|
What is Original Buddhism?
“The Aryan(Arya as in Vedas meaning the Noble path) Eightfold Path is the path leading to immortality” [SN 5.8]
"The Tathagata, the Buddha, is a designation for (means) 'become-Brahman'."[DN 2.84]
Original Buddhism is Buddhasasana (doctrine of the Buddha) which predates all revisionist sects such as Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, Zen, and other radical hybrids which, while proclaiming to teach Buddhism, are very far indeed from the methodology illumined in the Nikayas (scriptures) of Buddhism for finding immortality. Contrary to modern misunderstanding, Buddhism never denied Vedic nor Upanishadic philosophy; in fact, the historical Buddha praised the Vedas numberless times in Sutta [Ud-A #55; Ud #3]. It is commonly misunderstood that the Nikayas 'belong to the Theravada tipitaka', however this is completely inaccurate as most experts will testify to, for Theravada itself did not exist prior to the 2nd century A.D. nor are the Nikayas, Vinaya (many versions), and Abhidhamma
(numberless versions which post date the Nikayas by many centuries) homogenous works; and as G.C. Pande and others elucidate “The major portion of the Nikayas appear to have certainly existed in the 4th century B.C.E.” [Studies in the Origins of Buddhism p.15]. The only presectarian corpus of Buddhism exists within the ancient scriptures of the Pali Nikayas and are, unquestionably, the oldest group of materials that exist which can illuminate for us that which the historical Gotama Buddha did or did not teach and his philosophical system culminating in emancipation and immortality. Both the Vinaya and the Abhidhamma are post-Buddhistic creations by sectarian monastic "Buddhism", which have no bearing nor connection to either Buddhism or its philosophical system of liberation.
The more superficially one studies Buddhism, the more it seems to differ from the Brahmanism in which it originated; the more profound our study, the more difficult it becomes to distinguish Buddhism from Brahmanism, or to say in what respects, if any, Buddhism is really unorthodox. At the time frame of the historical Buddha Sakyamuni, Vedic methodology had become a corrupt system of rites and petty ritualism (eerily reminiscent of modern ‘Buddhism’ today), such as: “the Buddha is critical of the two dead ends in which he takes the Brahmins to have excessive indulgence in the pleasures of the senses, and excessive asceticism; both of which diverge from the old true Vedic ideal of the rishis . The true brahmin is that which the Buddha clearly approves of, such that he proclaims his Arahants to be the ‘true brahmins” [DN 1.167; Ud. 3, 4, 6, 29; Sn 612,656, 284-306; Dhp. 383,423]. Buddhism, as are the Upanishads, a means of emancipation (vimutta) from samsara (transmigration) through the perfection of wisdom and making the will/mind (citta) self-assimilated, therein being established in one's Soul [DN2-Att. 2.479]. Modernity, in refutation to Buddhism, has inverted the teachings of Buddhism to imply that mere superficial compassion, secular morality, and merit-making are the core of Buddhism [this superficial view of the path is denied at MN 3.72], and that Buddhism denies empirically the notion of autonomous stasis, i.e. the Soul, the Subjective and ontological nexus of noetic being. There are only two absolutes in Buddhism: “Emancipation of mind (cittavimutti) and emancipation by wisdom (pannavimutti), this is a designation for both ways liberated” [DN 2.71]; emancipation of mind achieved through Jhanic Samadhi, and emancipation by wisdom achieved through transmundane gnosis thereby eliminating avijja (nescience/agnosis/ignorance) which is the impetus for perpetual transmigration and the very root of suffering itself. Having achieved these two is deemed amata [immortality SN 5.8] and “emancipated in the Soul” [SN 3.54].
