<!--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:
http://koenraadelst.voi.org/books/negaind/ch2.htm
<!--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.
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:
http://koenraadelst.voi.org/books/negaind/ch2.htm
<!--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.