Now that I'm trying to describe the difference between Buddhism and Hinduism, I feel a lot of sympathy for all the scholars to whom I’ve posed simple questions, only to be met by a brick of verbiage that makes a lot of artificial distinctions that, to me, don’t seem terribly important.
Great essay - covers a little too much, though, I would have liked a bit more on the relationship between Hinduism and Buddhism, and another post applying the analogy of the Brahmin knowledge-making / conservation to the secular university.
Can you list all the books you read about Hinduism and Buddhism to come to this conclusion? Were they in the original language, Sanskrit or some translated versions in English?
"If the Buddha had prevailed, and the Vedic priesthood had lost their power, then...we would not have the Mahabharata, Ramayana, the Puranas, and all the literature that they subsequently wrote down and preserved."
There certainly would've been a lot of advantages to India being more like China. More homogenous; less stratified by racism; more mobility between the social strata. Not that India being more like China's a guaranteed overall good. For all their faults, even the worst of Islamabad, Dhaka, and New Delhi don't match up to the despotism and bloodshed of the CCP, and perhaps that despotism too is easier under a more racially homogenized society.
Great essay - covers a little too much, though, I would have liked a bit more on the relationship between Hinduism and Buddhism, and another post applying the analogy of the Brahmin knowledge-making / conservation to the secular university.
That’s a very legit critique. I also felt like the two parts didn’t fit together very well.
"History of India is the history of a mortal conflict between Bramhanism and Buddhism" - B R AMBEDKAR
Can you list all the books you read about Hinduism and Buddhism to come to this conclusion? Were they in the original language, Sanskrit or some translated versions in English?
"If the Buddha had prevailed, and the Vedic priesthood had lost their power, then...we would not have the Mahabharata, Ramayana, the Puranas, and all the literature that they subsequently wrote down and preserved."
There certainly would've been a lot of advantages to India being more like China. More homogenous; less stratified by racism; more mobility between the social strata. Not that India being more like China's a guaranteed overall good. For all their faults, even the worst of Islamabad, Dhaka, and New Delhi don't match up to the despotism and bloodshed of the CCP, and perhaps that despotism too is easier under a more racially homogenized society.
Terrific post. You (and Ben Peek) brought me to Substack and I’m loving every minute of it. So thank you.