Buddhism is a Hindu School of Philosophy Part 1 of 2

Buddha preached non-violence. In reality we cannot make a clear distinction between violence and non-violence. Sometimes violence is necessary for the overall good. Soldiers cannot say that they follow non-violence and surrender to invading forces. Military violence is wrong when soldiers invade another country but violence becomes ethically necessary to protect the people from invading forces. In order to protect their people from invaders they have to fight with the invading forces. Surgery can be seen as violence as it causes great physical discomfort but in the end it only makes us feel better. The Vedic teachings were more practical. Taking up arms to fight is approved for Kshatriyas but not for Brahmins. A Kshatriya has to protect his people from criminals and invaders whereas a Brahmin protects people through public service by serving as an engineer, doctor, lawyer etc.

Buddha’s followers were mainly Kshatriyas in the beginning; they were made up of his family members. One of his cousins Devadutta tried to assassinate Buddha in the hopes that he may lead the monks. He saw power behind this new movement and wanted to use it to gain control over other kingdoms.

Many Buddhist monasteries throughout medieval period interfered with the policies of the ancient kingdoms. They tried to show the cast system in bad light in order to win converts. The cast system was based on profession (see my earlier postings on caste system).  Soldiers and members of the royal family were Kshatriyas, engineers, doctors, lawyers, priests etc were Brahmins, merchants and farmers were Vysyas, trades people were Sudras. Without cast system, everyone would be the same and would follow the same rules. Then a soldier has to follow the same rule as a priest which means that he cannot take up arms to defend his people. A merchant has to follow the rules of a Brahmin and cannot accumulate wealth or make profit. Every profession has its pros and cons; abolishing the caste system wouldn’t have improved the situation as farmers would be farmer, a merchant would remain as a merchant and so will a plumber.

There is also a misconception that vegetarianism spread in India due to the teachings of Buddha. Being a Kshatriya, Buddha himself ate meat and fish. Buddha’s cousin Devadutta tried to form a separate group. He tried to influence Buddha’s followers. He stipulated that the Buddha agree to abide by the following rules for the monks: they should dwell only in forests, live entirely on alms obtained by begging, wear only robes made of discarded rags, dwell at the foot of a tree and not consume fish and flesh. Buddha agreed to all except the last. He refused to make vegetarianism compulsory for monks; whereas for the followers of Vedic religion who take up the vow of sanyasa, vegetarianism is compulsory.

Buddha was an iconoclast but his later day followers started to use images of Buddha for worship. People need something to concentrate on. They cannot meditate upon nothing. Modern day meditation classes use laser pointers as an aid.
Buddha also blamed the Brahmins and their rituals. The Vedic tradition is a blend of theory and rituals. Just like we have theory and lab work in Science. Learning the one without the other will result in failures. There may have been a few Brahmins who had no grasp of the theory and relied entirely on rituals but it cannot be said that all Brahmins are ritualistic.. Buddha revolted against rituals but his later day followers incorporated many rituals including tantrism. It gave rise to many monks using tantras to perform magic. Mass hypnosis was also practiced and many kings were won over to their side through such practices. Thus the monks seeked to gain huge control over the Indian sub continent.

It was only after the arrival of Adi Sankaracharya, Buddhism declined. Vedic religion was re-established.