Were Buddhism Influenced by Brahminism and Jainism?

The Watercooler
1

During the time of Gotama Buddha, ascetic culture in India and Nepal had become the core culture. Not a few of the first ones of that era had attained high mental attainments such as the attainment of jhana, even to the attainment of immaterial jhana (arupa-jhana). Therefore, in the Sutta Pitaka there are many dhamma practices, meditation practices that already existed and were commonly known in the ascetic culture of the time of Gotama Buddha. Of the many meditation practices of that era, the one “taken over and perfected” by Gotama Buddha became the basis for insight contemplation (vipassana). Because basically, many meditation practices in the early days of Gotama Buddha were also kusala (good and beneficial) practices, therefore it was said that many ascetics were reborn in the brahma realm. Of course, being born in the Brahma realm is the basis for a good and great mind.

Currently, many Buddhist scholars in modern times come from cultures with Christian/Catholic/Muslim religious backgrounds (Abrahamic religions) who typically fight for the claim that their holy books are pure from God the Creator, not polluted by elements or other religious ideas. , then this way of thinking has influenced many Buddhist scholars in studying and analyzing the Sutta Pitaka. Buddhist scholars like this try to separate which ones are “pure Buddhist teachings” and which are “influenced by Brahminism/Jainism etc.” This way of studying in an Abrahamic religious style is actually not in accordance with the character of Buddhism.

2

Can you give some examples?

I would agree if your point is that it’s unhelpful to think of pre-Buddhist influences as impure in some way. However, this doesn’t mean that we can’t investigate the origins of various ideas that we find in the early Buddhist texts—whether that be the non-Buddhist cultural milieu of ancient India, the Buddha himself or others in the Sangha. This is an ordinary historical investigation which is meaningful even to people who don’t consider themselves to be Buddhists, even though the results of such an investigation would be of great interest to those who take the Buddha to be authoritative.

2 Likes
3

I believe there is even a Machlokes between scholars as to the approximate century (!) that Samsara surfaced as a fixed idea. Classic belief in kamma and rebirth developed from a sidenote in Brahmanic texts over centuries.

Under these circumstances I believe that historians may never get that close to figuring out who influenced who exactly. But is it necessary?

The Dhamma can be touched and felt, its truths ascertained in personal experience. No need to believe in virgin births here. If you find something in the “supermarket of Dhamma” that is right for you - way to go ! :wink:

2 Likes
4

If anything, the reverse is true. The Buddha spoke with and responded to Brahmins and Jains often. He was well aware of their teachings, some of which he rejected, others accepted. Later generations of Buddhists spoke almost entirely with other Buddhists, and we find little original discussion of non-Buddhist ideas in Buddhist texts. Thus the influence from non-Buddhist to Buddhist texts happened primarily in the first generation, among those who were not living in a Buddhist culture.

2 Likes
5

This post is xenophobic and Islamophobic and more or less completely devoid of merit.

Buddhists also

And

Apart form bordering on meaningless in this context, except as a cypher for the OP’s jingoism, is also usually not even faintly the reason a scholar may be interested in determining the Upanishadic, Jain, and other influences on the early Buddhist texts.

whether or not a methodology of study is

Is completely irrelevant to scholarship except and unless the scholar is a religious practitioner of some type of Buddhism, and if they are it seems clear that they are just as much biased as a religious scholar working within an Islamic, or a Catholic, or an Agnostic framework.

It may not be necessary for the practice of a religion. But it is pretty much definitional of good scholarship to at least try to situate ideas and teachings in their contexts and milieu’s.

The idea that such scholarship is somehow “Un-Buddhist” or inherently “Abrahmatic” is pretty toxic anti-intellectualism IMV.

Exactly, and this first generation culture is fascinating and mind expanding when investigated in a rational, ecumenical way.

One is very rapidly disabused of much of Buddhism’s “uniqueness” as soon as one crosses the Rubicon and actually starts to read the Jain parallels and the Upanishadic fore-runners to standard Buddhist ideas.

This has nothing to do with Christianity, in fact rational scholarship was applied to Christianity first.

It has to do with reality.

The reality is that the EBT are awash with phrases, ideas, stories, doctrine, poetry and basically anything you care to identify, that permeate not just the EBT but also the Jain and Upanishadic literatures.

Understanding and exploring this landscape helps us understand Buddhism. It is not a “Christian/Islamic” thing.

6

Bhante, it’s somewhat outside the interests of this Forum, but I wonder if this statement is only really accurate for “relatively early Buddhism”? It appears that there were various debates in later times:

Buddhist and Hindu philosophers often engaged in debate in ancient India. This was done in person and also in written texts. According to Bronkhorst, consistent systematic debates between Buddhists and Hindus intensifies after the 5th century CE, though discussions had also occurred previously.
…
Buddhism and Hinduism - Wikipedia

and presumably there were various interactions when Buddhism spread to, for example, China.

