|
Removing The Sheen From Buddhism
|
10-24-2011, 02:57 AM
Why do you believe that it is Buddhists who are making claims about Sanskrit grammar? I think it is somebody else who is attributing Sanskrit grammar to Buddhism. In a way, it is an attempt to take away the credits from Hinduism.
[quote name='shamu' date='24 October 2011 - 03:05 AM' timestamp='1319405246' post='113445']In a way, it is an attempt to take away the credits from Hinduism.[/quote]Not merely "in a way". It most certainly is an attempt to take credits away from Hindu religion. In fact, the argument is that Hinduism never had anything to do with it "in the first place": that that's all Hindus' imagination/late interpretation (that Hindus projected their religion onto it).
When you think about it, it's the best style of argument indologicals could have adopted. And it's typically indological - it's a lot like the AIT: "It was never Hindus' language/religion in the first place." ("Skt/Vedas are ours" said the aliens.) These lines by the indological stooge Deshpande are tell-tale on the matter of intent: Quote:The tradition of Paninian Grammar as it has reached us clearly believes that Panini was inspired by Mahesvara/Siva to write his grammar, and [color="#0000FF"]that he received at least the first fourteen sutras, which are traditionally called Sivasutrani or Mahesvarasutrani, from Mahesvara/Siva.[/color] It is all the indologist aimed for. The rest is for blurring Hindus' audacious claims of Panini being a Hindu and for the greater offence of any Hindus daring to (continue to) claim there was any Hindu Divine hand behind Panini's efforts. [quote name='shamu' date='24 October 2011 - 03:05 AM' timestamp='1319405246' post='113445']Why do you believe that it is Buddhists who are making claims about Sanskrit grammar? I think it is somebody else who is attributing Sanskrit grammar to Buddhism.[/quote] 1. As can be seen in post 142, historically it was Buddhism that invented its (late) traditions for claiming Panini in order to make his grammar acceptable to Buddhism (to provide an equal or "even more authentic" claim to Panini), since Hindoos and Hindoo religion as origin for it weren't acceptable. 2. So that was historically. But in the example of the above article itself, it is the visible indologist who refers back to those old Buddhist assertions "arguments" to imply that Hindu religion has *as much* claim on Panini's grammar as Buddhism did, since both are to have made claims to inspiring Panini. The indological argument is that both are equal in their falseness and - most specifically - that "therefore Hindus' religion cannot claim it either": that Panini's religion is unknown (not apparent from his work) and that one can't really assume anything about it. It specifically undermines the Hindu origin to the Shiva Sutras* and consequent relevance to Panini's work on grammar etc. It's a secular-looking attack on Hindu religion. BTW, the reason why #142 was posted in this thread is manifold (however, it does concern Buddhism too). And also because eventually - like all things manufactured in the indology mills - I suspect this too can come back to bite Hindus, and that it can (will?) be used by others. <snip>
Oh dear. Shamu was your post in response to Meluhhan (why that name?) :not sure: Anyway, it's too late: I've already responded to it, by assuming it addressed #142.
[quote name='Meluhhan' date='24 October 2011 - 12:11 AM' timestamp='1319394836' post='113440'] Buddha gave most of his teachings in popular languages like Pali and Prakrit because he thought they would be more accessible to the common man. There was absolutely no need for Buddhists to come up with complicated Sanskrit grammars, since they didn't use that language in the first place.[/quote] 1. "Buddha gave most of his teachings in popular languages" Can say "Buddha's teachings were transmitted in popular languages", since what is known of Buddha's teachings derive from his followers. On some points at least, the different kinds of Buddhism that came to be don't *agree* on what these teachings were, in some cases to the point of mutual exclusivity. See post 139 of the vegetarianism thread which quotes an example. 2. "Prakrit" appears to be a word used for many languages and Pali is one of them (?) I think the Jains' sacred language "Arya Magadha" (sp?) or something is perhaps classed as a Prakrita also? Though I wouldn't know if Buddhists used this language. 3. While I think Theravada texts may be in Pali etc, the later Mahayana Buddhism did consciously adopt Samskritam* - and there appears to have been an element of competition even in the use of this. (And there had been times when the other Indic Dharmic religions found fault with Samskritam for being of the "brahminical religion" - so-called since one is not allowed to recognise laity in Hindooism.) Ex-brahmins who'd converted out of Hindu religion contributed a lot in this regard. (But whether Buddhists had "a need for coming up with complicated Skt grammars" or not becomes irrelevant in *this* case since Buddhism had nothing to do with Panini's work on Skt grammar.) * Though not all Samskritam employed in Mahayana Buddhism seems to be recognisable as Samskritam. E.g. there's a famous Asian chanteuse who has sung Tibetan Buddhist mantras in.... "Sanskrit", which doesn't sound like Samskritam to me. After looking up a transliteration of the lyrics, though I could see the language is somehow related to Skt, can't see that it is indeed Samskritam. In fact, it sounded more like Pali to me, but I wouldn't know. Either way, her singing and the sounds she made didn't offend my ears. 4. "[Buddhism used languages] more accessible to the common man" Not a response, just something I was reminded of: While Hindus *have* been sticklers for employing Skt when it comes to the religious use of certain existing scriptures in their religion - and one can see why, when the very sounds matter in exactly these cases - it is not true that the other Indic religions alone were interested in using/promoting the regional languages (this last is a common assumption and even argument against Hindus' religion. It's even been one of the working assumptions behind the other Dharmic religions laying claims on Hindu works authored by local Hindus in TN). Hindus composed many sacred (as also generally informative) works in their own local languages. And local languages tend to be considered sacred in their own right. E.g. Tamizh is considered a very sacred language of Hindoo origin by Hindus of the region. <- And this is another aspect that indologicals and others have been working on: to divorce the language from the Hindu religion in the same way Panini's work was. In addition to that, while there's perhaps not much purpose to translating the Vedas into other languages (again, since the sounds are of no little importance) - other than for people to give it a once-over for the meaning - other materials have been translated. Even Skt-language works and commentaries composed today frequently get immediate translation into the local regional language by their authors.
10-25-2011, 09:03 PM
Prakrit and Pali developed from Sanskrit just like Spanish developed from Latin.
At the time of Buddha only brahmins use sanskrit as a liturgic language,just as medieval latin or old church slavonic,or coptic liturgic language in Egypt.
[quote name='Husky' date='24 October 2011 - 10:03 AM' timestamp='1319468123' post='113458']
Oh dear. Shamu was your post in response to Meluhhan (why that name?) :not sure: Anyway, it's too late: I've already responded to it, by assuming it addressed #142. [/quote] "Meluhha" was the name that the Mesopotamians (supposedly) used to refer to the IVC. Quote:"Meluhha" was the name that the Mesopotamians (supposedly) used to refer to the IVC.The question - not important - was actually Why that name, not "What does that name mean". (Even if I had never heard of the word, I could have googled to work out its meaning. But what I can't google for is your reasoning behind choosing it.) Quote:At the time of Buddha only brahmins use sanskrit as a liturgic language,just as medieval latin or old church slavonic,or coptic liturgic language in Egypt.Really? Only "brahmins"? Apparently there were no kShatriyas etc - same religion, by definition - using it at all for say religious purposes (Vedic rites)? Anyway: the Hindus of that period (and before and after) didn't *just* use Skt for religious rites. Unlike the unfortunate christianised medieval Europe - famous for mass-illiteracy, with even Vatican officials not even knowing proper Latin (McCabe states this with data to back it up) - unlike them, heathen India was *not* illiterate, and its Hindus were *not* illiterate in Skt (even if not all may have known it) and certainly not during Buddha's life. And Hindus were using Samskritam for FAR more than Divine Parroting and blind copying (c.f. monks blindly copying out their stuff on Roman paper that they had commandeered for that purpose out of desperation, thereby overwriting ancient GrecoRoman works. Which is how the said last remnants of GrecoRoman works came to be "preserved" by monks: entirely by accident). The old Hindus used Skt for exposition of new ideas, for new religious works, for commentaries and for summarising previous works, etc, etc., as well as for religious rituals of course. Quote:Prakrit and Pali developed from Sanskrit just like Spanish developed from Latin.No comment. But just to be contrary, IIRC: - the Jains came in time (late) to regard their chosen sacred language as the "original, most ancient" language. - Buddhists had declared - obviously mutually exclusive to the above - that their own Prakrita was the "most ancient, original" language. Then, Mahayana Buddhists declared the same when they chose to changeover to Samskritam - and it is still *after* this when, predictably, you see all the Buddhist claims to Panini (born out of competition to make the "original" claim on his Samskritam) appear, which that indologist Deshpande brought up. (And then eventually, Jains also turned to Samskritam.)
