• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Removing The Sheen From Buddhism
Many hindus foolishly have a soft spot for buddhism

The fact is that buddhists despise us

In 1937, the partition of Myanmar from India was done by the agitation of buddhist monks

In buddhist thailand, they hate Indians and kiss ass of chinese

In post independence Myanmar, 6 million tamil hindus have been forced to declare
themselves as buddhists

The Buddhists of Bhutan have expelled their hindu population

The tibetan buddhists prior to the chinese invasion of 1950, were trying to get back ladakh and arunachal pradesh

In the west, buddhists do everything to disavow their hindu roots

I also seriously question whether dalits were ever buddhists

IMHO, untouchability began with buddhism
In Japan, the butchers became burakumin or untouchable

In thailand, the butchers are of a low caste

The jataka tale puts meat eating communities as low caste

Thanks for starting this G Sub. I share your sentiments. Don't forget Buddhist treachery when dirty Arabs invaded Sindh.

-Parakramabahu and his assault on Rameshwaram.

-Modern day desecration of Hindu temples by Buddhists in Eelam.

-Ethnic cleansing of 100,000 Hindus from Bhutan (Buddhist state officially) who now live in Nepal as refugees.

I don't share any love for Buddhism that most Hindus tend to have.
LTTE chief Prabakaran became a terrorist after he saw a brahmin priest in sri lanka set on fire by sinhalese mobs led by buddhist monks

IMHO, buddhist monks esp theravada are the most loathsome
in most cases similar to catholic monks

In vietnam, in 1500, the last hindu kingdom of Champa was destroyed
by buddhist invaders from north India

IMHO, the issue in sri lanka is very nuanced
There are no clear cut heros

The AIT theory and Bishop Caldwells dravidianism are at the root of the problem

In south India, Caldwell started off his dravidianism movement with a speech at an audience 95% tamil brahmin??

In sri lanka, the last sinhalese dynasty
was ruled by a Nayak, a viceroy from Vijayanagar

The Dravidianist movement had its counter part in sri lanka wherein the sinhalese declared themselves as Aryan

I have seen sinhalese, there is a huge amount of tamil blood
Compare the looks of Rajapakse and Dayanidi Maran

While the LTTE is catholic controlled, the sinhalese are anti-Indian, anti-Hindu, anti-Tamil racists
The sinhalese are pro-pak, pro-China
A decisive victory for the sinhalese is not in Hindu interests

About 2 years ago, on an Indian defence forum, I had made these statements
calling for a nuanced approach,
and gotten shouted out as a LTTE sympathiser

The rank and file of the LTTE is hindu, while the leadership is xtian

I wish the rest of Indian hindus had the ruthlessness of the LTTE cadre
4 things.

<!--QuoteBegin-G.Subramaniam+Feb 23 2009, 08:39 AM-->QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ Feb 23 2009, 08:39 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->LTTE chief Prabakaran became a terrorist after he saw a brahmin priest in sri lanka set on fire by sinhalese mobs led by buddhist monks[right][snapback]94847[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->And afterwards he became a christian. Which means nothing for Hindus.

<!--QuoteBegin-G.Subramaniam+Feb 23 2009, 08:39 AM-->QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ Feb 23 2009, 08:39 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The rank and file of the LTTE is hindu, while the leadership is xtian[right][snapback]94847[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->But that stresses what the essence of the problem is all the more: LTTE's driving force, their objectives are all driven by christians, by christianism. The Hindus merely think the LTTE is fighting for them. They are wrong: they are being used.

If LTTE meddling is transplanted to TN as the DMK seems to want to do, you will see only anti-Hindu actions. Again, this is because the movement is a christian brainchild that used Hindus in SL but has been entirely hijacked by christianism. Never underestimate christian subversion. Tamil chauvinism has nothing to do with preserving Tamizh or giving its due place as first language in TN. It is entirely anti-Hindu. DMK is a christian movement. And you see that because it is fighting the majority pagan religion of India: Hindu Dharma. LTTE similarly is christianism fighting the majority inconvertible religion of SL - Buddhism, but using the bodies of Hindus to accomplish this (hence it is simultaneously destroying the other pagan religion of SL too).

When christianism is removed from SL, then things will be clearer. At that point there can be a genuine reappraisal of the inevitability - or not - of the inability of Hindu Dharma/SL Theravadan Buddhism to coexist side-by-side. Although everyone there will necessarily be nursing past wounds.
A clean slate is not possible of course, too much has happened.

3. I'm not saying Buddhism does not exhibit an aggressive streak when it comes to some of its followers being convinced it's right for everyone.
But in E Asia, the indigenous religions' internal struggles with Buddhism managed to neutralise the aggression and this resulted in Mahayana Buddhism which is bits of Buddhism with a lot of their own local religions in it (Tao and Shinto. For instance, check out all the Tao Gods and Shinto Gods).

In E Asia you find they historically had the same problem with Buddhism when it came there. Consider the Chinese Buddhist narrative of "The Monkey King". It is about a Chinese Buddhist (the 'monkey') who IIRC even challenged the Jade (?) Emperor Of Heaven - someone quite central to traditional Chinese Religio, Taoism. Now, it's not at all a Taoist motif to have anyone challenge the Emperor of Heaven. This part of the narrative represents a Buddhist challenge to Taoism's authority. This antagonism with the existing status quo is subsequently echoed by how the narrative has the Monkey King fight the champion representing Heaven: Nezha - an ancient Taoist child God, who is particularly <i>known</i> for his eternal <b>invincibility</b> in battle. And what happens in the encounter (an encounter that is not there in Taoism, btw, since this is entirely a Buddhist narrative)? The Buddhist narrative has the Monkey King best Nezha! Impossible, but it symbolises something: Buddhism's claim to supremacy over Taoist Gods, over Taoism.

Yet while Buddhism found success in CN/TW, Taoism still won in its own way: Buddhism could not separate the traditional Chinese population from their Gods. Among many Mahayana Buddhist families in TW and in CN, one finds that all their Buddhist Temples (including family temples) tend to have as central Gods *Taoist* Gods. The various Buddhas of Mahayana Buddhism are kept secondary, they're considered divine teachers (and where they've elevated the Buddhas to Gods, it actually isn't quite in keeping with Buddhism). They do pujas mainly to the Taoist Gods, I speak of lay Bauddha families. Food and incense is offered to all their central Gods and teachers.

The exact same sort of pattern in Buddhism's entry is evident in Japan. However, in Japanese Shinto-Buddhism, the Shinto Gods became secondary, because Buddhism found it had to adopt them, but did so by making them into <i>supporting</i> Deities of Buddha and Buddhism.

A Buddhism reminiscent of the Theravada kind arose in India, and while acknowledging the potential existence of Gods, it said they were unimportant because the question of Gods was irrelevant for personal liberation. When the movement was spreading it found opposition with many in the existing body of Hindus who would not give up their Gods, their traditions.
The difference between India and E Asia was that while Hindus either kept resisting Buddhism or accepted it fully (after which it was promoted by converted rulers), E Asia subverted the Buddhism that entered: the E Asian peoples would not accept the new religion without Gods - their existing Gods and traditions. Buddhism often found that it had to change to be accepted by the larger population there, and that it had to occasionally even use Indian Gods to get a proper foothold.
<i>Hindu Dharma</i> had earlier found more ready converts in China (though fewer, as there's no evidence I came across that it was actually trying to convert), since the Gods were merely added to the Taoist Pantheon (and to the Shinto Gods of Japan).