Logically one surely would ask, "why then is there a need for Buddhism, if in fact it is true that Buddhism in no way treads contrary to the Vedas or the Upanishads"? Firstly, Buddhism is to Vedanta, as Plotinus is to Plato, that being that Buddhism is highly more condensed philosophically, infinitely less verbose, and is not, generally, steeped in highly complex mytho-poetic metaphor that only supreme experts of Vedanta and sanskrit are able to see clearly through to realize content. Secondly, Buddhism, as the sramananic movement it was, sought to deprive from the select ‘elite’ of 500 B.C.E. Vedic masters, that hidden means which kept those who were “intelligently ripe”, and desired emancipation from samsara, from achieving that same goal without having to pass through a convoluted maze of pomposity, rite, and unobtainable prestige required to sit at the foot of him who would illuminate the path to immortality. In saying this, it must be pointed out that Buddhism was never an ‘everyman’s religion’, for as Gotama himself said, his teachings were for but those of “little dust in their eyes” [MN 1.168], however there were those Aryan-minded few who were “wasting away from lack of hearing the teachings”, and to them he was inclined to instruct the ancient path leading from mortality to immortality. “I have seen” says the Buddha, “the ancient path, the old road, which was tread upon by the illumined Brahmins of old, that is the path I follow. Just like an over covered path lost long ago is that which I have rediscovered” [SN 2.106]. As it happens, the only thing denied in oldest doctrine by the historical Buddha was that one was a "Brahmin by birth" (Brahmabandhu), rather than a "Brahmin by gnosis" (Brahmavit).
The untaught, average man, when the end is at hand, "mourns, pines, weeps and wails"; but not so the Aryan disciple in whom the fires of selfhood (corporeal) have been quenched he knows that death is the inevitable end of all born beings and having made "the Soul his refuge" [DN 2.100], and taking this fate of the body for granted, only considers, "How shall I best apply my strength to what's at hand?" [A., III. 56] until he dies. Having already died to whatever can die ("a dead man walking"), he awaits the dissolution of the temporal vehicle with perfect composure and can say: "I hanker not for life, and am not impatient for death. I await the hour, like a servant expecting his wages; I shall lay down this body of mine at last, foreknowing, recollected" [Th., I. 606, 1002]. Or even if the Aryan disciple, whether a mendicant or still a householder, has not yet "done all that there was to be done," he is assured that having come into being elsewhere according to his deserts, it will still be possible for him to work out his perfection there. The words, "O grave, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?" might well have been the Buddha's or those of any true Buddhist. For him, there will be no more becoming, no more sorrow; or if there is, it will not be for long, for he has already gone far on that long road that leads to Nirvana, "and, indeed, he will soon have reached the goal."
As the oldest texts of Buddhism say, wherein Lord Gotama called his path: "Brahmayana (path to Brahman/the Absolute)" [SN 5.5].
"And what, followers, is ‘Brahminhood’? It is our Aryan Eightfold Path" [SN 5.25].
"How is one a Brahman, is deemed crossed over, and gone beyond? Herein him, whose mind (citta) is freed, devoid of defilements, is liberated by wisdom. Such a one is a Brahman, is deemed crossed over, and gone beyond" [AN 2.6].
"The peoples say that Gotama is the supreme teacher of the way leading to the union with Brahman.” [DN 1.248]
"The Tathagata, the Buddha, is a designation for (means) 'become-Brahman'." [DN 2.84]
"The well-centered mind/will (citta) is the path for attainment of Brahman."[SN 4.118]
Many important books written on this subject very well establish that Buddhism is famous for everything else it originally never was , surprisingly Buddha 's most authentic records (as agreed by most scholars ) are Nikayas which are far from Buddhism which we read about.
I also wonder if Buddha(Tathagat) denied or kept silent on God then how could he use the Term Brahman(several times) and his union with it(as also stated in Upanishads)...
as I said Buddhism is famous for almost everything which it never originally was.
some good books for study on Buddhism
Hinduism and Buddhism by Dr. A.K. Coomaraswamy
and
The Source for original/oldest Buddhism
[Studies in the Origins of Buddhism. Govind Pande Chandre; Motilal publishers ISBN 8120810163 1999]
_________________
I am the one who resides in hearts of all living creatures -Bhagwan Krishna
Ostatnio edytowano 29 sty 2009, o 14:57 przez amarbullets, łącznie edytowano 1 raz
|
