Hinduism and Buddhism/Jainism

[mhcrxlc at dir.manchester-computing-centre.ac.uk]

Peter Friedlander writes:

>Pratap Kumar raised the issue of Hinduism and Buddhism/Jainism
>I think that one of the problems with the view he opposes is the term
>'Hinduism'. It seems safer to me to use Hinduism to refer to later
>developments in India, perhaps not before the period of epic literature say
>ca. 2nd century BC.

I would have thought of a rather later date than this, but I agree with the
sentiment.

>Hence there is no way that Buddhism and Jainism can be offshoots of
>Hinduism.

All three are no doubt the product of rather complex mutual influences
within Indian religion as a whole.

>Moreover, while some aspects of the sramanic traditions, including Buddhist
>and Jain traditions, do reflect attacks on for instance Brahminical ritual
>observances, I do not believe that most aspects of sramanic traditions can
>be explained in this way.

Agreed.

>Also I have never seen a Buddhist or Jain text that is a criticism of
>Upanisadic thought, this to me suggests that the popularity of the Upanisads
>most post date early Buddhism and Mahavira. So it does not seem that
>Jacobi's view that Jainism is a popularised form of Upanisadic thought can
>be correct.

Although I don't subscribe to the view here attributed to Jacobi, this
perhaps goes too far. In recent years both K.R. Norman and Richard Gombrich
have written articles pointing out specific Pali suttas criticising various
Upani.sads and Braahma.nas.

Lance Cousins

MANCHESTER, UK
Email: mhcrxlc at dir.mcc.ac.uk