Buddhism made use of the Indian Gods in E Asia - what it was not willing to do in most of India (at least in the beginning), but which it *did* do again in Tibet where the traditional religions were Bon and Hindu Dharma (you can see the effects of the latter's influence on Tibetan Buddhism: Mahakala and Tara - one of the Vidyas (Shakti) of traditional Hindu Dharma - are still of significance in lay Tibetan Buddhists' lives).
And in E Asia, Buddhism naturally also used the Taoist and Shinto Gods to gain a place. There's been much merger in E Asia. But there are still full Taoists and there are still exclusive Shintos in CN and JP respectively, even when some of the full Shintos additionally keep <i>particularly Hindu</i> Gods. And then there are many Buddhists of China and Taiwan who are Taoist Buddhists and many Buddhists in Japan who additionally regard themselves as Shintoists since they still keep Shinto Gods (even when they now consider these Gods to be Buddhist).

The thing is that people are very attached to their Gods, and their indigenous traditions. Contrary to what modern Hindus and the west think 'universally appeals', it turns out that philosophy is not what is of main interest to many (lay) people. People like their Gods. Buddhism said they are irrelevant, but Shintos and Taoists knew (and still know) they are not. Buddhism found it had to compromise in E Asia.

It's a fact that Buddhism has had an aggressive <i>history</i> here and there - and not just in the subcontinent - but 1) I can't see that Buddha was teaching this sort of aggression and therefore 2) don't know that Hindu Dharma and Bauddha Dharma need for ever remain irreconcilable. What I do know is that it is *not* a problem that Hindus have/had with Buddhism, but the other way around (though SL Hindus may no longer feel any love for the religion). Also, it is not all of Buddhism - at least, it is not the Mahayana Buddhism of E Asia that feels any antagonism towards Hindu Dharma.

In SL the smoke must first clear to see what the alternatives are: christian meddling has expressly been stoking fires no one can put out for many years to come.

4. <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In Japan, the butchers became burakumin or untouchable<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Western scholars says this was already there in Shinto-Confucian society but that Buddhism much exacerbated their plight.
Also, in Japanese society, this 'untouchability' practise was not very old, just some centuries apparently.
Untouchability is/was also practised in some African societies where some (sub)communities were not allowed to drink water from the same well, and other similar rules.

<b>ADDED:</b> I don't think this says anything bad about Shinto or Confucianism (nor of Bauddha Dharma, African Religion or Hindu Dharma), but rather that this phenomenon of social exclusion seems to sometimes occur in societies. People were often ostracised for transgressions of social or religious traditions (crimes against society or doing something that is a religious taboo: in Shinto society the exclusion was applied to instances that included sexual crimes, and in Japanese Buddhism additionally for non-vegetarian practices). The problem arises when subsequent generations are also punished with exclusion for what some ancestor of theirs did.
Husky wrote

QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ Feb 23 2009, 08:39 AM)
LTTE chief Prabakaran became a terrorist after he saw a brahmin priest in sri lanka set on fire by sinhalese mobs led by buddhist monks
And afterwards he became a christian. Which means nothing for Hindus.

You are missing the main point
The initial sinhala pogroms were aimed at hindu symbols
Even now the sinhalese desecrate hindu temples
<!--QuoteBegin-G.Subramaniam+Feb 23 2009, 06:33 PM-->QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ Feb 23 2009, 06:33 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->You are missing the main point
The initial sinhala pogroms were aimed at hindu symbols
Even now the sinhalese desecrate hindu temples
[right][snapback]94867[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->But the 'alternative' is no better. How pro-Hindu is the LTTE:
1. http://transcurrents.com/tamiliana/archives/285
The christian LTTE murdered the 61-year old Sri Lankan Hindu priest Parameshwara Gurukkal

2. http://www.christianaggression.org/item_di...S&id=1141381467
Go to the link to read the full article. Excerpts:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>A neo-colonial conspiracy</b>
By Sandhya Jain
February 26, 2006

Hindus comprise almost 85 per cent of Lanka's Tamil population, and their traditions and culture are being eroded by the LTTE and its profoundly pro-western bias. Few Lankan Hindus are even now willing to speak of the LTTE's Christian character, though this is now increasingly visible, with the ironical result that Hindus in government-controlled territory are for the first time better off than those living under LTTE domination. Tamil writers note that Hindu temples are being reconstructed and having a vibrant service, with all festivals celebrated with great fervour in areas like Jaffna, Vavuniya and Batticaloa. But this is not true of the LTTE-controlled districts.

On the contrary, the LTTE is taking Hindu dharma out of the public arena. The important Tamil festival of Navaratri is accorded great respect in the government-held territory. Last year, the Buddhist Speaker of Parliament, Mr. Lokubandara, led the celebrations, which were attended by Sinhalese, Tamils and even Muslim MPs of various political parties. The JVP participated with enthusiasm, but the pro-LTTE TNA kept away from this major Hindu event in the nation's Parliament. LTTE's undeniable European tilt is becoming a matter of comment in Tamil circles. It is pointed out that the LTTE refused to negotiate with the Lankan government in Japan or Thailand; Prabhakaran boycotted the Tokyo conference. He is also anti-India. Instead, he preferred to talk only in <b>Norway</b> or Switzerland, countries with little understanding of Lanka. Political analysts say the LTTE ideology sidelines the indigenous religious traditions of the Lankan people as a whole. The organisation is anti-Buddhist, anti-Muslim, anti-Indian and anti-Asian, and has no Hindu sympathies either. It crushed the Batticaloa-based cadre that resulted in Karuna's revolt in 2004. <b>The LTTE has in fact been described as "a neo-colonial fifth column" in the Midweek Review Island Newspaper, because it seeks to denude Tamil nationalism of its Hindu roots and is too close to Christian missionaries.</b> This is also why the Tamil movement has become internationally isolated. Tamils have suffered in other ways as well. They once led the country in education, but now LTTE's politicisation of universities has led to the prolonged closure of the Jaffna and Eastern Universities. At the same time, the Muslim-dominated South-Eastern University is developing fast and producing good students and high quality research. Worse, when paramilitary groups allegedly killed the pro-LTTE principal of Kopay Hindu College, the organisation hit back by murdering the distinguished principal of Jaffna Central College, who opposed child conscription. He was killed when going to join Navaratri festivities organised by students. LTTE supremo Prabhakaran designated the pro-LTTE principal as Mamanithar, but the majority of Jaffna's inhabitants preferred to mourn for the principal of Jaffna Central College. <b>Tamil Hindus have been the worst sufferer of the LTTE's human rights record. According to government sources, the LTTE murdered 562 people since the ceasefire of 2002, which include 388 Tamil and Muslim civilians. There were 117 attempted murders and 620 reports of kidnapping. It murdered several Hindu priests in recent years, thus violating the spirit of the ceasefire. Finally, the LTTE prevented 500,000 Tamils from exercising their democratic franchise in 2005; it forcibly evicted 350,000 Tamils from their homes in the Jaffna peninsula in 1995; and it systematically murdered independent-minded Tamil Hindu intellectuals. Democracy cannot thrive under the shadow of the sword. This bodes ill for the forthcoming elections in the North-East.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
3. http://www.christianaggression.org/item_di...S&id=1112887194
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>LTTE And Churches Protect Each Other</b>
The history of LTTE reveals a discernible pattern in its relations with religious institutions: it has ruthlessly attacked and killed Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists but hardly ever touched Christians. It has never confronted the Churches the way it has taken on the other three main religionists.