11-01-2011, 03:55 PM
How Bodhidharma and his Buddhism disappeared from Tamil Nadu?
The Tamil film 7 am arivu has evoked much interest about Bodhidharma. The story of the film revolves around this Buddhist monk who preached Buddhism, martial arts and medicine in China. Bodhidharma was a Tamil prince born in Kancheepuram the Pallava capital in 440 AD. After learning Buddhism he travelled to China to spread the true Buddhist way of life. Buddhism ââ¬â a school of thought in philosophy, as a religion was born in Northern India but evolved and spread to Tamil Nadu and from there it crossed the seas to Sri Lanka and Indonesia. In the 5th and 6th centuries Buddhism thrived in Tamil Nadu. When Bodhidharma landed in China as a Buddhist monk he was invited with honour to the court of Emperor Wu of the Liang dynasty. The dialogue of Philosophy was a practice of many Tamil kings on those days. We have history of Tamil Kings getting converted to another faith after a convincing conversation with the god men. It happened in China too. Bodhidharma too is known to have had a philosophical conversation with Emperor Wu. Later on Bodhidharma stayed in China and he is considered a philosopher of Zen Buddhism and an expert who framed the rules for the physical training of monks which transformed in to martial arts in China. The question is why he is unknown in his place of birth? If he was born and brought up in Tamil Nadu and was practicing Buddhism here, what happened to the ancient Buddhist religious establishments in Kancheepuram? Why there is no Buddhist temple or monastery in Kancheepuram? We have to look back in History. Buddhism disappeared from Kancheepuram to give way to indigenous religious practices interwoven with vedic religions. In fact many practices, customs and stories believed now in Hinduism are adopted from Buddhism. We come to know about this from the book Bouthamum Thamizhum by the research scholar Mylai Seeni Venkatasamy ( MSV) (1900 to 1980). The book reveals some startling details. We share what we learn and the facts inferred from this book briefly. The following seven were adopted by the Hinduism from Budhdhism 1.Hindu religion accepted Budhdha as one avatar of Thirumal 2.The mini dheivams and village angels of budhdhism were absorbed 3.The animal sacrifice was abandoned by caste Brahmin priests and they converted themselves to vegetarian food for defending their profession 4.The Bodhi tree worship of budhdhism was accepted as it was popular among people 5. Maths were established following such practice by Budhdhist 6.Adi Sankara adopted Soonyavadha of Budhdhism to get Mayavadha 7.The Budhdist Jataka tales were also accepted We need to know the following to understand how it happened in Tamil Nadu: 1.Originally there was Tamil religion in Tamil Nadu, where Maayon, Seyon, Vendhan, Varunan were worshipped (refer Tholkappiam period dated BC). The absence of other (later additions) gods of Hinduism in Tholkappiam shows the practice of Tamil Religion in pre Aryan age. In Tholkappiam age and Sangam age, the arrival of Aryans and their rituals can be spotted not on a mass following of a vedic religion but as arrival of un organized individual Aryans and their influence on Tamil Society. 2.Budhdhism came to Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka during the rule of Asoka in BC time. At the same time the other religions of Jainism, Vedic Brahminism and Aasivaham came to Tamil Nadu and commenced their philosophic fights and priestly contests and competitions to gain popularity among the rulers and the people and to create assets for their religions. We have references for all these religions in Silappathiharam and Manimehalai which represent a later period than Tholkappiam. Initially Buddhism got popularity among people of Tamil Nadu as is evident from reading Manimegalai. But Budhdhism as a religion fell by itself as the followers fought among themselves by divisions. 3.Jains replaced the Buddhists in Tamil Nadu. The Buddhist temples were converted into Jain temples and the caves, where Buddhist monks were living, were occupied by Jains. The Jains set a precedent of capturing Buddhist temples which was followed by Vedic/Hindu priests. 4.When the Jains were powerful in Tamil Nadu among the followers including the traders and ruling class (between about 500AD to 900 AD) the Vedic religion got mixed with the Tamil religious practices and cults in Tamil Nadu, made compromises of accepting the gods and goddess of Tamil Nadu, including festivals etc, organized itself into Saivism and Vaishnavism by Bhakthi movements and began a fight against Jain religion and succeeded (definitely not by following Ahimsa principle.) While the Saiva and Vaishnava had to fight it out with Jains, as ample evidences are available through Appar, Sambandarââ¬Â¦., it seems that it was easy to capture the Budhdhist temples as they were already under ruin for lack of patronage. 5. The Bhakthi Movement washed away, cleared, Jain and Budhdhism from entire India. Further it went on to propagate itself positively in the South East Asian countries. Regarding the temples the researcher says: 1. In Kumbakaonam Nageswaran thirumanjana veedhi, there was a buddha statue called bagavarishi. The Nigandu says that Buddha was called by the name Vinayaka. In later periods many Buddha temples were converted as Vinayaka temples. 2. The Chinese traveler who visited Kancheepuram in 640 AD, has recorded that Kanchi was having hundred Buddha temples and thousand monks. 3. According to Ananatha nayinar (1932 ), in Kanchi Kacheeswar temple Buddha images were found in the foundation base of the gopuram. The lake on the west of the temple was called as Buththeri and the street as Buththeriththeru. But when I visited that temple those stones could not be identified. I could see Buddha images only in the pillars. 4. I visited Pallavapuram near kanchi on 15.7.1946. Nearby in Kinikiluppai, a Buddha Statue was found on the bank of a lake In the same village, I could find the base of the Buddha statue very near the Vinayaka temple. There was also a standing stone with Dharma Chakra. They had constructed Vinayaka temple by demolishing Buddha temple. Mylai Seeni Venkatasamy has collected many more information in his book describing evidence of the existence of Buddha temples and the conversion of those temples into Jain or Hindu temples. ââ¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦..Originally Kamatchi amman temple was a Buddhist temple .There were many Buddha images in this temple. One of the images of Buddha 6 feet standing statue is now in the Chennai Museum. The statues of Buddha found in the temple tank could not be found now. Once I myself saw some other stone statues of Buddha in good condition in this temple. Later I found the same images broken into pieces.. Now I could not trace the sameââ¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦ ââ¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦.Manimehalai, Sambapathi, Tharadevi were the deivams worshipped by Buddhists in Tamil Nadu. Later these goddess were taken over by Hindus and renamed as Kali. Pidari and Throubathai. Researches say that the Annapoorani amman in Kamatchi Amman temple is actually Manimehalai, who attained Veeduperu at Kancheepuram and the Kamatchi Amman temple is actually Tharadeviamman temple belonging to Buddhists. Therefore it cannot be said that the wisdom of Bodhidharma or Manimehalai are forgotten. They live in some other forms or in some other names. http://truthdive.com/2011/10/28/how-bodh...-nadu.html
Rhytha, do you accept the above as fact? (Else why post it?)