3 Likes
7

Ha ha… my first name is Ahmad. Before I studied Abhidhamma and tried to deepen the Sutta Pitaka, for more than 20 years I studied the Koran, Hadith, Commentaries and also read the Bible. I know exactly the apologetic method applied in my old religion. But your prejudice is part of your perception… In this group, one time my post was marked inappropriate and hidden, based on someone’s report, just because I openly stated that the writing was wrong. So either I was too harsh, or the ego of the writer who was criticized was so big but put forward the excuse of love (metta)

2 Likes
8

@EddyP
@sujato

In Sutta-Central, I have often seen analyzes to separate “later teachings which are suspected to have been inserted” or “teachings which are not purely Buddhist, but are the teachings of Brahmanism/Jainism which have been inserted so that they are like Buddhist methods”. These analyzes include, for example, the practice of Jhana-Immaterial or for example the practice of Brahmavihara. Or even against the Paticcasamuppada series format. However, to understand the role of Jhana-Immaterial and Brahmavihara in the Buddhist path of liberation, it is not enough to just look at the chronology of the text. But a student of dhamma must taste “the salt/sugar of dharma personally” so as to understand “the path of practice necessary for liberation.” For this reason, not only Immaterial Jhana, even Material Jhana is also practiced differently between those on the Buddhist path of liberation and outside the Buddhist path, such as in Hinduism culture; Even though they have the same names and terms, how the mind is directed (yonisomanasikara), as well as how the mind is developed (bhavana) are quite different because the goals are also different. Of course me writing like this can invite protests: “Oh you think your personal practice can be an argument?”. But I see that simplistic methods such as only being based on the chronology of the text, or based on the number of dhamma units (for example paticcasamuppada-12, but there are also less than 12), then drawing a simplistic conclusion that it is suspected to be inauthentic; This is actually an easy and haphazard method.

The compilation of the Sutta Pitaka in writing and its collection as it exists today (profuse thanks to the scholars who have put in so much effort, so great and great work), of course is not free from mistakes. This recognition of “the existence of errors” is also what differentiates it from non-Buddhist religions which consider their holy books to be absolutely free from error because they are guarded by God himself. An example of a clear error is in Anguttara Nikaya 2.36. This version of AN-2.36 has very clear errors but I haven’t seen anyone correct or criticize it.

2 Likes
9

Yes, late Indian Buddhism (tantra, etc) is a different story.

3 Likes
10

A very fair point, I will reflect on it, i encourage you to reflect on it also.

1 Like
11

Good point, I should be more careful how I put this. I’m thinking canonically of the contrast between, say the Brahmajala, which discusses non-Buddhist ideas, and the Kathavatthu, which discusses Buddhist ideas.

Bronkhorst cites Vincent Eltschinger:

philosophical confrontation between Buddhists and non-Buddhists starts being reflected in extant philosophical literature from the beginning of the 6th century onwards

Clearly there was a debate culture, although the nature of that culture is I think not entirely clear. Bronkohorst is mainly interested in establishing the fact of it, but throughout his argument there are things that give me pause. A Shaivite debater wins by … cutting off his own head and re-attaching it? In a footnote, he notes that the idea of “winning” a debate is not as clear-cut as accounts say, and I’m sure that is the case.

Something that’s very obvious is how the whole tenor of these debates is completely against the Buddha’s teachings, especially the Atthakavagga, but more generally also. Early Buddhism doesn’t countenance debates for the sake of defeating an opponent or winning a prize—which is Upanishadic in origin—but for discovering the truth.

Anyway, thanks for that. The book is available online, and I’ll look into it more closely.

Meanwhile, though, I was thinking about when we think of the relation between religions or philosophies we tend to think in terms of mimesis, i.e. copying others, but we should give more weight to what we might call schismesis, the forming of ideas in opposition to others. The memory of rejected ideas is often left imprinted in mirror image. Self and not-self is an obvious case.

Also, quickly checking up on the concept, I discovered that my favorite author, Calasso, wrote a whole book on mimesis and the rise of authoritarianism:

1 Like
12

Indeed yes, and I agree, such analysis is deeply implausible. Early Buddhism arose in conversation with other religions, and things shared should not be seen as problematic.

Indeed yes, in Buddhism all meditations happen within the context of right view.

The relation between scholarship and practice is complex, but to me, historical scholarship is not for determining what is true in an ultimate sense, but for clarifying, enriching, challenging preconceptions, and indicating directions. It’s a handmaid to practice.

Can you be more specific? I just checked it, and I realize the translation needs correcting.

The critical term is paṭicchannakammanta, literally “one who hides their deeds”. This is used consistently in the suttas of someone who hides their bad deeds.

a person is unethical, of bad qualities, filthy, with suspicious behavior, one who hides their deeds, no true ascetic or spiritual practitioner—though claiming to be one—rotten inside, festering, and depraved.

AN 2.36 seems to be the only case where the negative form is used. I’ve translated it as “one who does not hide their misdeeds”. Bodhi has “one with concealed actions” and “one with unconcealed actions”, with a note that the commentary says it applies to “bad actions”.

Now, the context in AN 2.36, by itself, seems odd: by not concealing deeds, you go to heaven? Surely there is more to it than that! But it makes better sense when read in light of the longer passage, where one who conceals their deeds is a person of habitually depraved conduct, and the opposite is the reverse.