In fact, it has had a very cozy relationship with the Churches. Though the LTTE has raided and taken over Hindu Temples by force in Western countries it has never dared to touch a single Christian church run by the Jaffna Tamils abroad. The Christian churches are considered to be richer than the Hindu Temples. Nevertheless, the fear of severe backlash from the dominant Christian governments and Christian communities abroad has prevented the LTTE from grabbing Christian Churches.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This only goes to show the christo LTTE is not Hindus friends. SL Buddhists are not either.
But much of the present SL Buddhist violent tendencies toward the SL Hindus may not be entirely owing to the aggression displayed by Buddhists of earlier times, but rather due to the calculated meddling of the christian Portuguese, christian oryan-dravoodian fable and the christian LTTE in the recent era. Hindus are being doubly victimised now, since christoterrorists are playing a game with them as bait.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>That anti-Portuguese feeling in Lanka</b>
COLOMBO DIARY | PK Balachandran
December 19, 2005
Hindustan Times

Prior to the advent of the Portuguese, there was much Sinhala-Tamil and Buddhist-Tamil amity in Sri Lanka.

MU de Silva says that Hindu temples dotted the maritime provinces, though these were Buddhist-majority areas. In the Thottagamuwa school, no distinction was made between Sinhala and Tamil, Pali and Sanskrit.

There was a famous Tamil scholar on its rolls. The famous Buddhist monk Buddhaghosha was a Tamil.

The people of Kotte had not liked Dharmapala's conversion to Christianity and had transferred their allegiance to the King of Kandy.

But the Portuguese were to extend their power to the Kandy area soon. Here again they tried to convert people to Christianity, but with less success than in the maritime provinces.

<b>Tamil-Sinhala divide created by Portuguese</b>

According to Prof Endagama, it was the Portuguese who first created a division between the Sinhalas and the Tamils.

One reason for this, according to Prof Dewaraja, was the fact that the Portuguese found it easier to convert the Tamils.

"They made the Tamils of Jaffna compete with the Sinhalas and the percentage of Tamils who converted to Christianity was more," adds Prof Endagama.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Many a similar divisive insertion are christianism's bequest to the subcontinent: anti-brahminism, the invention of oryanism-dravoodianism=christianism. Behind every destructive subversion, one finds the ugly terrorism of christianism staring back at you with its beady eyes.

Buddhism, while it may have caused troubles in its beginnings in the subcontinent, managed to settle down at some point in Sri Lanka's history.
<b>Christianism is behind all the recent enmity.</b> Just as it is behind every fractured Natural Traditionalist society.
Need to analyse the entire situation.

While Sinhala violence against Hindus is a reality, there is so much christian meddling going on that it's not as certain that one can point to Buddhism as being the <i>root</i> cause in Hindus' persecution, the way one can point to LTTE's christianism being the cause in LTTE's persecution of Hindus. It is christoism in the form of LTTE that is inviting further Sinhala reprisals against the *Hindus*. Christianism is achieving the murder of pagans on both sides and no one points a finger at it. Instead they're too busy pointing the finger only at each other.

Consider the usual Looney Toonsy sort of scenario: If I made myself invisible and slapped you while you were standing next to someone you felt neutral about, and then slapped them too and started a violent confrontation between you two, the subsequent punching bout you both have would be very real, certainly. But the silent initiator (and the one still slapping either of you every time you both quiten down) would be me.
And your real enemy <i>should</i> be me, though you both <i>do</i> have real mutually-inflicted wounds to resent - again, owing to me ultimately. But neither of you can see me. And if you could stop looking past me to realise who caused it all, one still doesn't know whether both of you could ever actually get along after the violence that transpired.
That's christianism's role in all this, IMO.
From 1948 to 1983 it was solely buddhist monks against hindus
The xtian dominance in LTTE came after 1986

What I am trying to say is that per the accepted wisdom
buddhist monks are angels and brahmins are devils
not true
buddhist monks have had slaves, doing sex games like the catholic padres
buddhism was rolled back in India by common people
<!--QuoteBegin-G.Subramaniam+Feb 24 2009, 07:09 AM-->QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ Feb 24 2009, 07:09 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->From 1948 to 1983 it was solely buddhist monks against hindus
The xtian dominance in LTTE came after 1986[right][snapback]94879[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->But was there no foreign meddling at all - no "setting up of the scene", the way there is now in Nepal with the calculated setting up of 'nationalism' as an anti-Indian (ultimately will be anti-Hindu) movement? Or the way there has been in TN with the setting up of DMK as an anti-Hindu and anti-brahmin movement? In the latter two cases one knows of foreign (christian) instigation.

It seems a bit mysterious how after some centuries of having reached some sort of compromise for co-existence, that SL's Buddhists should choose to take to anti-Hindu measures again in the late 1940s. Is there no trigger at all? Surely it's curious. One can't avoid first investigating it. And if there were, can it be shown to be a Buddhist trigger, a purely Buddhist trigger without any subversive influence? Or was it set off with another fuse?

<!--QuoteBegin-G.Subramaniam+Feb 24 2009, 07:09 AM-->QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ Feb 24 2009, 07:09 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->What I am trying to say is that per the accepted wisdom
buddhist monks are angels and brahmins are devils
not true[right][snapback]94879[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->People who take any interest in the matter already know that. The entire contrast is a modern christocommunist notion.
The situation is reversed in SL where the Buddhists are projected as the epitomy of villainy by (international and local) christos who then hold up the real plight of Tamils (Hindus) as a stick to beat the majority with. Christianism - and communism - do not have any real sympathies for Buddhism, one can see this when comparing their trumpeting of Buddhism in India versus their stomping on it in SL and in other Buddhist nations too.
Buddhism merely serves them as a convenient external device (one that can't be traced back to christocommunism and thereby reveal christocommunism's real motivations in using it) that is used in India to argue that Hindu Dharma is evil. Christocommunism likes playing traditions against each other. Since comparatively very few adhere to Buddhism in India, it becomes easy for India's christocommunists to speak for Buddhism, to project an idea of a historical and present Buddhism that does not really exist, and then do so in a manner that sets it up as a particularly constrastive religion vis-a-vis Hindu Dharma. Their method only works because quite few in India can speak for what a Buddhist life really involves.

<!--QuoteBegin-G.Subramaniam+Feb 24 2009, 07:09 AM-->QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ Feb 24 2009, 07:09 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->buddhist monks have had slaves, doing sex games like the catholic padres[right][snapback]94879[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->1. Yes, Buddhist monasteries had slaves in Tibet, Korea and apparently China too (can't remember Japan's case, don't know India).

