- Joined
- May 19, 2024
There's this theory proposed by the german philosopher Karl Jaspers about the Axial Age. The basics are that, as the kingdoms and city-states characteristic of the Bronze Age expanded and became empires containing peoples from multiple ethnic origins and with diffrent foundational mythos, the only way to maintain social order within such a large state was to form religious doctrines focused on the fact that man himself must act virtuously and be virtuous, instead of just imitating the acts characteristic of whatever deity of their preference in a desire to draw power from them like it was done beforehand.
In the West and the Middle East, this translated to most religions going from animistic faiths (where all natural phenomena and some animals are the work/descendats of a spirit that can be worshiped) to polytheistic faiths (limiting the definition of what "virtue" meant, as it is now related to a small group of well-defined deities) and ultimately to monotheism, where a single omnipotent and omniscient deity is the creator of all existance, and thus virtuous behavior stems from a single source, and with the act of closely following said virtues rewarding you in the afterlife, with the act of ignoring them punishing you. In Bhuddism (and closely-related religions like Shinto, Confucianism, and Laoism), instead of believing in a creator god, they believe that the universe itself is ruled by a number of virtues that determine the karma of all your actions, and that your goal should be to closely follow said virtues (the Eightfold Path) so that the cycle of rebirth (samsara) may be broken and your soul freed from it (thus attaining nirvana).
The difference and in fact main point of contention between Buddhism and Hinduism is that the Hindus believe that the samsara is never-ending, and the only reward for virtuous behavior is to be reborn in a higher caste, with your current life being defined uniquely by the caste you were born in. You can't gain anything by acting virtuosly in this life, and if you are part of one of the higher castes already, you are entitled to treat and be treated differently by the members of the other castes, this being a renmanent from the pre-axial age religions (of which Hinduism is the only one remaining in Eurasia), where what's moral varied from person to person and across social classes and occupations.
If a buddhist from a high social class starts mistreating his servants and acting in an unrighteous manner, apart from the possible punishment he may experience in this life, he will be further from attaining samsara. In Hinduism this is the exact opposite, the brahmin is entitled to such beahavior because of his status, and you would be in the wrong for speaking up to him if you are part of a lower caste. That's why low caste hindus that become rich or powerful start mistreating all of those that are now under him, as according to him, they are just imitating the behavior of the higher castes, and the fact that he has attained power and wealth must mean that he's entitled to act that way.
With such an immoral religion, is it any surprise that jeets act like this everywhere they go? That the only period of time that native indians ruled most of the subcontinent was under Ashoka, a devout Buddhist who did everything in his power to promote it? Buddhism arose in direct contraposition to the corrupt behavior of the higher castes within Hinduism, that anyone would try to equate them both is simply absurd
