in the Śrī Vaiṣṇava Sampradāya

By Śrīdhara Śrīnivāsa dāsā

For my article “Schism in the Śrī Vaiṣṇava Sampradāya,” I received several responses and comments from various devotees and ISKCON leaders through emails and social media. The article’s focus was to provide just the historical facts behind the creation of a formal schism in one of the oldest, long standing Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas in this Kali-yuga.

Nonetheless, by no means did I intended to say that ISKCON should follow suit.

In fact, my point is that the Śrī Vaiṣṇava schism is a bona fide difference of views both having the clear backing of śāstra. But in the case of ISKCON, even the impending or imminent schism threatening to break it due to the introduction of female dīkśā-gurus is not equivalent to that of the Śrī Vaiṣṇava schism. This is due to the fact that institutionalizing female dīkśā-gurus is forbidden per evidence from the Bhāradvāja-saṁhitā (1.42 to 1.44) of Nārada Pañcarātra. (See Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s use of these ślokas from Bhāradvāja-saṁhitā in his commentary to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.13.15)

So how can such a schism be discouraged and avoided?

By openly coming to the discussion table, no matter how many years it might take….

This was my intent in writing that article.

Your humble servant,
Śrīdhara Śrīnivāsa dāsa
20th January 2022

 

 

End Notes

[i] These 18 differences have been explained in great detail by various spiritual leaders belonging to both the sects. However, a brief summary or outline is available at: http://sriramanujar.tripod.com/tVsv.html

[ii] Within each of the Śrī Vaiṣṇava Vaḍagalai and Teṅkalai sects, two significant subdivisions exist, based on whether the devotees follow āgama śāstra or pāñcarātra śāstra. Those who follow the Āgamas are called Vaikhānasa (The Tirupati Tirumalā temple is Vaikhānasa, the Śrī Raṅgam temple follows Pāñcarātra). The Vaikhānasas do not necessarily follow the Divya Prabandham nor are from the Śrī Vaiṣṇava guru-paramparā coming in the line of Śrī Rāmānujācārya but are recognized as Śrī Vaiṣṇavas nonetheless. The Vaikhānasas follow āgama śāstra because they are descendants of Vikhānasa Muni (the founder-ācārya of the āgama śāstras and an incarnation of Lord Brahmā, who received Vedic knowledge directly from Lord Nārāyaṇa). In addition, Vaikhānasa is acknowledged as bona fide by previous Śrī Vaiṣṇava ācāryas like Vedānta Deśika in Śrī Pāñcarātra-raksā.

-----------------------------------------------------

Disclaimer: The thoughts expressed in this article fully belong to the author of this article. This blog is just a medium to express them.

Was Prabhupāda’s understanding of Buddhism influenced by Culture?

Analysis of all the quotes of Srila Prabhupada on Buddhism finding their sources

The propounder of the theory of Cultural Conditioning of Śrila Prabhupāda supports his theory by saying that Śrīla Prabhupāda’s understanding of Buddhism was not based on study of Buddhism but what he heard from the people around in the culture he was brought up in.

To give an example of the fact that Prabhupada was influenced by his culture, …the concept that Prabhupada had of Buddhism, that didn’t came from a study of Buddhism, but from what was spoken regarding it.

— talk given by the propounder, Krishna West Convention / Brazil; Transcriśão Português – Inglês

(Tempo: 44:02 - 55:53)

Let us see what Śrīla Prabhupāda says about Buddhism and try to trace wherefrom his ideas of Buddhism are coming. We have searched for all instances of Buddhism from all the published teachings of Śrīla Prabhupāda and these are the exclusive points about Buddhism that he speaks:

1.       Lord Buddha was incarnation of Lord Kṛṣṇa

Sources: SB 1.3.24; Jayadeva Gosvāmī’s Daśāvatāra-stotram

2.       He appeared to stop animal killing in the name of Vedic sacrifices and thus cheat the athiests

Sources:

-          Jayadeva Gosvāmī’s Daśāvatāra-stotram

-          SB 1.3.24, Vallabhācārya’s Commentary—“ For making demons posing as brāhmaṇas to give up or reject the Vedas, the Lord will appear as Buddha.”

-          SB 1.3.24, sloka itself uses word sammohāya sura-dviṣām – ‘in order to bewilder the athiests.’

3.       Buddha incarnations in different kali-yuga may have little different activities

Sources:

-          SP says that he takes this information from Jīva Gosvāmī.

-          Jīva Gosvāmī says in his commentary—“This is spoken about some other special kaliyuga as the type of demons that are mentioned here are not heard of in this kaliyuga.”