2. As for sexual abuse - this I have only ever heard of in Tibet's case where it is said to be something Lamas introduced from even before their conversion to Buddhism: the Mongolian Lamas who entered Tibet. (Apparently their initial arrival was violent. But they converted to Buddhism, settled down and because they ruled the country, it is under them that the character of the nation changed from Bon to Buddhist.)
The alternative and reasonable - and likely - explanation is that these are allegations that are merely part of the Chinese dawaganda against Tibetan Buddhism. In any case, any occurrence (or not) of such abuse in Tibet does not in any way constitute proof that it is something connected with Buddhism in practice at all (compared to how all kinds of sexual abuse IS factually ingrained in christianism since its inception). Not unless you can show unbiased data of how the same occurs in other Buddhist societies and countries too.

Also, Hindus need to be careful not to fall for western/christo sponsored or influenced dawaganda when it comes to Tibetan and other Buddhism: movies like "Samsara", and many a Korean film on Buddhism made by catholic terrorists.
On one hand, there is the historical reality of Buddhism not being the flawless religion ignorant christocommunist history-writing makes it out to be, but on the other hand it is a fairly decent religion and its social failures are owing to the fact that it's a religion that was not originally concerned with society but the individual.

<!--QuoteBegin-G.Subramaniam+Feb 24 2009, 07:09 AM-->QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ Feb 24 2009, 07:09 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->buddhism was rolled back in India by common people
[right][snapback]94879[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->What I do know is that contrary to communistic writings, Buddhism did not magically become popular among the populace: people leading regular lives do not relinquish their long-held way of life (and their Gods) just like that, certainly not for 'philosophy' which is so far removed from day-to-day living. It was the converted Buddhist rulers that patronised Buddhism and wanted to see it spread, both in their kingdoms and beyond. People who imagine Buddhism (early Indian Buddhism, consisting almost entirely of philosophical considerations including ideas of renunciation) appealed to the masses of people tend to have read one too many missionary/communist-rigged histories. Reading earlier articles from more disinterested encyclopaedias and texts, one can see that Buddhism's effect in India was the same as in E Asia.

Some support for how I'm not making this up. I'd maybe reach for some encyclopaedia or textbook or do a search, but why bother when Elst suffices:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hsuan Tsang is notorious for his exaggerations and his insertions of miracle stories, and he had to explain to China, where Buddhism was readhing its peak, why it was declining in India. It seems safer to base our judgement on the fact that in his description of Buddhist life in the Ganga basin, nothing shows the effects of recent persecutions. In fact, Hsuan Tsang himself gives a clue to the real reason of pre-Islamic Buddhist decline, by describing how many Buddhist monasteries had fallen into disuse, esp. in areas of lawlessness and weak government, indicating that the strength of Buddhism was in direct proportion to state protection and patronage. Unlike Brahminism, which could sustain itself against heavy odds, the fortunates of Buddhist monasticism (even more than those of the Christian abbeys in early medieval Europe) were dependent upon royal favours, as under Ashoka, the Chinese early T'ang dynasty, and the rulers of Tibet and several Southeast-Asian countries.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The idea of Buddhist <i>laity</i> developed later in India. In the beginning it was all monks and nuns: renunciation and a monastic life. It was Hindu Brahmanas who initially became Buddhist monks. And later some rulers did the same. They both probably had time to burn pondering philosophies and comparing between ideas on life to choose what suited them. The same does not hold for the regular person with family and community and day-to-day duties and responsibilities. Abdicating life for ascetism (which is what early Buddhist life entailed) is not an available option for them or within their convenience (not realistic for them).

But in E Asia, the Mahayana Buddhism that eventually resulted is very much suited to the life of the populace. This is where the idea of Buddhist laity makes most sense: there is something tangible and meaningful that regular people in E Asia get out of it. Though many may know less about Buddha's teachings especially compared to what monks know, they carry out a lot of home rites associated with Mahayana, and with the Taoist Gods. E Asian Buddhism has a lot to offer to and is a more complete way of life for general people than the initial ascetic Buddhism that arose in India, IMO.

Finally, I'm not the local IF defender of Buddhism. I will stand up for E Asia's Mahayana Buddhism and for Buddha's teachings (and hence the core of Bauddha Dharma, even though they are not my personal views), but for the defence of general Buddhism one has to turn to Bodhi.
And it's very hard for me to keep sticking up for SL Buddhism. I did it out of principle (and in an attempt to transcend any innate biases and to be objective), since the picture is bigger and more complex than merely what we already know of SL Buddhists persecuting Hindus. But I think I've done enough. Others can do more if they choose to and if they have the data. One word of caution: just 'cause we're Hindus doesn't mean we should be blind to the larger situation. While it's easy to draw the straightforward conclusions and reduce complex situations to only the visible elements, it's wrong to limit ourselves to that when we know and can find out more. What I am saying is that while SL's Buddhism is not a victim of SL's Hindu Dharma the way the reverse IS true, both *are* victims of something else. And to ignore that crucial third factor is to trivialise the situation and can only perpetuate the errors going on.

Buddhist monks have been against hindus for a long time
Myanmar got separated from India due to buddhist monks

Buddhist monks have desecrated hindu temples in sri lanka even a few months ago

The initial villain in sri lanka are / were buddhist monks
the later opportunistic villain is the xtian missionary

Husky, I am from tamil nadu, and not a dravidianist
It irks me when ignorant people from other states make dumb statements

I am not going to discuss any more with you since you are not a local
<!--QuoteBegin-G.Subramaniam+Feb 23 2009, 07:45 AM-->QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ Feb 23 2009, 07:45 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Many hindus foolishly have a soft spot for buddhism

The fact is that buddhists despise us

In 1937, the partition of Myanmar from India was done by the agitation of buddhist monks

In buddhist thailand, they hate Indians and kiss ass of chinese

In post independence Myanmar, 6 million tamil hindus have been forced to declare
themselves as buddhists

The Buddhists of Bhutan have expelled their hindu population

The tibetan buddhists prior to the chinese invasion of 1950, were trying to get back ladakh and arunachal pradesh

In the west, buddhists do everything to disavow their hindu roots

I also seriously question whether dalits were ever buddhists

IMHO, untouchability began with buddhism

This are not cases of neo-buddhism(western academic type of buddhism) and nationalistic buddhism(one nation=one religion+one language like in Europe)?
I read that dalit caste(or non-caste?) apear in the 9 century in south India;buddhist influence?