Normally I translate paṭicchannakammanta as “(one who is) underhand” and I should probably do so here as well. The phrase needs to indicate that the positive side is opposite to the underhand person. But it is difficult to capture it elegantly:

One who is underhand …
One who is not one who is underhand …

Perhaps better:

an underhand person can expect one of two destinies …
One who is not an underhand person can expect one of two destinies …

Or perhaps use a more idiomatic negative:

one who is underhand
one who is aboveboard

1 Like
13

Vandami Bhante @sujato
The error in AN-2.36 is not in the translation, but in the Sutta itself. There is a mix-up in explaining the meaning of “external fettered” (bahiddhāsaṁyojano) and “internal fettered” (ajjhattasaṁyojano).

AN-2.36 is in error by explaining ajjhattasaṁyojano with the explanation that should be the meaning of bahiddhāsaṁyojano and vice versa.

14

I think we’re talking about different suttas: can you post a URL?

15

https://suttacentral.net/an2.32-41/en/sujato

Numbered Discourses 2.32–41Aṅguttara Nikāya 2

The Chapter on the Peaceful Mind4. Samacittavagga

36
So I have heard.
Evaṁ me sutaṁ—

At one time the Buddha was staying near Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery.

ekaṁ samayaṁ bhagavā sāvatthiyaṁ viharati jetavane anāthapiṇḍikassa ārāme.

Now at that time Venerable Sāriputta was staying near Sāvatthī in the stilt longhouse of Migāra’s mother in the Eastern Monastery.

Tena kho pana samayena āyasmā sāriputto sāvatthiyaṁ viharati pubbārāme migāramātupāsāde.

There Sāriputta addressed the mendicants:

Tatra kho āyasmā sāriputto bhikkhū āmantesi:

“Reverends, mendicants!”
“āvuso bhikkhave”ti.

“Reverend,” they replied.
“Āvuso”ti kho te bhikkhū āyasmato sāriputtassa paccassosuṁ.
Sāriputta said this:
Āyasmā sāriputto etadavoca:

“I will teach you about a person fettered internally and one fettered externally.
“ajjhattasaṁyojanañca, āvuso, puggalaṁ desessāmi bahiddhāsaṁyojanañca.

Listen and apply your mind well, I will speak.”
Taṁ suṇātha, sādhukaṁ manasi karotha, bhāsissāmī”ti.

“Yes, reverend,” they replied.
“Evamāvuso”ti kho te bhikkhū āyasmato sāriputtassa paccassosuṁ.
Sāriputta said this:
Āyasmā sāriputto etadavoca:

“Who is a person fettered internally?
“Katamo cāvuso, ajjhattasaṁyojano puggalo?

It’s a mendicant who is ethical, restrained in the monastic code, conducting themselves well and seeking alms in suitable places. Seeing danger in the slightest fault, they keep the rules they’ve undertaken.
Idhāvuso, bhikkhu sīlavā hoti, pātimokkhasaṁvarasaṁvuto viharati ācāragocarasampanno, aṇumattesu vajjesu bhayadassāvī, samādāya sikkhati sikkhāpadesu.

When their body breaks up, after death, they’re reborn in one of the orders of gods.
So kāyassa bhedā paraṁ maraṇā aññataraṁ devanikāyaṁ upapajjati.

When they pass away from there, they’re a returner, who comes back to this place.
So tato cuto āgāmī hoti, āgantā itthattaṁ.

This is called a person who is fettered internally, a returner, who comes back to this place.
Ayaṁ vuccati, āvuso, ajjhattasaṁyojano puggalo āgāmī hoti, āgantā itthattaṁ.

Who is a person fettered externally?
Katamo cāvuso, bahiddhāsaṁyojano puggalo?

It’s a mendicant who is ethical, restrained in the monastic code, conducting themselves well and seeking alms in suitable places. Seeing danger in the slightest fault, they keep the rules they’ve undertaken.
Idhāvuso, bhikkhu sīlavā hoti, pātimokkhasaṁvarasaṁvuto viharati ācāragocarasampanno, aṇumattesu vajjesu bhayadassāvī, samādāya sikkhati sikkhāpadesu.

They enter and remain in a certain peaceful state of freed mind.
So aññataraṁ santaṁ cetovimuttiṁ upasampajja viharati.

When their body breaks up, after death, they’re reborn in one of the orders of gods.
So kāyassa bhedā paraṁ maraṇā aññataraṁ devanikāyaṁ upapajjati.

When they pass away from there, they’re a non-returner, not coming back to this place.
So tato cuto anāgāmī hoti, anāgantā itthattaṁ.

This is called a person who is fettered externally, a non-returner, who does not come back to this place.
Ayaṁ vuccatāvuso, bahiddhāsaṁyojano puggalo anāgāmī hoti, anāgantā itthattaṁ.

16

Thanks. I did think you were meaning that kind of thing. Regarding later interactions between Buddhists, Hindus, etc, those that are recorded will tend to be between leading figures in the traditions and may or may not be relevant to more ordinary practitioners.

1 Like