buddhism before hinduism

[mirco]

did buddhism preceed hinduism and was the gita first composed after buddhism ?

[Avinash]

As per scriptures, Gita was spoken by Lord Krsna who came before Buddha. This means that Gita was composed before Buddhism.

[mirco]

I posted the same message about if buddhism preceeded hinduism in another forum and a buddhist replied with this:

 

'The word Hinduism was coined by the Muslim scholar Alberuni in the 11th century C.E. and while its appropriateness to describe the dominant system of religious belief in the India of his time (and of ours) is unquestionable, its use to describe the oldest religious beliefs in India (some scholars even applying the term to describe the pre-Aryan civilization represented by the Harappan culture), is clearly suspect. In this respect the practice of the earlier scholars to use the term "brahmanism" to designate the system which prevailed amongst the Aryan invaders before the Buddha's time, and to confine the word "Hinduism" to designate the system which was synthesised in the Bhagavadgîta, a work compiled centuries after the Buddha, which became the foundation of almost the whole of later Hinduism, could be commended. This terminology will be used here as far as possible, except that the word "Hinduism" will sometimes have to be used to designate the combined systems of Brahmanism and Hinduism proper, the actual context hopefully making clear what usage is meant.

 

The question of chronology has usually been considered a difficult one. Many students of Hinduism after proclaiming the impossibility of ascribing dates to early Brahmanical works, then not only proceed to do so, but give them very ancient ones with little or no justification. This is true not only of Hindu traditionalists, but also of many Western orientalists, who in the words of Nirud C. Chauduri "have succumbed to Hindu chronological fantasies" [Hinduism (1979), p.33]. It may be mentioned that the antiquity claimed for the Hindu texts contrasts strongly with the lateness of all extant epigraphcial, iconographical and archelogical evidence. In contrast to this morass of uncertainty the dates of the Buddha (563 - 483 BCE) have been established with little or no error. In fact the Buddha is perhaps the first truly historical figure to emerge in India, just as the Buddhist remains are the earliest religious archeological evidence unearthed. And the earliest Buddhist literature contain abundant information on the rival systems of belief prevalent in the India of that time. These references cover both the main Brahmanical religion based on the Vedas, and the emerging dissentient views proclaimed by the new sramana philosopher-teachers of the time (the "gymnosophists" of the later Greek observers of the Indian scene).'

 

I do not know what to think of all this or if i shall think anything about it

[Avinash]

...which was synthesised in the Bhagavadgîta, a work compiled centuries after the Buddha...

 

Some say that Gita was composed before Buddha and some say that it was composed after Buddha. How will you verify who is right?

[Guest guest]

why worry?

 

why not live per gita and go close to krishna, know Him?

 

jai sri krishna!

 

[Avinash]

It personally does not worry me whether Buddha came first or Gita. I wrote that post because it was mentioned by the person who started this thread posted a message of a Buddhist from another forum. That message says that Gita was composed after Buddha. So, I just wanted to mention that there are people of both views.

[Tirisilex]

My answer to this question is does it matter which came first?

 

The first "religions" seem to all be Shamanic based. Does this mean all other religions are bogus and we should turn to Shamanic ways?

 

In my opinion it seems that Yoga is a systematic science that was developed by early Shamanic type people. It developed into a more advanced spiritual system.

 

Buddhists may say that Buddhism came first. Christians may say Jehovah's word was first. Jainists may say their beliefs were first. It honestly does not matter which was first. What matters more is if the religion you follow satisfies your spiritual hunger.

[Guest guest]

siddhartha was born into a "hindu" kingdom,

as far as labeling according to Bhagavad gita,

one need only look at places like Angor Wat,

and other "hindu" temples adorned with characters

from the gita, which became transformed into buddhist

temples after the arrival of siddhartha.

 

so Krishna and the mahabharta was well known at the time of siddhartas birth, although Krishna bhakti may have

become dominant later then buddhism, that doesn't

change when it was spoken or the time line, or the fact

of temple carvings suggesting Krishna bhakti was in fact

popular before siddharta.

[Guest guest]

he says

 

aham Adir hi devAnAm.

 

so, krishna was known since long time,

and krishna bhakti also was know atleat since 5000 years.

 

in bhagavatam vyasdev describes pastimes of krishna, and predicts bhddha. buddha came as predicted.

 

jai sri prabhupada!

 

[Guest guest]

the easiest place to see this is in S.E. Asia,

they have a culture that is a mix of three religious traditions, hinduism, buddhism, and islam.

 

first came hinduism to those lands, and today still

the culture of most of those lands have the Ramayana,

or Ramakien, and the Mahabharata as the source of their oldest traditional arts.

 

Their dance, the famous shadow puppets, music, etc,

have as their central theme Rama,Krishna,Arjuna,etc.

 

By this we can understand that since Buddhism came to these lands shortly after Siddhartha preaching, hindu religion has been almost unknown, among some of the aristocracy it survived and ultimately only Bali remains

hindu.

 

But the culture survived, the art survived, even though they may be buddhist or muslim the hindu epics are still

the source of their ancient cultural heritage.

 

so this proves that Krishna was popular before Siddhartha,

even in S.E. Asia, what to speak of india.