this reminds me of interactions with sinhalese and burmese monks at the mahAbodhivihAra of shrAvastI some years back.
- surely, there is an inherent and rather intense antipathy towards Astika-mata-s among the vR^ihattar-bhArata buddhists in general, and the southern branches in particular.
- But the phenomenon is much too complex to understand than the knee-jerk online discussions offer.
- The biggest fallacy is that most people who engage in such debates lack clarity in the historical aspects of the development of this antipathy. In my opinion, one has to lay down the historical framework of Astika-nAstika relationship, with specific stages, periods and milestones, to clearly analyze the psychology and other forces driving this behaviour. Many people also only understand the present day forces, and force-retrofit the same back into history, causing hugely incorrect results from analysis.
- The biggest force that I notice in the vR^ihattara-bhArata buddhist psychology of antipathy to Astika-s, and to smaller extent also in the jaina-s, is an inferiority complex, which developed quite later in them, as probably a reaction to their huge losses to the unstoppable Astika-revival.
- The analysis gets compounded when there are undersurface regional ethnic conflicts and tensions. E.g. tamil-sinhalese; or colonial tension of burmese-indian conflict in 1930s.; or the very traditional gorkhA-bhoTAntaka tension in bhUTAna that goes back to the rise of pR^ithvI nArAyaNa and subsequent annexation of large parts of large bhUTAna kingdom such as sikkim and dArjIling in 1700s; or of late the "caste" tensions between buddhist-converted sUdra-s and the Astika OBCs. All of these tensions which have absolutely no organic connection to the old religious antipathy, are still appealed to by the nAstika groups, and scholars translate these incorrectly into religious tensions.
- To illustrate, I shall take an example, the one of observers commenting on the expulsion of "Hindus" from Bhutan. The gorkhali-s of Nepal had made it to Sikkim and Bhutanese areas over time, due to purely economic factors, and Bhutan has now taken a tough stand against them and has repulsed them back into Nepal and Indian state of Sikkim. (Something which India should also do to Bangladeshis) No Hindu-Buddhist thing in that. I have many friends and relatives in Bhutan, who are settled there happily for many decades, and practicing the Astika-mata without any persecution. Also one should read up on the Nepal-Bhutan conflicts since the rise of Shah dynasty in Nepal, to understand the background of the particular conflict -- again no Hindu-Bauddha stuff in that, but a pure geopolitical conflict.
- Similar is the case with tamil-sinhalese conflict. Of course in this case, there are also strains of the old religious antipathy, but it is wrong to make that as the root-cause of the conflict. Conflict is only ethnic in nature.
- Compare with the case in taraI of nepAla. Here madhyadeshI-s, that is the original natives of UP and Bihar, are in conflict with gorkha-s and other Hill people. The conflict is purely economical and political in nature, driven by appaent different ethnicities (not really though!). Since both the groups are fiersely Astika, often competing with each other on who is more truer Hindu than the other, here the conflict does not get dubbed as Hindu-Bauddha -- but just had one of the groups been the bauddha -- I am dead sure that would have been the analysis, although conflict could have been just the same.
- Some scholars are so carried away in their apologistic tendencies and templatized notions, they also lose sight of the data when commenting upon the phenomenon. I refer to the likes of rAhula sAMkR^ityAyana. But analyzing their behaviour is an entirely vast subject in itself.
- Lay commentators are generally informed by the marxist-written analysis, for whom the template of conflict is socio-economic and not philosophical, and who in their desperation to show Hindu-Moslem "conflict" as a continuation of "Hindu-Buddhist" conflict, just forcefit the template onto that old history, producing incorrect results.
- surely, there is an inherent and rather intense antipathy towards Astika-mata-s among the vR^ihattar-bhArata buddhists in general, and the southern branches in particular.
- But the phenomenon is much too complex to understand than the knee-jerk online discussions offer.
- The biggest fallacy is that most people who engage in such debates lack clarity in the historical aspects of the development of this antipathy. In my opinion, one has to lay down the historical framework of Astika-nAstika relationship, with specific stages, periods and milestones, to clearly analyze the psychology and other forces driving this behaviour. Many people also only understand the present day forces, and force-retrofit the same back into history, causing hugely incorrect results from analysis.
- The biggest force that I notice in the vR^ihattara-bhArata buddhist psychology of antipathy to Astika-s, and to smaller extent also in the jaina-s, is an inferiority complex, which developed quite later in them, as probably a reaction to their huge losses to the unstoppable Astika-revival.
- The analysis gets compounded when there are undersurface regional ethnic conflicts and tensions. E.g. tamil-sinhalese; or colonial tension of burmese-indian conflict in 1930s.; or the very traditional gorkhA-bhoTAntaka tension in bhUTAna that goes back to the rise of pR^ithvI nArAyaNa and subsequent annexation of large parts of large bhUTAna kingdom such as sikkim and dArjIling in 1700s; or of late the "caste" tensions between buddhist-converted sUdra-s and the Astika OBCs. All of these tensions which have absolutely no organic connection to the old religious antipathy, are still appealed to by the nAstika groups, and scholars translate these incorrectly into religious tensions.
- To illustrate, I shall take an example, the one of observers commenting on the expulsion of "Hindus" from Bhutan. The gorkhali-s of Nepal had made it to Sikkim and Bhutanese areas over time, due to purely economic factors, and Bhutan has now taken a tough stand against them and has repulsed them back into Nepal and Indian state of Sikkim. (Something which India should also do to Bangladeshis) No Hindu-Buddhist thing in that. I have many friends and relatives in Bhutan, who are settled there happily for many decades, and practicing the Astika-mata without any persecution. Also one should read up on the Nepal-Bhutan conflicts since the rise of Shah dynasty in Nepal, to understand the background of the particular conflict -- again no Hindu-Bauddha stuff in that, but a pure geopolitical conflict.
- Similar is the case with tamil-sinhalese conflict. Of course in this case, there are also strains of the old religious antipathy, but it is wrong to make that as the root-cause of the conflict. Conflict is only ethnic in nature.
- Compare with the case in taraI of nepAla. Here madhyadeshI-s, that is the original natives of UP and Bihar, are in conflict with gorkha-s and other Hill people. The conflict is purely economical and political in nature, driven by appaent different ethnicities (not really though!). Since both the groups are fiersely Astika, often competing with each other on who is more truer Hindu than the other, here the conflict does not get dubbed as Hindu-Bauddha -- but just had one of the groups been the bauddha -- I am dead sure that would have been the analysis, although conflict could have been just the same.
- Some scholars are so carried away in their apologistic tendencies and templatized notions, they also lose sight of the data when commenting upon the phenomenon. I refer to the likes of rAhula sAMkR^ityAyana. But analyzing their behaviour is an entirely vast subject in itself.
- Lay commentators are generally informed by the marxist-written analysis, for whom the template of conflict is socio-economic and not philosophical, and who in their desperation to show Hindu-Moslem "conflict" as a continuation of "Hindu-Buddhist" conflict, just forcefit the template onto that old history, producing incorrect results.