And where is their data for their claims? (Note that it is *all* only claims in the above.) And repeat: [quote name='Husky' date='25 September 2011 - 12:58 PM' timestamp='1316935239' post='113008']Hence christianism finds neo-buddhisms to be of great use in laying the groundwork for their latest attempts to claim TN by claiming its history. The two groups (or are they actually one group, the way maoists and christians are one in Orissa, with one just being a cover for the other) are working together to launch their claims - soon to be turned into "history" like other things have been - that: - "Shramanas" (which reference neo-buddhists appear to use exclusively for Buddhists and Jains) were the original inhabitants of the south of Bharatam, starting with TN - TN being the focal point of current neo-buddhist activities. (In fact, neo-buddhists claim that christians too qualify as original inhabitants of the south of Bharatam. "Surprise!" <- and that reveals the puppeteer behind neo-buddhism, even if not all neo-buddhists are aware of being puppeted.) And the claim that Hindu religion is specifically not an original religion of the southern parts of the subcontinent, let alone the earlier religion. - that the 2 "Shramana" groups were unified / got along swell and were persecuted by brahmanas (no recognition of the existence of Hindu religion and Hindu laity, of course: that would be admission that it was very much native religion). Ironically, this is a particularly bad move by neo-Buddhists and their christian puppeteers. Their silly arguments have been dismissed since decades by *actual* Buddhists. [color="#0000FF"]It really is too bad for neo-'buddhists' that *actual* Buddhists of SL (titled Buddhist monks, no less), briefly covering the history of Buddhism in the south including esp. TN, refer to documented evidence:[/color] - that Buddhism came *last* to the south: Buddhism arrived at a point when Hindus (of whom only Brahmanas are identified, but Hindu works of the region show that the laity was Hindu), Ajeevikas (earlier class of Shramanas*) and Jains were already there. - that the other religions had it in for Buddhism, but that Buddhists in southern regions ran off to SL after being badly defeated in debate by *Jainism*, and that thereafter, the other Indic religions in TN had only the weak and already-disappearing remnants of Buddhism to compete with. To get to the point: the SL Buddhist claim is that Jainism dealt Buddhism in TN the fatal blow. (Not that Buddhism hadn't been trying the same in reverse: Buddhists had been constantly trying to "refute" Jainism too.) * The term Shramanas is here used in specific (non-generic) sense. [/quote] Quote:1.Originally there was Tamil religion in Tamil Nadu, where Maayon, Seyon, Vendhan, [color="#FF0000"]Varunan[/color] were worshipped [color="#FF0000"](refer Tholkappiam period dated BC)[/color]. The absence of other (later additions) gods of Hinduism in Tholkappiam shows the practice of Tamil Religion in pre Aryan age. In Tholkappiam age and Sangam age, the arrival of Aryans and their rituals can be spotted not on a mass following of a vedic religion but as arrival of un organized individual Aryans and their influence on Tamil Society. - VaruNa (Tamizh: VaruNan) is a Vedic God. Hyper Vedic. That the "original Tamizh religion in TN" worshipped VaruNan is admission by the claimants above that said original religion of Tamizhs was Vedic hence Hindu. If they next wish to claim that VaruNa is "non-Aryan (whatever) Tamizh onlee and Tamizh in origin", they should first dig up some Tamizh or ur-dravoodian writings on VaruNa that pre-date the Vedam. [Indran was very noticeably prominent in TN at one point - not even so long ago - and is nowhere near as noticeable in public now, doesn't mean his worship is not of the same Vedic religion as that of Shiva, Vishnu, Uma, Skanda etc. Nor does it mean that Tamizh worship of Indran was of the "pre-Aryan* Tamizh religion" either. Same goes for VaruNa.] * With "aryan" they mean to insinuate that Vedic is alien. - If Tolkappiam is BCE, how do they date Tiruvalluvar (was also considered BCE, 2 centuries BCE, until a recent period)? And is Cilappadikaaram still dated 2nd century CE then? So, what do they reveal about the ground religion of TN and the Tamizh laity? 1. Bodhidharma: Quote:Bodhidharma was a Tamil prince born in Kancheepuram the Pallava capital in 440 AD. Claims other than Kanchi have been made for this ex-Hindu (specifically ex-brahmana) convert to Buddhism. E.g. others claim he is from Kodungallur Kerala. Incl. the earlier-posted snippet from Rajeev Srinivasan: Quote:The revered Patriarch Bodhidharma (Daruma in Japanese) from Kodungallur was the originator of the Zen sect (dhyana in Sanskrit, Ch'an in Chinese) -- he went to the Shao-Lin monastery in China (420-479 CE), and he took the martial art of kalari payat there for the protection of the unarmed monks, whence the various martial arts of East Asia. According to Chinese legend, Bodhidharma also created the tea plant, by tearing off his eyelids and planting them in the ground: presumably this means he also took the tea plant with him. Quote:this Buddhist monk who preached Buddhism, martial arts and medicine in China.No mention that kalari was Hindu in origin? Also, don't know about Buddhist medicine in China, but - just like the indigenous Daoist martial arts are not Buddhist - acupuncture is Daoist, and so too all Chi-based ancient Chinese medicine, which are part of Daoist tradition. 2. On various statements in the following: Quote:The following seven were adopted by the Hinduism from Budhdhism 1. "Hindu religion accepted Budhdha as one avatar of Thirumal [Vishnu]" The acceptance is not universal among Hindus. In TN - the geography under consideration - especially: not all Hindus consider Buddha an avataaram. 2. "The mini dheivams and village angels of budhdhism were absorbed" Tamizh Nadu always had lots of local Hindu Gods: village Gods as well as deified village Chieftains. Many (still) shown carrying sharp weapons, looking Very unBuddhist, Because they're unBuddhist. Complete with unBuddhist poses. (No, can't be seen as a modified Mahayana either.) Some of the deified village chieftains were known worshippers of Hindu Gods and had built their own village Hindu temples (and Shivalingas in these temples are not "Buddha" moorties commandeered by Hindus). These Tamizh Hindu Gods, Aiyannars, are called shasta-s/satta-s too, of course (just like the very major - regionally-known but Kosmic - God, Aiyanar Ayyappa of southern Bharatam). And they are part of Hindu cosmology, but are local Gods. It's the way Daoists and Shintos have local Gods. (Versus Buddhism - which never pretended to be "pagan" before - acquiring local Gods by bauddhification of the same, usually by Mahayana.) In any case, what these local Gods of TN specifically are NOT is "Buddhist village angels/mini devas". 3. "The animal sacrifice was abandoned by caste Brahmin priests and they converted themselves to vegetarian food for defending their profession" - Buddhism was not vegetarian to begin with. So it's hardly a Buddhist influence on Brahmanas that Brahmanas turned vegetarian. But see the posts stolen from Pandyan's links to Kalavai Venkat. (Plus it has been reasonably argued that Buddhism adopted vegetarianism in reaction to competing with the vegetarianism of certain Hindu sects. See vegetarianism thread.) 