[Thread]

Ambedkarites say the Buddha was anti-Brahmin and was opposed to Vedas

This allegation is very famous. But how true is it? Let's analyze:

Many people believe Buddhism is contradictory to Brahmanism and vice versa

Ambedkar went so far to say the history of India is the struggle between Brahmanism and Buddhism (as if there was no India before Buddhism)

But what is the truth?

Some facts before we proceed:-

1. The Nalanda University had Vedas as one of the important subjects.

Why would a Buddhist University include Brahmanical subjects in their curriculum if they don't agree with it's teachings?

2. Ashokan Inscriptions (such as Major Rock Edict III) talks about generosity to Brāhmanas.

And in some inscriptions Brāhmaṇas are revered as even superior to the Śramaṇas

This also exposes the myth propagated by Ambedkar that Brahmins were scheduled castes under Ashoka rule

3. It's a well known fact that Buddha is regarded as the 9th avatar of Vishnu in Hinduism

In Jataka 461, Buddha himself claims that he was Rama in his previous birth

Gita Govinda says Hari incarnated as Buddha to remove animal sacrifice that was happening in the name of Vedas

Coming to the main topic what did Buddha actually about Vedas?

Contrary to the popular opinion Buddha never 'rejected' the Vedas.

All he was opposed to was the malpractices going on in it the name of Vedas (animal sacrifice, birth-based priesthood, etc)

If we review Buddha's teachings then we would realise that he was actually promoting the Vedas more than anything

But was misunderstood by the later Buddhists, who were busy with their self-invented 'Shunyavada' philosophy.

For eg. in Sutta Nipāta 503, he says —

yo vedagū jhānarato satīmāo...

One should support him who knows the Vedas (III, 5.17)

In Sutta Nipāta 1060, Buddha says—

vidvā ca so vedagu naro idha
bhavābhave saṅgam imaṃ visajja...

One who understands the Vedas rejects attraction towards the world and becomes free from sins (V, 5.12)

Again in Sutta Nipāta 846, Buddha says—

na vedagū diṭṭhiyā na mutiyā
sa mānam eti, na hi tammayo so...

One who has learned Vedas does not acquire false ego. He is not affected by hearsay and delusions (IV, 9.12)

Next let us weight the idea that he was anti-Brahmin

In Sutta Nipāta 1059, he says

yaṃ brāhmaṇaṃ vedaguṃ ābhijaññā
akiñcanaṃ kāmabhave asattaṃ,
addhā hi so ogham imaṃ atāri,
tiṇṇo ca pāraṃ akhilo akaṃkho

When u are aware that the man is a Brahmin, learned in Vedas,

...a person with no wealth, a creature free from attraction towards worldly things, then you have found an ocean crosser, a traveller beyond the deserts and the doubts and a voyager who has reached the other side of the shore (V, 5.11)

Not just this, he also asked people to show generosity towards Brahmins and not to hurt them

In Dhammapada 389, Buddha says —

na brāhmaṇassa pahareyya...
dhī brāhmaṇassa hantāraṃ...

One should never strike a brāhmana... it is shameful to strike a brāhmana... (D.26.389)

He further says —

mātaraṃ pitaraṃ hantvā rājāno dve ca khattiye
raṭṭhaṃ sānucaraṃ hantvā anīgho yāti brāhmaṇo

A Brahmin is pure from past sins; even if he had killed his father and mother, had murdered two kings, and had ravaged a whole kingdom and its people (D.21.294)

This goes without saying that one becomes Brahmin only by karma not by birth

As Buddha explained in Sutta Nipāta 136 —

na jaccā vasalo hoti, na jaccā hoti brāhmaṇo,
kammanā vasalo hoti, kammanā hoti brāhmaṇo

[contd.]

Not by birth is one an outcast; not by birth is one a brahmin; by deed one becomes an outcast, & by deed one becomes a brahmin (SN I,7.21)

Dhammapada has an entire chapter on it btw which goes by the name 'Brāhmaṇavagga'

For eg, in Couplet 393 of Dhammapada, Buddha says —

na jaṭāhi na gottena na jaccā hoti brāhmaṇo
yamhi saccañ ca dhammo ca so sukhī so ca brāhmaṇo

One becomes Brahmin not by jaati or gotra or by long hair. Only he who realizes the satya and dharma, becomes Brahmin (D.26.393)

I can post several more verses like this. But in conclusion, the Buddha was not anti-brahmin; nor was he against Vedas.

All of this is Christian propaganda to divide Hindus. Buddha is a sacred figure in Hinduism seen as an avatar of Vishnu by the Hindus

And before you label this as 'Brahmin propaganda' like Ambedkar, let me tell you that Buddha as the 23rd avatar of Vishnu is mentioned in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib also.

Infact in Dasratha Jataka (461) Buddha himself claims he was a 'Rama pandita' in his previous birth

The Devaputtasamyutta of Saṃyutta Nikāya has reference to several Hindu gods like Chandrama, Surya (2.9-2.10), Vishnu and Shiva as 'devas' (2:12 and 2:21). Brahma, Indra, are mentioned in other parts.

In Ghata Jataka (454) we have reference to Krishna,Balram,Agni, Varuna, etc.

Also many stories of Saṃyutta Nikāya could be stolen from Upanishads

For example conversation between King Pasenadi and his wife Mallika is very similar to that between Yajnavalkya and his wife Maitreyi

Also the story of Rama and Krishna in Jataka tales, and character Arjuna

One can clearly see the immense difficulty to draw boundaries between Hinduism and Buddhism.

Hence to label Buddha or Buddhism as opposed to Vedas or Hinduism is a stupid thing to do.