4.       SB 5.15.1—“The son of Mahārāja Bharata known as Sumati followed the path of Ṛṣabhadeva, but some unscrupulous people imagined him to be Lord Buddha himself.”

-          These ācāryas who do not follow the Vedic principles are presently known as the ārya-samājas, or the Jains. Not only do they not follow the Vedic principles, but they have no relationship with Lord Buddha. Imitating the behavior of Sumati, they claim to be the descendants of Ṛṣabhadeva. (purport)

-          In the purport Śrīla Prabhupāda analyzed from Bhāgavatam and distinguished faulty Buddhism from real Buddhism. He was not just influenced.

5.       In SB 6.8.19, devotee is praying to Lord Buddha in his prayers. Śrīla Prabhupāda—“ One should therefore surrender to Lord Buddha so that he can help one avoid misusing the injunctions of the Vedas. (Purport)”

Source:

-          Vamśīdhara—pramādāt means intelligence that destroys knowledge of śāstras as it is.  Buddha is prayed here to save one from such an intelligence.

-          Bhagavatprasādācārya says the same thing.

-          Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha—Prayer is, ‘Please protect us again and again for properly following the path of dharma’

Prabhupāda did not speculate the purpose of the prayer to Lord Buddha but derived it from ācāryas.

6.       Buddhism was widely spread in India by King Aśoka

-          Well known in history of India by all historians.

-          “Buddhism” by Monier Williams, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1889 (1995), p.59

-          “Asoka” by James M. Macphail, Oxford University Press, 1863, Chapter 4

7.       Buddhism was thrown out of India by Śankarācārya

-          Jaiva Dharma Ch. 2[1]

8.       Birth place of Lord Buddha mentioned as Kīkaṭa is Gayā in Magadha

-          Śrīdhara Svāmī—“Kikaṭa means at Gayā in Madhyapradesh”

-          Viśvanātha Cakravarti Ṭhākura—same as above

9.       Lord Buddha was a prince named siddhārtha.

-          The Buddha Kārikā[2], 2.17

10.   Buddha saw an old man and thus he became renounced and took to life of tapasyā

-          The Buddha Kārikā 3.27 onwards (Buddha saw old man and thoughts in his mind)

-          The Buddha Kārikā Chapter 5 (Buddha taking to renunciation)

11.   Kāśī Māyāvādīs as Sāranātha Buddhists of Kāśī

 

12.   Buddha’s Philosphy is Athiestic (nāstikyavāda)

Source: Cc 2.6.168

13.   He preached Non-violence and thus defied Vedas

Source: Jayadeva Gosvāmī’s Daśāvatāra-stotram

14.   Buddha Philosophy is called Śūnyavāda

Source:

-          Brāhmaṇa and Vaiṣṇava 3 (Vyavahāra Kāṇḍa), Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura

“There are two concepts of impersonal philosophy—denial of spiritual propensities and denial of spiritual activities, both devoid of eternal worship. When people consider the absense of the conscious function as the goal of life it results in çünyaväda, or voidism. And when they consider the idea that consciousness is devoid of activity it is called Mäyäväda, or spiritualism without variety.”

-          Caitanya Bhāgavata 1.17.42, Purport (Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura)

“The voidism of the Buddhists and the impersonalism of the païcopäsakas are buried under these lotus feet of Gadädhara.”

-          Jaiva Dharma Ch.2

“At the time of his appearance, India urgently required a guëa-avatära, an incarnation who presides over the material nature, because the spread of the voidistic philosophy of Buddhism had caused India to practically give up the cultivation and study of the Vedas, as well as the practice of varëäçrama-dharma, the Vedic social system. Nihilistic Buddhism, known as çünyaväda, directly denies the existence of a personal God and although hinting at the principle of the jévätmä, the eternal spirit soul, Buddhism remains in essence anitya-dharma.”

-          Śrī Caitanya Candrodaya 6.252, Kavi Karṇapura

tathä tasya rüpasyäpéti. kevala-nirviçeñatve çünyavädävasaraù prasajyeta.

“In spite of all evidence to the contrary, the voidists and impersonalitsts will still insist that the Supreme Brahman has no qualities.”

-          SB 9.9.49, Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha says—

kecid-avaidikāḥ śūnya-nāmnā kalpitaṁ jalpanti na tattattvamityāha aśūnyamiti |

“Some people, who reject the Vedas, imgine the Absolute Truth to be void and speak of Him like that. It is not correct is said in this verse starting from word aśūnyam.”