Buddhism was an intelectual movement in the urban India,spreading in Asia it didnt have any intelectual alternative.Not even in China,taoism and confucianim was more about having a good material life and not about the eternal fate of the soul(self).So buddhism mixed easely there .In India, the intelectual brahmins and ascetics have alternative ideas for Buddha's ideas regarding the eternal fate of the soul(self).For some reason they prefered the rural and forest places.In time, intelectuals(including buddhists) renounce the ideea of non-Brahman propagated by Buddha and become advaitins(smartas).
Thats why buddhism is an oversised hindu sect.
<!--QuoteBegin-G.Subramaniam+Feb 24 2009, 07:05 PM-->QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ Feb 24 2009, 07:05 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Husky, I am from tamil nadu, and not a dravidianist
It irks me when ignorant people from other states make dumb statements[right][snapback]94890[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->And what state did you think I was from? <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I don't believe in Japhetics/Hamitics either, btw.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I am not going to discuss any more with you since you are not a local<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Well, in so far as I'm not in TN now, I suppose I'm not local enough for you. But if <i>you're</i> not living in TN at present either, the same will go for you.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Buddhist monks have been against hindus for a long time
Myanmar<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes and yes. How often do you want me to agree on this? I'm under no illusions on this matter, nor on who the aggressors are and who the victims thereof.
As I said, I am aware of some of the history and present of Buddhist expansion. And I also know of data that shows it was worse than I have indicated.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Buddhist monks have desecrated hindu temples in sri lanka even a few months ago

The initial villain in sri lanka are / were buddhist monks
the later opportunistic villain is the xtian missionary<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Where is the disagreement?
<b>The problem I have is not your pointing out Buddhist persecution of Hindus in SL - which is a fact that cannot be denied - but your holding up the christo LTTE as an alternative.</b> Because the christoLTTE have been having the same sort of 'success' against Hindus and Hindu Dharma (murdering Hindu priests - Sandhya Jain mentioned that these number several as well - AND destroying Hindu temples), but they are getting away with it because they do it under the cover of 'representing Hindus'. They must be exposed, along with your expose of SL Buddhism as being not so glorious as people believe.

I'm saying what I've long thought:
1. SL Hindus need to represent themselves. Not let christoterrorists hijack their case and continue to play them. The Tamils (Hindus) there have no friends among either the Buddhist side or the christoLTTE side.
This is not an uncommon view among those SL Hindus who now live in exile. They are afraid of <i>both</i> groups.
2. SL religious dynamics is so complex, can't only focus on the visibles: Hindus and Buddhists.

If you wanted me to just repeat my personal views on how SL Buddhists are being villains here, I can do that <i>really well</i>. And some of it will even be quite objective. But these are facts known to all here (or ought to be).
However, I'm willing to bet that my bringing those things up will not make clear what ELSE is happening to the Hindus in SL. And that is something that should be discussed <i>alongside</i> SL Buddhists' anti-Hindu violence. If there's no additional factor in Burmese Buddhists driving out Hindus, there still is one in the case of SL Buddhists' persecution of Hindus. Moreover, one can't view their continued attacks on Hindu temples NOW in a vacuum while ignoring that the christoLTTE is expressly continuing to instigate SL Buddhist reprisals <i>against Hindus</i>.

Why is it that every Hindu who finds there is reason to be anti-LTTE is assumed to be pro-SL Buddhist, as if this is the only alternative conclusion that can be drawn? Nah. I'm ONLY pro-SL Tamil <i>Hindus</i> (I'm so very sorry that I don't remotely care about the SL christian and muslim 'Tamils'.)
1. Among the SL Tamizh Hindus I know living in exile, the ones that speak with fear about the LTTE (and naturally with fear of the SL Sinhala-Buddhist govt as well) are the ones still consciously Hindu. While other Sri Lankan Tamils in the Tamil society here - who do tend to be very pro-LTTE - don't recognise any real Hindu identity anymore, they only identify with the new understanding of what "Tamil identity" entails: something psecular where Hindu is irrelevant or somehow includes christianism. And these same SL Tamil believers in psecular non-Hindu "Tamil identity" tend to marry christians or have approved of their kids marrying christians.

For a supposedly Hindu org, LTTE seems to be promoting only christianism, initially through psecularisation of Hindu Dharma and then through outright christianism.

The Malayalees' society where I live carries out <i>exclusively</i> christian 'celebrations' (easter, christmas), or otherwise steals Hindu religio-festivals and calls them psecular ('christian') Malayalee festivals: Onam. That's because its members now consist of >=90% christians. Poor Hindus among them who have no other place to gather.

The Tamizh society here can be heading that way too: their christian wives and daughters-in-law want jeebus pictures introduced and there's some huddling to consider celebrating christmas now. Christianism has slowly been insinuating itself as part of the SL 'Tamil identity', so that now Indian Tamizhs (Hindus) have to stomach this garbage too. Fat chance.

2. There's one Karuna Amman, ex-LTTE, who split from LTTE some years back with his own army and now says he represents real Tamizh interests. Some are under the impression that Karuna split from LTTE upon realising how it was a christian org.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->narendran 23/02/2009 09:18:18
<b>Christianity is a bigger danger to civilization than anything else</b>
<b>The LTTE Christian cat came out of the bag the moment Col. Karuna severed his link with Bro.Pirbakaran.</b>Karunanidhi cooled down after being warned by him to stop playing godfather to the genuine Tamils fighting for their cause. In tamil nadu conversion of Hindus to christianity was speeded up in its southern districts on the possibility that India being under the thumb of the catholic woman Sonia Gandhi pretending to be caving in to the demands of Karunadhi under political presure would never prevent setting up of a new Jesuland forming part of Tamil nadu and north of sri lanka.For the time being that dream lies shattered.If bro. pirabakaran's LTTe has now been revealed as Christian militia what doubt can be there that the naxalites and maoists to be not a division of the same army because the supporters of the latter are the same western christian forces supporting the Ltte ,to cite one name ,'the doctors with out boarders',the goddmmed Christian ngos who are the bane of civilization?America even under Obama is reported to be preasurising the Srilanakan govt not to pass a bill banning conversion of innocent buddhists to Christianity by fraud as no man with commeonsense will willingly agree to take to christianity if he knows the abominable history of christianity which caused the death of millions of innocents in the name of infinte love of god for example as was witnessed including in Goa. Thomas Paine began one of his pamphlets with the immortal words;These are times that test the souls of men." Those are applicable to us Indians now.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And this next person also commenting at the above link seems to moreover be of the view that LTTE members are all/largely christian now - not just their leadership anymore. (Seems unlikely IMO. But I think the only Hindus remaining in LTTE are the brainwashed, the kidnapped and the psecular who believe solely in some 'Tamil identity' forgetful of the fact that their Hindu ancestors fought against the tyranny of christianism in SL) -
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Biju 22/02/2009 22:10:46
<b>LTTE is Christian Terrorist Organization</b>
LTTE is Christian Terrorist Organization now <b>all ltte cadres are converted Christian.</b> in 2004 col <b>Karuna split</b> from ltte and deal got for t peace <b>i think he come out from ltte coz of ltte implementing now Christian agenda.</b>
dear Hindu brothers don't support this Christian ltte. congt Lankan govt. crush this chiristain terrorists.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Whatever be the reasons for the split, it was Karuna Amman who first revealed how Norway was funding LTTE (he would have known this from having been a significant LTTE member previously) and then NAT did the research to find that Yes indeed he was right.