4. "The Bodhi tree worship of budhdhism was accepted as it was popular among people" Again: This was not adopted from Buddhism into Hindu religion. - Hindus have always had VrukSha Devatas (like Hindu water and mountain Gods), just like they have Insect Gods who they worship (yes we do) - Ashwattha being recognised as a sacred tree by Hindus - with great symbology to do with knowledge of the aatmaa/bypassing samsara - goes back Way-way. And Gita - which mentions the Ashwattha VrukSha in such a manner with backreference - is still pre-Buddhist, Romila Tapars notwithstanding. Quote:OordhvamUlam-adaHshAkham-ashvatthaM prAhur-avyayam | ChandAmsi yasya parNAni yas taM veda sa veda-vit || Knowing (the nature of) *The* ashwattha tree is associated with true knowledge. And as seen above, Krishna in the Gita says this was already known about the tree from pre-existing Hindu texts. That the Bo tree in Buddhism similarly came to have a relation to "knowledge/enlightenment" may be - I more than suspect - owing to the influence of pre-existing Hindu views on the tree. - Finally, as for the Hindu Agamic worship: the Ashwattha/Pipala/Bodhi VrukSha (and related strains) worshipped by Hindus is an ancient Hindu practice. It is viewed and worshipped identical to the Shivalingam: it is the Trimoorti (i.e. the Parabrahmam) in the same order they appear in the Shivalingam. Also seen entirely as the ParamapuruSha Vishnu. As well as (always) all the Hindu Devas together. And this is even literally spelled out: Quote:moolato brahmarUpAya madhyato viShNurUpiNe | agrataH shivarUpAya vR^ikSharAjAya te namaH || And NO. Shivalinga worship does not derive from Bo or Buddha worship. Buddha wasn't even depicted originally. Repeat from earlier: Buddhists' veneration for the Bo tree is owing to the tradition that Buddha gained enlightenment under it. Like the narrative that IIRC the hooded cobra sheltered him at some point. - But the Bodhi tree was important in pre-existing (Hindu) cosmology, as stated - Just like Nagasarpa association with Hindu Gods and Hindu Yogis/Siddhars predates Buddhism So a case can be made that the borrowing is rather in the Opposite direction to the one claimed by/for Buddhism. Also, Hindus are a bit like Shintos (even Daoists) in that we really do worship everything in the natural world. And like the Daoists, we have all kinds of "deep" (i.e. Vedic-UpaniShadic-Agamic-Tantric) reasoning for it. [5. No comments on Maths, as I wouldn't know, but monastic traditions existed and were not a Buddhist monopoly nor need it have been their innovation. Jainism had something like it (but apparently not nuns, in the south leastways?) I wouldn't know if Ajeevikas had it or not, but they were a bunch of ascetics/lived the life of ascetics too. But Hindus had long had Yogis/Siddhars and Yatis of their own, including lineages, and also (included therein) bunches of brahmanas carrying out ascetic practices. The Sannyasin state is a sort of Yoga order going by what I imagine the word Nyaasa means, having seen it in preambles.] 6. "Adi Sankara adopted Soonyavadha of Budhdhism to get Mayavadha" - While there are several slightly differing, pre-existing, established Hindu POVs on advaitam itself (all derived from ancient Hindu texts), Shankara BP finds that advaitam as he iterated it (including his view on the un/reality of Maya) derived entirely from *Hindu* views and scriptures like the Upanishads and Gita (even refs to Vedas) which predate Buddhism. That is, Shankara didn't think he was saying anything new (or innovating anything), but merely parroting the old Hindu scriptures etc, and claims his view to be an established tradition of learning/understanding of said upaniShads (i.e. Hindu tradition). - Add to that that Shankara actually opposed various aspects of the (multiple) Buddhist views at his time. Including I think Buddhist opinion/negation of the Hindus' (pre-existing) conception of Atma. Apparently Shankara even declared that Buddha* was wrong and either ignorantly or deliberately deluded people. [* I.e. the teachings attributed to Buddha.] (But while one of Shankara's stotras does say "dehaM prANamapIndriyANyapi chalAM buddhiM cha shUnyam viduH strIbAlAndhakajaDopamAstvahamiti bhrAntA bR^isham vAdinaH |" (includes critique of the view of non-existence identified with the self or denial of the self - or something), I am not sure if the criticism is not more generally directed than at Buddhism.) - Also, the use of Shunya - including as a .... religio/metaphysical concept - pre-existed Buddhism and has various different meanings to what it does in Buddhism. Apparently it's described in the AV (but I wouldn't know), but I think it's also mentioned in Hindu upanishads where it is apparently equated with (Nirguna) Brahman*. [* In the meaning of: state of neutrality (i.e., which nirguNa is).] In any case, the religious/metaphysical meaning it has in Hindu contexts is not the same as in Buddhism. Even the very Hindoo and very religiously Hindu Pauranic work, the DA (performed as part of the DM) - which parrots parts of at least one sooktam from an Upanishad, looks very much to be using shunya in the original Hindu meaning of Nirguna Brahman. (I speculate that in the DA it may even also imply the neutrality that results from the cancelling-action of the equality of the 3 inherent qualities/guNas in existing Prakriti as is the case when it is in its state as mere potential. I.e. neutrality the way -1 + 1 = 0, or 3 equal forces balancing each other out.) 7. "The Budhdist Jataka tales were also accepted" Jatakas are known to be - and recognisably - Buddhist. I didn't know that there were Hindus who considered "accepted" these works as "Hindu". May continue commenting on the rest of the previous post some other day. Before I finally end today's spam, though, KamakShi Kovil (etc) can't be Buddhist for various [should be obvious] reasons. But of course it's too much to hope that Hindus at a Hindu site would ever say anything. Also, the history of Buddhism against Hinduism in Kanchi - but not at all only Kanchi - is pretty ugly. The problem is closely related to exactly the Buddhist tendency to try and usurp popular heathen religious sites. "Would Buddhism do such a thing?" (Oh yes it would. See E Asia.)
2/?
Quote:In Kumbakaonam Nageswaran thirumanjana veedhi, there was a buddha statue called bagavarishi. Anything is impossible. But for it to be accepted, proof is required, since in this case taking the source as Aptavaakya most *specifically* does not apply. Quote:The Nigandu says that Buddha was called by the name Vinayaka. In later periods many Buddha temples were converted as Vinayaka temples. No instances of "Vinayaka temples" that were Buddhist originally (of "Buddha the Vinayaka") and taken over by Hindus for Vinayakar (Ganesha) are given in the matter-of-fact type statements made. And why assume Vinayaka is exclusively a title of Buddha. Or even originally? Vinayaka is certainly Ganapati's proper name. (And Temples to him by this name are not at all just in TN, as there are Hindu Kovils to Vinayaka - i.e. Ganapati by that name - elsewhere in Bharatam.) But just like how Buddha also came to be called Heramba by some Buddhists (much later) does not mean that temples to Heramba (Ganesha of that name) must "therefore have been Buddhist originally and taken by Hindus for their God Ganapati", the same holds for the Hindu Vinaayaka. Interestingly: - from what I can make out of the MW dictionary - which is only useful here in that it gives the source - it seems to point out that this word as name of Ganesha was apparently used by RiShi Yagnyavalkya among others. (Unless I am reading the entry or the source abbreviation wrong...), just like the same dictionary says that Heramba as the Name of Ganesha occurs in the MBh itself. - now the same MW dictionary, also eventually lists that Vinayaka is also used for "a Buddha". Similarly, MW dictionary entry for Heramba also eventually lists that this name (Heramba) came to also be used for "a particular Buddha". Not THE Buddha, but "a (particular) Buddha". That is, it sounds a lot like it's talking about Mahayana Buddhism. I.e. a late development. And so: the direction of travel of both these names (qua chronology at least)... is from Hindu Gods to Buddhism. I have heard other temples in Kanchi claimed by Buddhists (never with evidence though), but not the Kamakshi one: Quote:ââ¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦..Originally Kamatchi amman temple was a Buddhist temple . Meanwhile: 1. Kaanchi Kamaakshee is one of the Shakti Peetha-s. 2. The Kovil is *the* Shakti Kovil for all of Kanchipuram. 3. The KamakShee Kovil is in the Somaskanda formation with her husband's at Ekambranatha Kovil, with the Kumara Kottam Kovil in exactly the centre of the line connecting the parent Kovils. There are cross-references to each other between all three. 4. Also, there's the little detail that Kanchipuram itself is built as the Yantra of Lalita, where Kanchi KamaakShee Kovil's Garbha Gruham is the *Bindu* of the Yantra that is Kanchi. The moolamoorty of Kamakshee (being Lalitha) is typically Hindu, and its history - very, exclusively Hindoo - is well-known. Also KamakShee Kovil - being a shakti peetha - has a hoary history. (Far predating Shankaracharya's involvement there. Much before him*, LS and I think LT are also supposed to be given here, and the two Rishis thereof have their Marks at the Kovil as well. * Also seen in how the commentary on the LT is oft-attributed to Shankara BP, which itself implies that it well predates him, and was a long established text at that time.) Also, the major ancient *Hindu* Kovils - in TN at any rate - are generally built in very particular ways: the entire Temples represent the very bodies of the Gods (Hindu Kovils themselves are therefore worshipped as moolamoorties) and are related to Hindu Yoga. The Hinduness of these Kovils - in their very construction and layout - is easily demonstrated.
