4 things.
1.
<!--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.
2.
<!--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.
1.
<!--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.
2.
<!--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.