The PDF of the Norwegians against terrorism (NAT) that exposes Norwegian funding of LTTE which IF posted long ago, states:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The Solheim / Karuna dispute</b>
Upon request we have been asked to investigate the allegations made by Erik Solheim that Colonel Karuna is lying about the Norwegian funding of the LTTE and training of the LTTE. We have found that Colonel Karuna allegations of Norwegian funding are correct and Erik Solheim is the liar. We have also found Erik Solheim is lying about the Norwegian military assistance to the LTTE.
(Which then goes on to provide the data)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Meanwhile HR groups have been clocking overhours trying to make Karuna Amman go down for war crimes.

I still entertain doubts about this Karuna Amman: I can understand why his army is taking a swipe against the LTTE. But why is he being supported by the Lankan govt???? Is it really only because the "enemy of my people's first enemy is my friend"? Or is a Hindu Tamil movement again being 'represented' by non-Hindu interests and non-Hindus, rather like the christoLTTE has been doing?

There seems to be no genuine representation of Hindu interests in SL. All one can see is
- subversion of the younger generations living in exile ("Tamil only identity" and "we are marrying Tamils - they just happen to be *christian* but note how they are 'Tamil' and are consequently for 'our cause'". And what cause was that? Christianism? Yes. The christian wives 'coincidentally' happen to be supporting LTTE.)
- one or more subversive movements that <i>say</i> they represent 'Tamil' interests but do so by bypassing and negating the <i>Hindu</i> in Tamizh.

Repeat of Sandhya:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(LTTE) is anti-Buddhist, anti-Muslim, anti-Indian and anti-Asian, and has no Hindu sympathies either. It crushed the Batticaloa-based cadre that resulted in Karuna's revolt in 2004. The LTTE has in fact been described as "a neo-colonial fifth column" in the Midweek Review Island Newspaper, because it seeks to denude Tamil nationalism of its Hindu roots and is too close to Christian missionaries.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

3. General stats: about 73% of Sri Lanka is Sinhalese, about 18% is Tamil. (The remainder consists of 7% islamics and the rest is 'others'.)
About 85% of the SL Tamils were still Hindu in Feb 2006 according to Sandhya's article from that time.

4. <!--QuoteBegin-G.Subramaniam+Feb 24 2009, 07:09 AM-->QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ Feb 24 2009, 07:09 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->From 1948 to 1983 it was solely buddhist monks against hindus
The xtian dominance in LTTE came after 1986[right][snapback]94879[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->There seems to be some <i>christian</i> subversive meddling that encouraged or at least occurred in parallel with the <i>Buddhist</i> action against <i>Hindus</i> in SL between 1948-1983:

"Sri Lankan Tamils, the ‘Cats Paw’ of the Church"
(Note: My comments below in purple)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->After more than 150 years of rule, when the British were compelled to leave the Island on the new world order brought about by the realization of the unceasing nature of the domination by arms, a privileged elite class of Anglo Saxon thinking, lead by the Church, had emerged in Sri Lanka from among locals. Unlike in India, in Sri Lanka there was no national struggle to win independence and as a result the patriotic indigenous leadership did not synchronize. The British handed over the power to the new local elites expecting them to preserve that status quo.

The new Government of the Independent Sri Lanka was initially towing the British line but eventually with the masses taking over the reigns of power the much awaited, progressive legislations were introduced. For instance, at the time of independence (1948), only 6% of the country’s population was conversant in English, the official language of the time. As a result 94 % of the country’s population was in the dark, being governed by the English speaking elite. Swabasha was introduced in 1956 to overcome this anomaly. With that move the foundation of the English speaking elite started to crack. The vested interests of the Church reacted to this in all possible ways. Even though there was provision for reasonable use of Tamil in the new legislation the Church propagated to the world about the unreasonableness of the legislation. The fact that there was a disproportionate amount of Tamils in the state service due to a one sided education policy for centuries gave credence to the ‘Tamil grievance’ as a corollary of the swabasha Bill. The church baptized the bill ‘Singhala only’

<b>They found a very willing ally in Chelvanayagam, son of a clergyman, who was more Anglican than Tamil.</b> He was obsessed with the thought that ‘How come these uneducated Sinhalese, being only a few million in population, could have a country of their own when the Tamils numbering 50 million could not have theirs’.
<b>(Note that the christoterrorist SJV Chelvanayagam's considerations above concerned the Hindu state of Tamizh Nadu in the reference to 'a country of their own'. Note how this pre-LTTE christoterrorist's thought spills over from SL into Hindu Tamil Nadu, into wanting Hindu Tamil Nadu's independence from Hindu Bharatam. Then again, christianism has long goals and designs.)</b>
According to him the ‘Singhalese were not big enough to govern us the Tamils’. The elite Tamil community who themselves had lost their privileges after the exit of the British was a good breeding ground for ‘alleged discrimination’. Chelvanayagam was not interested in implementing the reasonable use of Tamil because he would rather keep the ‘grievance’. He instead used this as an opportunity to introduce the first steps of the bifurcation plan in the form of Bandaranaike Chelvanayagam Pact where he demanded the land rights to North and the East. His strategy for total separation eventually was ‘little now and more later’. The B-C pact was rejected by the discerning public giving more propaganda matter to the Church and the Tamil elite.
It is not that the Tamils in general had no issue to demand more from the state but it is just that with a Sinhala dominated Government in power, the separatist minded Tamil elite like Chelvanayagam were able to project the Sri Lanka Government of the time as the source of all short comings. <b>The popularity of the separatist politics of Chelvanayagam made even Ponnambalam resign from the Government, placing the Tamil community in a confrontational course with the Government of the day just two years after independence.</b>

The legacy of the Anglican Church in Sri Lanka was that of colonial crusades, forced conscriptions, discriminatory treatment and economic exploitation. Hence it could not have picked any of those as a grievance against the now liberated Sinhala Buddhist population. But by taking the side of the Tamils it is saving itself and the status quo of the English speaking elite while projecting an image of a ‘fighter of the underdog’. Therefore <b>with Sri Lanka gaining independence the Church changed its role from ‘blessing the aggressor’ to ‘fighting for the underdog’.</b> That probably was the best way to check the progressive measures of the new Sri Lanka Government thereby preventing the transformation of Christian religion from the ‘patronized religion’ to the ‘religion of an insignificant minority’.

With the advent of Swabasha education the new liberated schools like Ananda and Nalanda broke the Christian monopoly on education and even the Maha Vidyalayas came to the fore with academic achievements surpassing the Christian schools. The Christian education suffered another body blow when they were taken over by the Government with progressive legislation in the 1960.s. Up to that time these Christian schools with their suave and ‘international’ standards were catering to the exclusive sections of the society producing even the leaders of the post independent Sri Lanka. Even today the English language media and the corporate sector in the country is made up of ‘old boys’ of these Christian schools. That way, what the Church could not accomplish in the form religious conversions had been compensated for in the form of conversions in culture and in thinking. In 1962 the senior police and security forces staged a coup de’tat against the elected Government of the day. All those officers who were involved were Christians and had that being successful; it was very likely that there would have been religious riots in Colombo as a corollary.

