'Jerusalema' - Song & Dance
Prince Philip
Orchids
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/physicscentral/PhysicsBuzz/~3/XeZArhdpES8/an-orchids-best-friend.html
Buddhism origins - From ;Quora'
First, the term “Hinduism” is of modern colonial origin, so
whether Buddhism is a school of Hinduism depends on how you retroactively
define Hinduism. At the time of Siddhartha Gautama Buddha, the lands in which
he lived, which later came to be called Nepal and India, were full of many
schools - not primarily of thought, which wasn’t the point, but schools
of spiritual practice. Many of their practices, lineages, and/or
scriptures survive, and most of them were included under the umbrella of
“Hinduism” when it was coined.
Gautama Buddha’s school fit right in with the others at the
time, for the most part. It was not something radically new or different. It
was one of the more heterodox rather than orthodox schools, departing as it did
from the Vedas which were the basis of most of the schools, but it was not
unique in this, nor did it depart all that far. If you study these schools as
they were in India at the time, and ask “Which of these are schools of Hinduism
and which are not,” the answer wouldn’t be obvious. It’s easy to say they were
all schools of Hinduism. Certainly Buddhism grew entirely out of Hinduism, much
like Christianity grew out of Judaism; the question is if, and at what point,
it left its parentage and went and became something different. It’s a
subjective question, a matter of opinion, since Hinduism is a vast umbrella
term, only vaguely defined.
Of course, unlike most forms of Hinduism, Buddhism
proselytized, and spread to lands far from its birth. This is the main reason
why it didn’t get included under the “Hinduism” umbrella, since Hinduism was
originally defined as the non-Abrahamic religions of India. Of course that
ignored the fact that Hinduism was widespread in Indonesia and other lands far
from India, so that definition has had to be revised, but that was how it
started. But Buddhism was found in China and Japan, in many lands clearly not
“Indic” in character, so it obviously didn’t fit the initial definition of
“Hinduism”. By the time the definition of Hinduism was reconsidered, everyone
was already used to Buddhism being a “different religion” - itself a rather
Abrahamic concept. So that’s how it’s now usually considered by those who are
neither Buddhist nor Hindu.
Do Buddhists perceive themselves to be a school of thought
in Hinduism? No they don’t, nor did they ever, since there was no such concept
as “Hinduism” until modern times. Hindus didn’t perceive themselves as such
either. Buddhists perceived themselves to be followers of Buddha Dharma (or Dhamma
in the more Pali-influenced Theravada). Similarly, a Hindu might consider
herself to be a follower of Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya, or this or that other
spiritual lineage. It all blended in the same general cultural milieu.
Do Hindus consider Buddhists to belong within the folds of
our religion? Frankly yes, many of us do. But it’s not like we “own” them or
any such meaningless nonsense. Rather, I as a Hindu recognize Buddhists as
being fellow practitioners of spiritual Dharma, in a way just as similar (and
as different) to my own as that of many people who call themselves Hindus. The
distinction seems somewhat arbitrary to me.
Buddhism is objectively not an independent religion
altogether. It grew from the exact same roots. It is another branch of the
tree. And the branches often intermingle: It’s common to find Buddha worshipped
with reverence in Hindu temples, common to find shrines to Hindu Gods in
Buddhist temple complexes, common to find Hindus practicing Buddhist meditation
techniques, common for Buddhists to worship Hindu Gods and go on annual
pilgrimages to their temples (such as in Sri Lanka), etc.
We are all beings on the same Wheel of Dharma.