-          Monier Williams Dictionary says—

शून्य/अ—वाद

m. the (Buddhist) doctrine of the non-existence (of any Spirit either Supreme or human) , Buddhism , atheism Madhus.

 

15.   According to Buddha, Consciousness or existence is the cause of distress

Source:

-          Brāhmaṇa and Vaiṣṇava 3 (Vyavahāra Kāṇḍa), Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura

“There are two concepts of impersonal philosophy—denial of spiritual propensities and denial of spiritual activities, both devoid of eternal worship. When people consider the absense of the conscious function as the goal of life it results in çünyaväda, or voidism. And when they consider the idea that consciousness is devoid of activity it is called Mäyäväda, or spiritualism without variety.”

16.   Buddhism and Māyāvāda are both same atheistic philosophies

Source:

-          Padma Purāṇa uttara khaṇḍa 25.7 as quoted in Cc 2.6.182

-          Without properly studying Buddhism and Māyāvāda how did Prabhupada compared these two? If his source is comtemporary people then how he came to same conclusion as śāstra? Surely no contemporary source of Māyāvāda declared it as false scripture.

17.   Budhhist theory of non-violence is based on Atmavat sarvabhutesu

 

18.   Buddhism believes that at death everything is finished (SB 8.9.12, purport)

Source:

-          Viśvanātha—According to Buddhitsts, at death everything is finished. That is also the opinion of Hiraṇyakaśipu.

-          Śloka and translation of SB 8.9.12 doesn’t have any hint of Buddha, still Prabhupāda mentions it not out of his speculative connection but from Viśvanātha’s commentary

19.   Buddhism believes that life symptoms are a result of combination of matter

Source:

-          In his Commentary to Bg 2.26, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa compares buddhism to vaibhāṣika mata. Vaibhāṣikas believe that life is different from gross body but that it goes on changing and is a result of material combination[3].

20.   9-points of Buddhist Philosophy (Cc 2.9.49 purport)

Source: Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura as mentioned by Prabhupāda himself in the purport[4].

21.   Although Lord Buddha said there is no God, He is worshipped just like God in thousands of temples all over the world

Source: Pratyakṣa is sufficient. There are thousands of temples all over world many of which are very ancient, showing that temple worship of Lord Buddha is quite ancient.

http://www.touropia.com/famous-buddhist-temples/

Note the dates of establishment of these temples, oldest is Mahabodhi temple built by Asoka in his times (about 300 BC).

22.   Destination of Buddhists is between Brahma-jyoti and Material World (Maheśa-dhāma)

 

23.   Śrīla Prabhupāda discusses with leading propagator of Zen Buddhism in Europe (Paris) and defeats his ideas not in line with the original Buddhism. (Room Conversation with Mr.Deshimaru, June 13, 1974)

-          See about Taisen Deshimaru at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taisen̮Deshimaru; http://www.buddhanet.net/masters/deshimaru.htm

-          Interesting, it’s not that Prabhupada takes idea of Buddhism from him but he sticks to his ideas of Buddhism derived from sastras

24.    

---

[1] In those days, the brāhmaṇas had all but forsaken the Vedic religion and converted to Buddhism.

“At this historic moment, the extraordinarily powerful Lord Śiva appeared as Śrī Śaṅkarācārya and reinstated the pristine glory of the Vedas by transforming nihilistic Voidism into monistic Brahmanism. This was a spectacular achievement, for which India will always remain indebted to Śrī Śaṅkarācārya.

[2] The Buddha Kārikā is a sanskrit text on Life of Lord Buddha written in 2nd Century A. D. by Aśvaghoṣa.

Present Edition used is Edited by Edward B. Cowell, Cosmo Publications, New Delhi, 1894

[3] dehād bhinno vijñāna-svarūpo’py ātmā pratikṣaṇa-vināśīti vaibhāṣikādayo bauddhā vadanti |

[4] Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura states that according to the Buddhist cult there are two ways of understanding philosophy. One is called Hīnāyāna, and the other is called Mahāyāna. Along the Buddhist path there are nine principles: (1) The creation is eternal; therefore there is no need to accept a creator. (2) This cosmic manifestation is false. (3) “I am” is the truth. (4) There is repetition of birth and death. (5) Lord Buddha is the only source of understanding the truth. (6) The principle of nirvāṇa, or annihilation, is the ultimate goal. (7) The philosophy of Buddha is the only philosophical path. (8) The Vedas are compiled by human beings. (9) Pious activities, showing mercy to others and so on are advised.