3
Quote:Manimehalai, Sambapathi, Tharadevi were the deivams worshipped by Buddhists in Tamil Nadu. Later these goddess were taken over by Hindus and renamed as Kali. Pidari and Throubathai. Researches say that the Annapoorani amman in Kamatchi Amman temple is actually Manimehalai, who attained Veeduperu at Kancheepuram and the Kamatchi Amman temple is actually Tharadeviamman temple belonging to Buddhists Kanchi KamakShi Amman Kovil already covered in previous post. 1. Uh... maybe it's the spelling, but taking it as written: Sambapati is a male name not some Goddess. But it surely can't be Saambapati, who is a *Hindu* God: it's a direct reference to Shiva whose personal name it is (the Lord who is with the Hindu's Divine Mother). Other variants of the same are Saamba: (one who is) With Ambaa. Saambasadaashiva. Saambamoorti - as in vishveshvaraM sAmbamUrtiM praNipatya girAm gurum, stolen from an invocation - where it refers to the moorti that is the unification of Shiva Vishveshwara and Uma (i.e. single moorti of Shiva and Uma <-> Ardhanareeshwara). Etc. 2. BTW: Worship of a Goddess by name Tara is not exclusively Buddhist, nor even in origin. Hindus worship at least 2 Hindu Taras, one is the famous wife of the famous Navagraha. Indeed, Shaiva Hindus regularly give that Hindu Goddess name for daughters including in Karnataka. Still, even where the Hindu Goddess Tara of the Hindu *DMV* is concerned, KamakShee is to be identified with the Shodashi (Kalyani) since it is the Lalita manifestation. In any case, no one would confuse her with the Buddhist Tara - invented out of competition and plagiarism. (Theravada admits it does not *have* Goddesses, and it is the *older* Buddhism. Mahayana only acquired such "paganisms" out of competition and by using local Gods. Seen all over, including in China and Japan. And even in China, the Buddhists insist that a famous popular local Goddess that Buddhism inculturated on to make the Avalokiteshwara is "actually male". Moreover, the Tibetan Buddhist Tara is obviously..., but I'll be repeating what I posted in earlier posts.)] 3. As for the interjection of "researches say that ..." or whatever - then one notes that there is also research that: - Manimekhalai is a late work and that its Buddhist portion is a lift/transfer of a Buddhist work from another Indian language, but using a framing story to set it in. Which would not be unexpected: the framing story of "Manimekhalai" reused pre-existing characters and was presented as a sequel to a popular work about popular persons. - Manimeghala was a Tamizh Goddess before the work Buddhist work Manimekhalai. The human protagonist in that work - turned Buddhist nun in the work - is not the same as the *Goddess* of identical name who existed before. However the eponymous convert-heroine in the Buddhist Manimekhalai (i.e. the one "who attained Veeduperu" and became deified by some Buddhists for it) and consequent Buddhist association with the name Manimeghalai, seems to have totally eclipsed the pre-existing Tamizh Goddess of that name - despite a deity of this name having apparently also made a brief (and predictably Buddhist) appearance in the work. Quote:There were many Buddha images in this temple. One of the images of Buddha 6 feet standing statue is now in the Chennai Museum. The statues of Buddha found in the temple tank could not be found now. Once I myself saw some other stone statues of Buddha in good condition in this temple. Later I found the same images broken into pieces.. Now I could not trace the sameââ¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦Allowing the statement for now, despite not having confirmed (nor having been given any link allowing confirmation) of any 6 foot Buddha statue in the Chennai Museum that is specifically to have emanated from the KamakShee temple premises, and not being given the verifiable date either of when such a Buddha statue was made (specifically in comparison with the date of the oldest elements of the Kamakshee kovil and the moolamoorty etc and dates of the earliest construction at the site), not having heard of this amazing story before: Who's to say Buddhism didn't do its Stalking The Heathen routine again at this famous Shakti Peetham? (Not impossible, since TN is known for having historically been the victim of opportunistic Buddhist ... meddling even outright strife.) Buddhists regularly chose to set up shop at all the major popular ancient Hindu sacred sites in TN where Hindus congregated (even Potiyil), and are known for deliberatedly starting tussles to claim some Hindu temples in TN for Buddha and tried to appropriate them. It certainly wouldn't be a one-off: there are examples in other parts of Asia for Buddhism's modus operandi of uninvitedly inserting and even forcing their unwanted crosses - sorry Buddha statues and other buddhisms - into the Temples of others.* But missionary religions do just that: the whole purpose is to stalk the target population and insinuate themselves into their field of vision, space and religion. [* In the rest of Asia, the Japanese weren't the only ones who went about removing the uninvited Buddhist elements. But as I recall, in Japan the slogan even became "Kill the Shakyamuni" at one point. <- Clearly, not everyone experienced a "peaceful egalitarian" Buddhism. Or maybe the natives just weren't grateful for the gracious interference? One-way "syncretism" - appropriation, inculturation, even plagiarism and other subversion as a means to conversion, to leave out other methods - is not always perceived by the target population as "syncretism", for some mystifying reason. Insinuations on "lack of ahimsa" in dealings don't just leave out proof for the opening assertions ("it was all buddhist originally" and "this innocence was persecuted away and its achievements appropriated"), but even where there was actual and serious strife and at times even forcible eviction, no mention is made of details like the initiating attempted take-overs of heathen sites either. Possibly since that would prove the eviction was Deserved, and the overtures unwanted and successfully rejected. It's amusing to see neo-Buddhists and pseudo-Buddhists and other competing Buddhists - of a religion which never originally had an interest in or kind word for *pagan* Temple worship or worship of Gods, and who frequently made vituperative remarks about "pagans" concerning the heathens of Asia - in time claim various *heathen* temples and moorties (even Goddesses) for themselves, as if it has anything to do with Buddhism. It is an attempt at missionising. Ongoing attempt.] "Once I myself saw some other stone statues of Buddha in good condition in this temple. Later I found the same images broken into pieces.. Now I could not trace the same" Nothing more than "eyewitness testimony" is given for "Evidence of Buddhist stuff! But suddenly broken! Then suddenly missing!" Very convenient. - There are certainly Buddhist temples that are reasonably thought to have been turned into Hindu temples.* (But they're visibly Buddhist in origin and no one ever pretended that they were Hindu in origin). But KamakShee Kovil is not one of them, nor the famous major other ancient Hindu Kovils suddenly or frequently claimed by modern Buddhist/etc "authors". - Also, in this context: it's known that many Buddhist temples were inherited by Hindus from the reconverts (who had historically gone from Hindu to Buddhist back to Hindu). Also, some of these Buddhist temples were originally built by Hindus for Buddhists and their religion, so Buddhists feigning persecution is particularly lame. * Herein one specifically can't count Hindu temples and sites that are well-known to have been taken over by Buddhism and which were finally retaken by Hindus. Such cases remain *Hindu* sites. Quote:I visited Pallavapuram near kanchi on 15.7.1946. Nearby in Kinikiluppai, a Buddha Statue was found on the bank of a lake In the same village, I could find the base of the Buddha statue very near the Vinayaka temple. There was also a standing stone with Dharma Chakra. They had constructed Vinayaka temple by demolishing Buddha temple. The insertion/recollection of exact dates notwithstanding, the evidence for the actual claims is still not there. But, again, allowing for it: since when does the "They had [therefore] constructed Vinayaka temple by demolishing Buddha temple" follow from the preceding sentences? If that's allowed, then it can equally conform to a reading like - say - - "Buddhists had built a temple near a Hindu site, Buddhism having left them alone now, Hindus abandoned the Buddha statue on the bank." - "Or this was a site of another Hindu-Buddhist struggle, Hindus won and restored/rebuilt their temple and got rid of the Buddhist intrusions." Where's the data in those statements to gainsay my interpretation of the same?
[quote name='Husky' date='03 November 2011 - 09:48 PM' timestamp='1320336641' post='113583']Meanwhile:
[color="#0000FF"]1. Kaanchi Kamaakshee is one of the Shakti Peetha-s. 2. The Kovil is *the* Shakti Kovil for all of Kanchipuram. 3. The KamakShee Kovil is in the Somaskanda formation with her husband's at Ekambranatha Kovil, with the Kumara Kottam Kovil in exactly the centre of the line connecting the parent Kovils. There are cross-references to each other between all three. 4. Also, there's the little detail that Kanchipuram itself is built as the Yantra of Lalita, where Kanchi KamaakShee Kovil's Garbha Gruham is the *Bindu* of the Yantra that is Kanchi.[/color] The moolamoorty of Kamakshee (being Lalitha) is typically Hindu, and its history - very, exclusively Hindoo - is well-known. Also KamakShee Kovil - being a shakti peetha - has a hoary history. (Far predating Shankaracharya's involvement there. Much before him*, LS and I think LT are also supposed to be given here, and the two Rishis thereof have their Marks at the Kovil as well. * Also seen in how the commentary on the LT is oft-attributed to Shankara BP, which itself implies that it well predates him, and was a long established text at that time.) [/quote] Curious that assertions of Buddhistic/etc origins never seem to know (or refer to) all such basic things about the very stuff they claim, before they start making their declarations of ownership.