The Church had been consistently ‘sympathetic’ to the needs of the Tamils and helped them in innumerable ways to built up a Diaspora from the 1960’s. <b>It was the Vatican through its communication network disseminated to the world the events of July 83</b> painting the Sinhalese Buddhist as ‘uncivilized barbarians’. From that point onwards the western funded and the Church guided National Peace Council unleashed its propaganda machine to justify all the heinous crimes committed by the LTTE as ‘retaliatory activities’ prompted by the July 83 incidents. In actual fact, by July 83 the Tamil guerillas had broken in to 15 banks and 18 police stations making it impossible for the civil administration to maintain law and order and in the North. Hence July 83 was the effect of those activities. But the NPC propaganda made July 83 a ‘cause’ to justify the killings and maiming of thousands of innocent civilians, in their homes, in their sleep, in places of worship, places of work or just on the road. Ironically even though the LTTE has now come to be known as the ‘world’s most ruthless terror organization’ none of its activities received the same publicity that July 83 received in the Vatican.

It should also be borne in mind that <b>it was the World Council of Churches that sponsored the LTTE office in London which commenced its operation from 1984</b> denigrating the SL Government in general and the Sinhalese Buddhist in particular. The heads of the different Christian denominations in SL issue press statements from time to time, on the ongoing conflict, blaming mostly both parties to the Sri Lankan conflict, quite oblivious to the fact that on the one hand you have the legitimate Government of the country bending over backwards for peace and on the other the intransigent, ruthless and a totalitarian terrorist organization. They also make pilgrimages to Kilinochchi and eulogize the most ruthless terror leader and his activities. These are mostly done for the consumption of the Tamil Diaspora and the LTTE sympathizing Governments in the west.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Note that the Chelvanayagam mentioned belonged to the Church of South India, Jaffna Diocese. I think that makes him a catholic christoterrorist, even though his education was Anglican (christoBritish protestant).

5. Interesting comment:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Muthu 23/02/2009 05:50:23
<b>Anita pratap .... all falls in line</b>
Anita Pratap married to the Norwegian diplomat . Yes all the above converted ones doing all this mess is very evident.
Haindava editors must investigate this.
Read this and one will know. One must investigate the role of Anita pratap, vis a vis Norway in Sri lanka.

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->When you read the page at that link, she talks only about "Tamil" identity. Not a mention of how <i>real Tamizhs are Hindus</i>.
This is what christoterrorists do: steal our identities by psecularising it first - thus negating the essential characteristic of the identity - and then sidelining and victimising us the way they've done to the silenced Hindus of Kerala.
<!--QuoteBegin-G.Subramaniam+Feb 24 2009, 07:09 AM-->QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ Feb 24 2009, 07:09 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->From 1948 to <b>1983</b> it was solely buddhist monks against hindus[right][snapback]94879[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Apparently 1983 went down differently and has a rather sinister christian claw in who got blamed for it:
<b>Colombo Clans, Goon Squads and the Church</b>

Need to read the bit preceding the following excerpt first, but am posting the next paras in case people are too disinterested to click on the link:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Once the curfew was in place, in four consecutive days, four very significant statements were made over the Television ? Rupavahini Channel. While a shocked populace waited for the Executive President to address the nation, the UNP government and the Church plotted behind the scenes to place the blame entirely on the shoulders of Sinhalese Buddhists. This is how it was done.

Most Ven Madihe Pannaseeha Maha Nayake Thero was asked to address the Nation first. Naturally the Mahanayake Thero requested the Nation to have patience and be calm. The nation was angry but it was in no mood to go on a killing rampage. By getting him to address the nation J R Jayewardene got the world to believe that the Mahanayake Thero was really addressing the Sinhalese Buddhists and that they were responsible for the pogrom.
The second was made by J R Jayewardene (the man with the professional mourners face)himself, , as the President of Sri Lanka. He justified the riots as the justifiable anger of the Sinhalese for the killing of the 13 soldiers in Jaffna. Here he clearly laid the blame for the pogrom on the Sinhalese. It must also be noted that UNP Goon Squads and every shade of hooligan, Sinhalese, Tamil, Muslim and other took part in the universal phenomenon of looting that followed throughout the island. In many instances old scores were settled, regardless of ethnicity, taking advantage of the deplorable and unfortunate situation.
The third statement was made by R Premadasa the Prime Minister a servant of the Wijewardhana clan. He said that behind the riots was a coup organized by a Naxalite Terror Group. This was a diversionary attempt to put the blame on the pseudo socialist group led by Vijaya Kumaranatunge at that time.
The fourth and final statement was made by Ananda Tissa de Alwis the then Minister of Communications and Constitutional Affairs. He said the next stage of the coup would be for Sinhalese Buddhists to attack Sinhalese Christians. His was the voice of the Christian Church who would finally go to convince the world that Sinhalese Buddhists were responsible for the carnage. With this they killed two birds; firstly the blame for the pogrom was laid firmly and squarely on Sinhalese Buddhists and secondly they set up the Christians against the Buddhists.

(If one has access to Rupavahini Archives the veracity of these 4 statements can be verified.)

The essence of the above four statements show the way J R Jayewardene and his administration manipulated the media to put the blame, for the riots by his Goon Squads, on Sinhalese Buddhists. It is doubtful even today if the Mahanayake Thero knows how he was manipulated to lay the blame on the Sinhalese Buddhists. The subsequent propaganda by the State media and the Christian Church convinced the world that it was the Sinhalese and especially the Sinhalese Buddhist who were responsible for the July ?83 Riots.

As Sinhalese and mainly as Sinhalese Buddhists, we should not harbor any guilt complex about the happenings of July ?83 or those Racial riots of 1958, and thereafter. These were carried out by thugs affiliated to the two main political parties the UNP and the SLFP. To the Western Christian World, this was just the opportunity to denigrate the Buddhists in Sri Lanka.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NEVER underestimate christianism's propensity for lying.
Hindus deserve first claim on 'benefit of doubt' and, by extension, dharmics deserve the benefit of doubt also. Never christoislamicommunazism.

On another matter, the same article has a couple of paragraphs showing how SL's situ under organised christoterrorism seems to be paralleling India's situation under the same:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->At the moment the subjugation of Sinhalese Buddhists is going on various fronts. Unethical conversion of Buddhists is going a pace unabated. The land of the Sinhalese is up for grabs. Sinhalese Buddhists have neither voice left nor any representation in the proceedings in the so called ?Peace Process? in Sri Lanka. A Lutheran Christian nation, and one time Nazis, who practiced open racial discrimination against their own indigenous people ? the Inuit or Lapps, who aided and abetted with the LTTE are now in the garb of the mediators. (We should have been better off getting the TULF to mediate than these unknown foreigners with agendas of their own for South Asia.) The Buddhists are left largely friendless in the world due to years of diplomatic mishandling. The media has been in the hands of the Church affiliated Wijewardhana clan for decades. The audio- visual media are on a frontal attack on Sinhalese Culture. What is seen, heard and covertly imposed on the minds are all foreign values and ethos. While the Puppet Masters are now on open stage for everybody to see, a helpless nation is waiting its dismemberment.

