[Buddha-l] Nirvana

[Joy Vriens]

Hoi Erik,

> I heard a talk the other day which Gombrich gave during a Buddhist 
> summerschool in England a few years ago. There he states that the Buddha 
> took many Brahmanic concepts and used them and turned them around to 
> explain his own way to nirvaa.na.

I have the impression that many Brahmanic concepts had already changed 
by speculation, started in the Brahmanas, and through contact with the 
non-Vedic/non-Brahmanic population. Brahmanism had already started the 
incorporation and digestion of "new"/indigenous ideas. There also were 
common beliefs and practices shared by ascetics of all boards. I don't 
know how clear it is who exactly turned what around. There also is the 
bringing-in of sophistry/scepticism and therefore theory building by 
Sariputta and Moggallana which must have played a crucial role in the 
forging of Buddhism. So saying that the Buddha took many Brahmanic 
concepts and turned them around to explain his own way to nirvaa.na 
sounds like a bit of a shorthand to me.

> I'm convinced Gombrich is wrong at 
> least in some of his examples. According to Gombrich the Buddha changed 
> the content of the concept of karma and of the Brahmaworld and of what a 
> true brahmin is.

According to Sénart and LVP that was already happening when the Buddha 
arrived, including in Brahmanism.

> But if you look at the upani.sads, even the B.rhad 
> ara.nyaka (the oldest one) you see that all these concepts where already 
> floating and changing at the time (i.e. 800 B.C.). So I suspect that the 
> Buddha was much closer to upani.sadic circles then later buddhist would 
> like to admit.

Yes. "By good deeds one becomes good, by bad deeds bad." (B.rhad 
ara.nyaka B.,III, 2,13) and the deeds already depended on desire.
I also think that there was much less compartmentalization at that time 
and that the identity-angst dates from later times, when the notion of 
misrepresenting the Buddha etc. came en vogue.

Joy