11-04-2011, 12:36 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-04-2011, 12:39 AM by HareKrishna.)
[quote name='Husky' date='03 November 2011 - 10:16 PM' timestamp='1320338331' post='113585']
3 truggle, Hindus won and restored/rebuilt their temple and got rid of the Buddhist intrusions." Where's the data in those statements to gainsay my interpretation of the same? [/quote] Shankara was completely illogical comparably whit Buddha. He said that Brahman is Sat-Cit-Ananda(which are attributes) than he completely contradict his first statement saying that Brahman has no attributes. Again Shankara claim that Atman has no attributes,thing that made Atman to be the same thing whit buddhistic Non-Atman. Also ,in 12-13 century ,from Shankara teachings, appear monotheistic religions propagated by Ramanuja and Madhva.They claim an Absolute personal God just like christians or muslims,a God that is infinitely above all other gods(making them the christian equivalent of angels).They are named Dvaita Vedanta(opposite to Shankara's Advaita Vedanta).From Dvaita Vedanta appear monotheistic religions like ramanadi,gaudya,iskcon(harekrsna),baps,shaiva siddhanta,ganapati monotheism(today mostly extinct) and other 5-6 monotheistic sects. We can say that Shankara open the road to monotheism in hindu religion.
11-04-2011, 01:30 PM
I just post what i read. My postings are my observations, they do not denote that i acknowledge nor reject their views of the article posted, i generally don't believe what i read in media but nevertheless post them to stimulate discussions and get other points of view.
<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
[quote name='HareKrishna' date='04 November 2011 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1320347186' post='113588']Shankara was completely illogical comparably whit Buddha.[/quote]While that's Romani's opinion, meanwhile: I never said Buddhist views on metaphysics - as I think it's called - are in error. (Or those of Hindus, like Shankara or anyone else.) Even in earlier posts, I only ever remarked on the error in conflating Shankara as a Buddhist.
But in this instance (on why the matter was brought up): I merely responded to the assertion that Shankara was influenced by Buddhists' Shunyavada in explicating his Advaitam (for which no supporting statements were provided in the original claim). While nothing is impossible, the claim appears rather unlikely to me - from the little I remember of reading about Shankara - because of the combination of the following two reasons: 1. Shankara BP's stance was that he was merely parroting what is already there in the ancient (pre-Buddhist) Hindu religious literature, plus that his view derives from established Hindu tradition regarding the reading thereof. (The same view from authority and established tradition was equally claimed by the other Acharyas of the different schools of viewing the Vedanta. And there had indeed been 3 traditional readings on Hindus' Vedanta literature since ancient times anyway, as also has existed in Shaivam for instance.) 2. Shankara's criticism of Buddhist views touched on exactly those very aspects where he (as also many another among Hindus) greatly diverged from Buddhism. [quote name='HareKrishna' date='04 November 2011 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1320347186' post='113588']Again Shankara claim that Atman has no attributes,thing that made Atman to be the same thing whit buddhistic Non-Atman.[/quote] The following is stolen from some discussion on Advaita where apparently some people today wanted to read common ground between Shunyavada and Advaitam. (Note my lips are not moving, so any response from Romani can be directed at these victims instead - although maybe they want to be left alone?) - Quote:Since there are postings about advaita and SUnya-vAda and since some And someone comments on the above: Quote:> Btw, what sense does it make to talk of transmigration/rebirth,Based on the sentence structure, I imagine the last quoted para is saying that only people who genuinely understand both points of view can see that neither Shankara (and other Hindu critics of these conclusions of Buddhism) nor the Buddhists agreed they were on the same page on certain metaphysical matters. In any case: the above makes it clear that Shankara's perception of the Atman does Not (and can not be made to) mean the same as the "buddhistic Non-Atman". [quote name='HareKrishna' date='04 November 2011 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1320347186' post='113588']He said that Brahman is Sat-Cit-Ananda(which are attributes) than he completely contradict his first statement saying that Brahman has no attributes. [...] "monotheism" [/quote]Ugh no, not these topics again.
11-06-2011, 04:45 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-06-2011, 04:50 AM by HareKrishna.)
[quote name='Husky' date='05 November 2011 - 08:20 PM' timestamp='1320504148' post='113608']
Ugh no, not these topics again. [/quote] Yes,i know you dont have arguments and try to avoid the painful subject,a subject that shatter allot of pre-conceptions. Regarding Shankara,it was not about Shankata denying the concept of Atman,it was about Shankara defining Atman more like Buddhistic Non-Atman and unlike Atman as defined in Upanishads. Simply said ,Shankara tried to merge all major hindu systems(including bauddha) in to one,not always whit coherence.This unifying project lead to a double-definition of Atman. In more trivial aspects,he copied buddhistic style,like shaven head and beard and wearing the red garment,like buddhist monks.And unlike hindu philosophers that had beard and long hair,not to mention the red garment problem.
Next post is relevant to this thread. This is not, except for point [c] below. Hence swapped position with next post.
Romani stuff - [quote name='HareKrishna' date='06 November 2011 - 04:53 AM' timestamp='1320534934' post='113610']Yes,i know you dont have arguments and try to avoid the painful subject[/quote] Is that right? Blackmail, huh? But fine. I'll play along... [quote name='HareKrishna' date='04 November 2011 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1320347186' post='113588']Shankara was completely illogical comparably whit Buddha. He said that Brahman is Sat-Cit-Ananda(which are attributes) than he completely contradict his first statement saying that Brahman has no attributes. Again Shankara claim that Atman has no attributes,thing that made Atman to be the same thing whit buddhistic Non-Atman.[/quote] (a) Now, Shankara parroted a pre-existing view - as seen in parts of various Hindu upaniShads - that the Atman is identical to the paramatman. <- And that reduces the proof required: making it easier for me in this case, as I just need to deal with *one* thing, not *two*. In short: all I need to do is merely show that Shankara did NOT invent how "the paramaatma [Brahman] is (among other things) nirguNa and SCA", and then *that* will subsequently show that it was not *Shankara* who came up with it (as Romani claims: that it was Shankara who was "contradicting" himself and was completely illogical) but rather that Shankara was merely parroting (a pre-existing view of the) pre-existing Hindu religion on these very matters. Easy. So, let's take a simple example. As stated earlier, the LT and LS (which both belong together being part of the LU in the BP) predate Shankara. => LS: nirguNa, satya-j~nAnAnanda, and LT: sachchidAnanda. (LT also: saguNa. LS similarly: roopa, aroopa etc.) That suffices to make my point. But just to drive the other point home - that my proof is concluded as I don't need to say anything about the jeevAtman anymore - am grabbing this line from the VS upaniShat described as belonging to the SV: Quote:sachchidAnAndamAtmAnam-advitIyaM-brahma-bhAvayed-ityupaniShat ||Likewise, Shankara parrots that the Atman is "chidananda" (being identical with Shiva). So whichever Hindoos are to blame for/originated the views Romani is accusing Adi Shankara BP of originating, it ain't Shankara BP. Can blame it on Hindoo religion. These very views - *together* - existed there all along. (b ) More on Romani's claim that [quote name='HareKrishna' date='04 November 2011 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1320347186' post='113588']Brahman is Sat-Cit-Ananda(which are attributes) than he completely contradict his first statement saying that Brahman has no attributes"[/quote] Have already seen in the LS and LT that it was not Shankara who was "contradicting" himself. As for Romani's other charge that SCA is "an attribute" - seen in how