04/07/2022
The Buddha was not a Hindu.
There are some people ignorant, idiot, and crazy, who argue that since Lord Buddha's father, king Suddhodana, was a follower of Hinduism, Prince Siddhartha, who later became the Buddha, was obviously a Hindu. Again, they argue that the Buddha was a Hindu as he was born in Hindustan. Nothing can be more removed from history and sanity than these arbitrary claims, because
1.Those fools are not aware that Siddhartha was not born in Hindustan but Jambudipa. During the Buddha's times, the north India and Nepal were collectively called Jambudipa. In the present Kapilavatthu in the south Nepal, there is the Lumbini Vana (Gardens). Siddhartha was born in the Lumbini Gardens and his father was the king of Kapilavatthu.
2. Idiots and blockheads ! Hinduism did not exists at the time of Siddhartha's birth. So, how could Jambudipa be called Hindustan Which would be a sheer craze and chrono logically wrong. Hinduism evolved in the medieval times following the advent of the Arabs, Mughals, and Turks. To assume the existence of a medieval phenomenon in the ancient times is again a folly.
3. Such absurd and foolish concepts are possibly created by the hardcore Hindus, whose prime object is to spread con fusion among the Buddhists and others and , thus , grind their own axe.
4. Today, the RSS people argue that whosoever is born and lives in Hindustan is a Hindu. Well said ! You the great ex ponents of the 'Hindu' who offer a new definition of the term. There could be no greater linguist, interpreter, phi losopher, and exponent in this world than you.
The Buddha These fools realize not that one born and residing in he be a Hindu? As one living in Bharat is a Bharatiya, one Hindustan is a hundred per cent Hindustani, but how could living in Pakistan is a Pakistani, one living in Afghanistan is an Afghanistani, so is the one living in Hindustan is a Hindustani. If this definition offered by the RSS people is to be honoured, all the Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, Parasis, Jews etc residing in Hindustan must be Hindus, which is wrong from the religious, social, philosophical , and linguistic point of view. The Muslims call Hindus 'Kafir' (infidel). How could they call themselves a Kafir on this account. The highest religious body of the Sikhs have already declared that they are not Hindus but Sikhs. To them Sikhism is quite different from Hinduism. In the same vein, it would be wrong to say Parasis are Hindu. As for the Buddhists and Lord Buddha, in the first place, it defies all logic to assert that the Buddha was a Hindu because he was born in Hindustan. The doctrine, philosophy, religious beliefs and faiths are toatally contary to those of Hinduism. The Buddha's doctrine was a novel invention. Therefore, it would be highly outrageous and regrettable to represent Buddhism as Hinduism. And, to call Lord Buddha a Hindu would be as baffling and untrue as calling a lion a jackal. A seciton of Hindus claim the Buddha to be the ninth in carnation of Vishnu. It was when Buddhism was in its prime that the Hindus, in order to create confusion and to obtain the sympathy of the Buddhists, introduced Lord Buddha as the incarnation of Vishnu. That was the handiwork of the Brahmins, who are such cunning people that they always resort to creating confusion and forwarding an inhuman doctrine and misplaced philosophy to grind their own axe. When the Brahmins could compose the Allopanisad to grab the Muslims sympathy, financial gain, state purses and honours and higher positions, was it a big deal for them to declare the Buddha the incarnation of Vishnu?
Two cultures existed during the Vedic age. Before the ad vent of the A***ns, only the Sramana culture prevailed here. Which was more enriched, humane and civilized than the
of Hinduism A***n culture. The Mohanjodaro and the Harappa civilization stand testimony to the fact. In contrast to the Stamana culture, the A***n culture was barbaric, uncivil and violent Lord Buddha was integral to the Sramana culture. Thus, he never approved of and appreciated the Vedic culture, its pla losophy, religious beliefs and faiths, and social set-ups.
Thus, to call Lord Buddha a Hindu would amount to com mission of offence and injustice against him. Being the cham pion of the Sramana culture, Lord Buddha is rightly called the Mahasramana (the great Sramana), which is a most appropri ate title to be bestowed on him.
Source:
Buddhism is not a branch of Hinduism.
Dharmkirti
