Miscellaneous desk
< December 10	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 11

What comes first, Hindusim or Buddhism?

What comes first, Hindusim or Buddhism? 123.108.244.116 (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism, in the dictionary at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 15:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism - "Buddhism originated in Ancient India sometime between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE"

Hinduism - "This "Hindu synthesis" started to develop between 500 BCE and 300 CE,"

(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Hindu scriptures are 4,000 years old. The Buddha lived 1,500 years ago. 86.171.242.205 (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only one millennium out. Wymspen (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't called Hindus yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They were the Indus scriptures (of the Indus valley). People who followed them were the Indus people. Their religion was the Indus religion. When English-speaking people found out about it, they called them Hindus. It appears that your claim is that they weren't real until English-speaking people gave them a name. I know that isn't what you want to claim, but that is what it looks like. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both religions are syncretic (less so some atheistic forms of Buddhism), but the Vedas, the oldest stratum of Hindu literature continues terms (deva "god") and names of figures traced back securely and sometimes speculatively to the Proto-Indo-European religion. The earliest Vedic texts date to 1700BC and are obviously of even older provenance. Buddhism originated much later and within this setting. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that a reasonable argument could be based on breaking Hinduism and Buddhism into multiple religions. Hinduism began as many separate religious concepts, many of which are recorded in the Vedas. That created the Vedic religion, commonly referred to at Ancient Hinduism. Then, there is the change in Hinduism that coincides with the rise of Buddhism. Buddha himself was adopted into this branch as an avatar of Vishnu. Over time, Hinduism, as with Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism, shifted away from the metaphysical focus of gods and astral planes into modern Hinduism. Damn science. Took all the fun away. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, syncretic. See also religious syncreticism. μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or, indeed Religious syncretism. Matt Deres (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point isn't if it is syncretic or not. The point is where do you draw the line and say "That isn't Hinduism". If I claim that Buddhism has been Buddhism since Buddha first started telling his buddies about it, but Hinduism didn't start until the most recent reformation in 2015, then I can say that Buddhism has been around for thousands of years, but Hinduism is just a few years old. If, instead, I claim that Hinduism began with all the Indus Valley religions and Buddhism didn't start until Buddha created it, then I am clearly claiming that Hinduism is older. So, until there is agreement on the definition of "Buddhism" and "Hinduism", there can be no answer to "which is older?" 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually making the rather silly point that, analogously, one could argue tendentiously Catholicism didn't exist until Vatican II? The answer to the OP's question is rather clear. Either Hinduism incontestably predates Buddhism, or they are both extant parts of a long intermingled syncretic condition. From our article:

Buddhism has syncretized with many traditional beliefs in East Asian societies as it was seen as compatible with local religions. Notable syncretization of Buddhism with local beliefs includes the Three Teachings, or Triple Religion, that harmonizes Mahayana Buddhism with Confucian philosophy and elements of Taoism, and Shinbutsu-shūgō, which is a syncretism of Shinto and Buddhism.[17] The religious beliefs, practices, and identities of East Asians (who comprise the majority of the world's Buddhists by any measure) often blend Buddhism with other traditions including Confucianism, the Chinese folk religion, Taoism, Shinto, and Korean shamanism.[18][19][20][21][22][23] Before and during World War II, a Nichiren Shōshū priest named Jimon Ogasawara proposed the blending of Nichiren Buddhism with Shinto.[24]

Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism in ancient India have made many adaptations over the millennia, assimilating elements of various diverse religious traditions.[citation needed] One example of this is the Yoga Vasistha.[25]

By arguing over definitions, rather than things, you are taking a step away from answering the OP. There is nothing that can reasonably be called Buddhism before Buddha, while there is something which can be called Hinduism. Or one can say pseudoeruditiously that Humans and Birds have existed for the same length of time, since they both evolved from a common amniote ancestor. I don't think that's what the OP wants. A look at Religious_syncretism#Indian_and_Far_Eastern_religions will, however, address some reasons why the question of relative "age" might be raised. μηδείς (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that if you ask anyone who has some comprehension of religion studies, they will tell you that the Vedas predate Buddhism, so Hinduism clearly predates Buddhism. But, why would someone ask such a question? Because someone COULD be making the silly argument that Hinduism before Buddhism wasn't actually Hinduism - just as someone could argue that Catholicism before the Great Schism wasn't Catholicism. I am trying to frame the answer such that the person asking the question understands why he or she might have heard otherwise. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Booyah! So we both agree on "silly"! :) μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word "catholic" means "universal". Anglicans consider themselves to be catholic. 82.13.208.70 (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yes, I have heard that. But doesn't Anglican contradict Cosmopolitan? Or does Elizabeth II, (God bless her,) still never set? μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised, the first answer was a joke. We usually leave the jokes for later. "Anglican" means simply "Church of England". It's a worldwide communion but it's organised on national lines, like the Orthodox. Your criticism should really be directed at the Roman Catholic Church. 92.8.223.3 (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure, if the Catholic Church (≠ Roman) were only the Latin rite, and if it were only prevalent in former colonies of Pope Henry VIII and his descendants. There's just something odd about a "catholic" church owned by a family business that calls itself The Firm. My main beef with the local Roman Catholic church is the blasphemous widescreen TV's they have placed on the walls of the alter on either side of the crucifix. Dismas and Gestus I call them. μηδείς (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Francis is the supreme governor of the Vatican City State as well as the Roman Catholic Church. Anglicanism is not so parochial - see, for example:

Abrahamic religions consists of various denominations. Please name.

Abrahamic religions consists of various denominations. Please name. 123.108.244.116 (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Abrahamic religions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hatted discussion tangential to question.--WaltCip (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Homework question? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's homework alright; and Bugs was right to provide a link to the most appropriate source to get this info.--WaltCip (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If he had linked it from his own question, he wouldn't even have had to ask. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But given that they appear not to be a native English speaker, they may not have realised that we would actually have an article with that title. [Using singular "they" as no gender can be inferred from the OP – this is currently a hot topic in linguistic and other circles.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.212.173 (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many native speakers don't realise how comprehensive Wikipedia is. 82.13.208.70 (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP could be a group. —Tamfang (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]