Romani implies in the rest of his statement that nirguNa means "no attributes": <- from this 2-part statement, it can be made out that Romani is claiming that SCA is owing to guNas. [And hence his conclusion that the lack of the latter (-> nirguNa/"Brahman has no attributes") means the former must be negated ("can't be SCA").] BUT: Though Romani insists that SCA "must" fall under "attributes", clearly it's his definition that is causing the contradiction. Because, in contrast, (i) many a Hindu predating Shankara (and many after him still - and they all got these ideas from their ancient Hindu sacred scriptures) view SCA as the .... say, "innate nature" of Brahman, i.e. the nature of the Hindoo Gods (their Selves). (ii) But by the very internal logic that many Hindus insisted on exactly these things which Romani finds contradictory <- that *very* logic dictates that the Hindoo Gods/the Hindoos' Parabrahman(/AtmA) being SCA is viewed separate from the guNas. (So it's not something that would be considered a product arising of the evolution of the guNas. And nirguNa = devoid of guNas/or: neutral state of guNas, i.e. an equilibrium of cancellation, but with the potential still existing - since we're told Prakriti itself is called Brahman.) From (i) and (ii): this means the paramaatmaa is considered by such Hindus as being of the nature of SCA regardless of whether it is in nirguNa state or sadguNa manifested state. Romani's fallacy is that merely because "things" [specifically: Other People's Business] appear illogical to *him*, that "therefore" these things "must be" illogical full-stop. And if you can't care less about things not making sense to him, he will threaten that you "dont have arguments and try to avoid the painful subject". Of course, it still won't make sense to him (which is why one bothers to respond), as this is the 2nd time that I can recollect that he's raised this very topic. On this very thread. "Tomorrow" he may raise it again. And threaten again. It's practically a matter to bet on. (c ) So, Shankara parroted a strain of pre-existing Hindu views, just as he said, not Buddhism (and didn't agree with the latter on the very points besides. As seen for example in the quoteblock of 2 posts ago). Romani then finds that (Shankara) "copied Buddhism in more trivial aspects": [quote name='HareKrishna' date='06 November 2011 - 04:53 AM' timestamp='1320534934' post='113610']In more trivial aspects,he copied buddhistic style,like shaven head and beard and wearing the red garment,like buddhist monks.And unlike hindu philosophers that had beard and long hair,not to mention the red garment problem.[/quote] - Buddhists didn't invent the shaven head/beard. Hindus had even several types of shaven heads among them. But it's true that Buddhist monks didn't have "beard and long hair", which is something Hindus did and still do have. - As for the manjal orangish saffron garment of the Hindus - it's not "red" - Sadhus have long worn it. Many a time, I've seen "bearded long haired" Sadhus - looking pretty much like Rishis to me - dressed in orange, with akshamaalas and bhasmam come to ask for bhikSha from vegetarian Hindu homes. Sometimes, they come on pilgrimage to the deep southern reaches all the way from some distant part of Bharatam. At other times, they are starting off from the south to the other parts of their motherland. And all they ever asked for was rice and at times water. [And No: wandering ascetics asking for bhikSha does not imply "Buddhist monk". Long before them, Sadhus and mainstream brahmanas were doing so too - except that Hindus didn't do it for missionising purposes, but because they were Yatis/Yogis/on a Yatra. That this ancient Hindu phenomenon was well-recognised can be seen in how RavaNa imitated the pre-existing Hindu variant as a ruse to kidnap Sita. To this day, Sadhus and mainstream brahmanas still go around, stopping to ask for Bhiksham - though the latter don't wear the colour as they are not Sadhus.] Actually, apparently the borrowing of the robe has been shown to be in the opposite direction to that which Romani alleges. The following [color="#0000FF"]from Sudheer Birodkar's page on Buddhism[/color] (Birodkar apparently gets referenced by the Encyclopaedia Britannica - I think it was - as a reference site. Not that this would be a compliment, but since the Britannica is not known for being biased in favour of Hindus on anything, the following can be posted): Quote:The yellow coloured robes that the Buddhist Bhikkus donned were borrowed from the Saffron robes of the Hindu ascetic. Although as for the Buddhists the yellow colour was chosen to represent an autumn leaf which was once green but has inevitably turned yellow in conformation with the law that everything born has to decay and pass away. (d) As for Romani threatening "monotheism" - most of his examples are described by western scholars as IIRC *henotheism* instead. <- Still not right, but this is just to show that it ain't monotheism. (Although there are examples of monotheism in India: e.g. the "Brahmo Samaj" has developed into exactly this. Which is also why the opportunistic christian adherents among them insist that other Brahmos accept/realise that their invisible monogod is jeebusjehovallah.) Anyway, there's no point explaining why the various examples given are not at monotheism. Romani has made the same statement lots of times before and no matter how often a response is given that explains why he is wrong (and where he went wrong), he - insisting he knows the religion better than Hindus - will repeat the same statement again. But then, Hindu religion does not compute to non-heathens. (e) And lastly, about this: [quote name='HareKrishna' date='04 November 2011 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1320347186' post='113588']Also ,in 12-13 century ,from Shankara teachings, appear monotheistic religions propagated by Ramanuja and Madhva [...] They are named Dvaita Vedanta(opposite to Shankara's Advaita Vedanta).From Dvaita Vedanta appear monotheistic religions like ramanadi,gaudya,iskcon(harekrsna),baps,shaiva siddhanta,ganapati monotheism(today mostly extinct) and other 5-6 monotheistic sects. We can say that Shankara open the road to monotheism in hindu religion.[/quote] Uh, how to say: (i) Azhwars predate Ramanuja (and Shankara besides). And Ramanuja merely followed in their tradition, besides parroting the upaniShads for supporting evidence. (ii) Shaiva Siddhantam predates Shankara BP (I can count 2 refs to Nayanmars in Shankara BP - in his SAL and in his contribution to the SL.) [Same appears to hold for the bhaktas who recognised gaNapati as the Supreme Ultimate too - IIRC at least in TN, but not confirmed. But the pre-existing popularity would explain why Shankara felt inspired to compose stotras to Ganapati also.] So no, Shankara - and hence Ramanuja and Madhva - did not "open the road" to the views (dubbed "monotheism" by Romani) of those Hindu traditions that pre-existed. So, in summary: 1. Romani wrong: Shankara was NOT the one to first conclude that both nirguNa parabrahman and SCA hold true. (<- Plus, when you tie that with Hindu texts that equate jeevaatma with paramaatma and declare this to be SCA, it still fits.) It's there in the LU. 2. Romani does not get what those Hindus who claim "nirguna (as also saguNa) parabrahman=SCA" mean, because Romani's definition for guNa (and hence nirguNa) clashes with theirs. 3. Romani was in error about Hindus adopting shaven head from Buddhists. Even among brahmanas this is common. 4. Romani was mistaken in declaring that Hindus adopted something called a "red" robe from Buddhists. Hindus already had the saffron robe, which Buddhist monks apparently adapted for their robe. 5. Romani is in disagreement with many western definitions of various Hindu religious communities: he declares various Hindus as monotheists, while other more official western viewpoints often declare the same Hindus as henotheists. I'm not saying either is right, but Romani is definitely wrong. By definition of monotheism. 6. Romani declared that Shankara and then Ramanuja and Madhva gave rise to "monotheism" in Hindu religion, and implied that the two last-mentioned acharyas gave rise to Dvaita Vedanta "monotheisms" and that this was then subsequently visible in various Hindu groups. Except that - next to the "monotheism" bit (and the fact that all Dvaitam comes from ancient Hindu shruti - and said Acharyas argued their point from there) - Romani got relative chronology wrong: at least two of the groups (possible even three) demonstrably predate even Shankara.