Today with one time leader of one of the Goon Squads? Ranil Wickramasinghe of Batalanda fame as the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, Tyronne Fernando as the Foreign Minister, John Amaratunge as the Minister of the Interior and Home Affairs, Jayalath Jayewardhana the LTTE spy as the Minister of Rehabilitation and Refugees, Joseph Michael Perera as the Speaker of the House, the Christian Church is well and truly enthroned in Sri Lanka. The LTTE never had it any better. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Found the above article linked off a new comment at HK, which also states
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>pvas 25/02/2009 06:14:26  LTTE is strongly supported & funded by christians!</b>


Given the deep involvement of the church & christian organizations, particularly from the west, in LTTE activities, it is no surprise that the US is 'upset' that Sri Lankan government is planning to ban all religious conversion activities in the country. The chunk of the christian support for LTTE terrorism in Sri Lanka enters the country via the evangelical and missionary activities.

this reminds me of interactions with sinhalese and burmese monks at the mahAbodhivihAra of shrAvastI some years back.

- surely, there is an inherent and rather intense antipathy towards Astika-mata-s among the vR^ihattar-bhArata buddhists in general, and the southern branches in particular.

- But the phenomenon is much too complex to understand than the knee-jerk online discussions offer.

- The biggest fallacy is that most people who engage in such debates lack clarity in the historical aspects of the development of this antipathy. In my opinion, one has to lay down the historical framework of Astika-nAstika relationship, with specific stages, periods and milestones, to clearly analyze the psychology and other forces driving this behaviour. Many people also only understand the present day forces, and force-retrofit the same back into history, causing hugely incorrect results from analysis.

- The biggest force that I notice in the vR^ihattara-bhArata buddhist psychology of antipathy to Astika-s, and to smaller extent also in the jaina-s, is an inferiority complex, which developed quite later in them, as probably a reaction to their huge losses to the unstoppable Astika-revival.

- The analysis gets compounded when there are undersurface regional ethnic conflicts and tensions. E.g. tamil-sinhalese; or colonial tension of burmese-indian conflict in 1930s.; or the very traditional gorkhA-bhoTAntaka tension in bhUTAna that goes back to the rise of pR^ithvI nArAyaNa and subsequent annexation of large parts of large bhUTAna kingdom such as sikkim and dArjIling in 1700s; or of late the "caste" tensions between buddhist-converted sUdra-s and the Astika OBCs. All of these tensions which have absolutely no organic connection to the old religious antipathy, are still appealed to by the nAstika groups, and scholars translate these incorrectly into religious tensions.

- To illustrate, I shall take an example, the one of observers commenting on the expulsion of "Hindus" from Bhutan. The gorkhali-s of Nepal had made it to Sikkim and Bhutanese areas over time, due to purely economic factors, and Bhutan has now taken a tough stand against them and has repulsed them back into Nepal and Indian state of Sikkim. (Something which India should also do to Bangladeshis) No Hindu-Buddhist thing in that. I have many friends and relatives in Bhutan, who are settled there happily for many decades, and practicing the Astika-mata without any persecution. Also one should read up on the Nepal-Bhutan conflicts since the rise of Shah dynasty in Nepal, to understand the background of the particular conflict -- again no Hindu-Bauddha stuff in that, but a pure geopolitical conflict.

- Similar is the case with tamil-sinhalese conflict. Of course in this case, there are also strains of the old religious antipathy, but it is wrong to make that as the root-cause of the conflict. Conflict is only ethnic in nature.

- Compare with the case in taraI of nepAla. Here madhyadeshI-s, that is the original natives of UP and Bihar, are in conflict with gorkha-s and other Hill people. The conflict is purely economical and political in nature, driven by appaent different ethnicities (not really though!). Since both the groups are fiersely Astika, often competing with each other on who is more truer Hindu than the other, here the conflict does not get dubbed as Hindu-Bauddha -- but just had one of the groups been the bauddha -- I am dead sure that would have been the analysis, although conflict could have been just the same.

- Some scholars are so carried away in their apologistic tendencies and templatized notions, they also lose sight of the data when commenting upon the phenomenon. I refer to the likes of rAhula sAMkR^ityAyana. But analyzing their behaviour is an entirely vast subject in itself.

- Lay commentators are generally informed by the marxist-written analysis, for whom the template of conflict is socio-economic and not philosophical, and who in their desperation to show Hindu-Moslem "conflict" as a continuation of "Hindu-Buddhist" conflict, just forcefit the template onto that old history, producing incorrect results.
Bhodi,what is your opinion about Buddha and Asoka sending buddhist missionaries everywere?They did a moral thing?
what do you think?
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Mar 6 2009, 11:35 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Mar 6 2009, 11:35 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->what do you think?
Well,Husky has questioned the morality of missionarism(maybe an unfortunate word) so i start wonder if missionarism performed by BAPS,Shiva siddhanta,Iskon,or travells made by Shankara and other acharyas all over India to spread their ideas,or medieval debates among sampradayas are immoral.As buddhism is known for his active spreading of its ideas i put that question.
Quote:The nAstika tilopA from the va~Nga country is highly regarded among Tibetans. He was an aggressive subversionist of former dharma. He says in apabhraMsha:

bamhA vihNu mahesura devA | bohisattva ma karahu seva | deva ma pUjahu titya Na jAvA | devapUjAhi Na mokkha pAvA ||

Here tilopA says: bodhisattva, do not worship the deva-s brahmA, viShNu and maheshvara; do not do pUjA to deva-s do not go to tIrtha-s. One does not get mokSha by doing pUjA to deva-s. Earlier, the sthaviravAdin buddhaghosha (born a brAhmaNa in magadha) who calls upon the nAstika-s to desist from hearing the rAmAyaNa or the bhArata. Actually, this strain is an original aspect of the tAthagata-s that passed unchanged through the transition of the yAna-s. Umakant Mishra points to a li~Nga in the Soro village of Orissa that has been defaced by the carving of a nAstika dharaNi on it. So the pAShaNDa-s were ready to put these words into practice. Yet we are repeatedly told that it is the Astika-s who were the buddha-busters (to borrow a favorite term of the Mohammedan: bhut-shikhan).

Can you explain this in plain english

Basically says that tilopA from Bengal who is highly regarded among Tibetans was a Buddhist and a subvertionist of dharma (or Astika sampradayas) who preached that Buddhist's shouldn't worship Brahma, Vishnu & Shiva and shouldn't go to the traditional holy places (tIrtha's) of Hindus because one doesn't achieve moksha through these things. Earlier Buddhaghosha from Magadha told the Buddhists that they shouldn't hear the Ramayana or Mahabharata narration. This type of attack is an original aspect of Buddhists that passed unchanged through the transition of yAna-s (vehicles?). Umakant Mishra points to a shiva linga in the Soro village of Orissa that has been defaced by the carving of a nAstika dharaNi (Buddhist "earth"?) on it. Basically the linga was desecrated by Buddhists somehow. This shows that the pAShaNDa-s/Buddhists (another word for nAstika-s of various kinds including Buddhists & Jains but in this case Buddhists) were ready to put into practice the rants of people like tilopA by desecrating Hindu murti's/icons. But nowadays we are told (by commies and assorted enemies of Hindus) that it was the Astikas/Hindus who destroyed Buddhist temples/idols and Buddhism itself from India, to a borrow a term from the Muslims we are told that Hindus were the but (idol) shikhans (breakers) when it comes to Buddhists.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)