1. More on this:
[quote name='Husky' date='02 November 2011 - 09:58 PM' timestamp='1320250838' post='113574']- Ashwattha being recognised as a sacred tree by Hindus - with great symbology to do with knowledge of the aatmaa/bypassing samsara - goes back Way-way. And Gita - which mentions the Ashwattha VrukSha in such a manner with backreference - is still pre-Buddhist, Romila Tapars notwithstanding. Quote:OordhvamUlam-adaHshAkham-ashvatthaM prAhur-avyayam | ChandAmsi yasya parNAni yas taM veda sa veda-vit || Knowing (the nature of) *The* ashwattha tree is associated with true knowledge. And as seen above, Krishna in the Gita says this was already known about the tree from pre-existing Hindu texts. [...] - Finally, as for the Hindu Agamic worship: the Ashwattha/Pipala/Bodhi VrukSha (and related strains) worshipped by Hindus is an ancient Hindu practice. It is viewed and worshipped identical to the Shivalingam: it is the Trimoorti (i.e. the Parabrahmam) in the same order they appear in the Shivalingam. Also seen entirely as the ParamapuruSha Vishnu. As well as (always) all the Hindu Devas together. And this is even literally spelled out: Quote:moolato brahmarUpAya madhyato viShNurUpiNe | agrataH shivarUpAya vR^ikSharAjAya te namaH ||[/quote] => The RH upaniShad belonging to the (K)YV, repeats where the Tree worship of the Hindoos comes from (still the same trimoorti, but the identification of the parts is different, but this occurs commonly, as it represents a whole anyway, just as the Trimoorti/sarvadevAH represent a whole - the Tree): Quote:asya trailokyavR^ikShasya bhUmau viTapashAkhinaH | (Quite similar to the meaning of the Shivalingam. And the full text from which I stole the above brief excerpt from, describes the fuller meaning of the Shivalingam/shivamoorti too: =umA-Shiva; =Trimoorti (+wives implicit); =indeed all the Hindoo Gods.) 2. (This point is not on Buddhism.) The same upaniShat also has something to say that appears to support the bold bit in the following that I blabbed once about the Maheshwara moorti at the Elephanta caves: [quote name='Husky' date='02 April 2011 - 10:15 PM' timestamp='1301762232' post='111301'] Actually, the Panchavaktra Shiva is also entirely Shiva containing all the 5 - including 3 "visible" - aspects of the Hindu Divine himself*, but the first two aspects can and indeed are identified with the first 2 Gods of the Trimoorti even when just Shiva is considered. Also, Vamadeva can for the same reason be identified with *Vishnu*: since Vishnu like Uma is on the left half of the body (both in ShankaraNarayana and Shiva being VishnuVallabha). (* Just like a great many other Hindu Gods are similarly said to do, e.g. Saraswati who, being the very embodiment of the Parabrahman and the Vedam, herself assumes the roles of all 3 visible activities of the same that are usually equated with the Trimoorti, hence she IS the Trimoorti/Parabrahman)[/quote] Compare the above bit on Shiva above with the following (from RHU of the KYV) - explains the Maheshamoorti: Quote:rudrasya dakshiNe pArshve ravirbrahmA trayo.agnayaH || 3. And: [quote name='Husky' date='08 November 2011 - 09:18 PM' timestamp='1320766832' post='113631']- Buddhists didn't invent the shaven head/beard. Hindus had even several types of shaven heads among them. But it's true that Buddhist monks didn't have "beard and long hair", which is something Hindus did and still do have. - As for the manjal orangish saffron garment of the Hindus - it's not "red" - Sadhus have long worn it. [...] Actually, apparently the borrowing of the robe has been shown to be in the opposite direction to that which Romani alleges. The following [color="#0000FF"]from Sudheer Birodkar's page on Buddhism[/color] (Birodkar apparently gets referenced by the Encyclopaedia Britannica - I think it was - as a reference site. Not that this would be a compliment, but since the Britannica is not known for being biased in favour of Hindus on anything, the following can be posted): Quote:The yellow coloured robes that the Buddhist Bhikkus donned were borrowed from the Saffron robes of the Hindu ascetic. Although as for the Buddhists the yellow colour was chosen to represent an autumn leaf which was once green but has inevitably turned yellow in conformation with the law that everything born has to decay and pass away.[/quote]
11-10-2011, 08:09 PM
[quote name='Husky' date='08 November 2011 - 09:18 PM' timestamp='1320766832' post='113631']
Easy. So, let's take a simple example. As stated earlier, the LT and LS (which both belong together being part of the LU in the BP) predate Shankara. => LS: nirguNa, satya-j~nAnAnanda, and LT: sachchidAnanda. (LT also: saguNa. LS similarly: roopa, aroopa etc.) That suffices to make my point. But just to drive the other point home - that my proof is concluded as I don't need to say anything about the jeevAtman anymore - am grabbing this line from the VS upaniShat described as belonging to the SV: Likewise, Shankara parrots that the Atman is "chidananda" (being identical with Shiva). So whichever Hindoos are to blame for/originated the views Romani is accusing Adi Shankara BP of originating, it ain't Shankara BP. Can blame it on Hindoo religion. These very views - *together* - existed there all along. (b ) More on Romani's claim that Have already seen in the LS and LT that it was not Shankara who was "contradicting" himself. As for Romani's other charge that SCA is "an attribute" - seen in how Romani implies in the rest of his statement that nirguNa means "no attributes": <- from this 2-part statement, it can be made out that Romani is claiming that SCA is owing to guNas. [And hence his conclusion that the lack of the latter (-> nirguNa/"Brahman has no attributes") means the former must be negated ("can't be SCA").] BUT: Though Romani insists that SCA "must" fall under "attributes", clearly it's his definition that is causing the contradiction. Because, in contrast, (i) many a Hindu predating Shankara (and many after him still - and they all got these ideas from their ancient Hindu sacred scriptures) view SCA as the .... say, "innate nature" of Brahman, i.e. the nature of the Hindoo Gods (their Selves). (ii) But by the very internal logic that many Hindus insisted on exactly these things which Romani finds contradictory <- that *very* logic dictates that the Hindoo Gods/the Hindoos' Parabrahman(/AtmA) being SCA is viewed separate from the guNas. (So it's not something that would be considered a product arising of the evolution of the guNas. And nirguNa = devoid of guNas/or: neutral state of guNas, i.e. an equilibrium of cancellation, but with the potential still existing - since we're told Prakriti itself is called Brahman.) From (i) and (ii): this means the paramaatmaa is considered by such Hindus as being of the nature of SCA regardless of whether it is in nirguNa state or sadguNa manifested state. Romani's fallacy is that merely because "things" [specifically: Other People's Business] appear illogical to *him*, that "therefore" these things "must be" illogical full-stop. And if you can't care less about things not making sense to him, he will threaten that you "dont have arguments and try to avoid the painful subject". Of course, it still won't make sense to him (which is why one bothers to respond), as this is the 2nd time that I can recollect that he's raised this very topic. On this very thread. "Tomorrow" he may raise it again. And threaten again. It's practically a matter to bet on. (c ) So, Shankara parroted a strain of pre-exis [/quote] Romani's fallacy is that merely because 2+2=5[specifically: Other People's MATH] appear illogical to *him*, that "therefore" these things "must be" illogical full-stop. I'm not parroting some western scholar,i'm parroting Ramanuja in his arguments against Shankara.
11-11-2011, 11:09 PM
If Shankara was only parroting then why is so famous?
Yes,the basic conce[pts predate Shankara(as if that was the problem),thats dont change the fact that Upanishads themselves are contradictory,whit disparate notions that Shankara mixed in a strange way. Upanishads go from one contradiction to another An husky try to solve the problem by going Iskcon style ,sugesting(like Iskcon) that Nirguna mean only whithout the 3 gunas.While Upanishads understand this as refering to all atributes(nut just the 3 basic atributes).Shankara also understand by Nirguna ,lack of all atributes(not just satva,rajas,tamas). Ramanuja also is critical of Shankara on this point,sugesting that Brahman cant be SCA and Nirguna at the same time. Husky is wrong again when he confuse dvaita whit monotheism.He should know that hindu monotheism can be advaita(like ramanuja's) or dvaita(like Madhva's).The proper term is vishishta(whit atributes) or avishishta(lack of them).Thats why Ramanuja call his doctrine vishishta advaita(Advaita whit atributes) ,doctrine that suport a personal allpowerful God(which Ramanuja believe is Vishnu) and make all other gods ,lesser, not-allpowerfull godsFor him Vishnu is The God and all other gods are servants of Vishnu. Is not any ishtadeva doctrine here ,Vishnu is not the biggest just in the mind of the believer(as ishtadeva implies) but real and independent . Maybe alvars(alvars not azhwars,tamil,not tamizh,speaking english here?) were ishtadevas and see their favorite god as The One ,but this is not the case for Vedanta scholars mentioned before.Maybe even ancient bhagavatas(see Heliodorus Pillar) were ishtadevas ,whit their Vasudeva,the god of gods.Maybe,we can not be sure.But is sure that later vedantins were monotheists.Not henotheists(ishtadevas in a more fluid definition of the word). |
