Removing The Sheen From Buddhism

[Husky]

2/2



Some selections from post #34:

The Buddhist notion of non-injury and compassion toward all living beings

If it isn't Jains claiming originating this, it's the Buddhists. They can fight it out among themselves, but neither have proved that these things didn't pre-exist in Hindu Dharma. HD simply didn't universally insist on it in *all* instances (but then, HD does not insist on things like militant pacifism - or conversion - either.)

The systems of Buddhism and Hinduism are not either contradictory to one another or completely self contained.

Hindu religion is quite self-contained. That Buddhism is or isn't self-contained is up to Buddhists to decide. However, the fact that Buddhism has been severely dependent on local Asian religions for what are, in practice, fundamental components, does suggest to me that Buddhism is *not* complete and self-contained, as is admitted above. Certainly, its origin and rituals and practices are entirely dependent on local Asian religions. Even its art and architecture frequently are.

Buddhist Rahula Walpole wrote,” the Buddha was trying to shed the true meaning of the Vedas. Buddha is a knower of the Veda (vedajña) or of the Vedanta (vedântajña) [(Sa.myutta, i. 168) and (Sutta Nipâta, 463].”

And what would Buddhists - like this Rahula - know about the Vedas? (And did the Buddha know the Vedam? <- With which I don't mean flipping through pages in books. Because even I can do that.)

Plus, despite earlier (brahmana) Hindu converts to Buddhism - just in one part of India I think - continuing to use IIRC the Shree Sooktam after conversion and trying to introduce it into Buddhism, the Vedas - and other Hindu shastras and religious rituals - are specifically NOT Buddhist. I don't care who may say otherwise, they would simply be wrong.

Hindus scholars have also accepted the Buddha and Buddhism as a fulfillment of Sanatana Dharma.

The presumption. Sadly, not an uncommon one.



But what - which 'Hindu' scholars? If such actually exist, can they please convert to Buddhism already and stop misusing the label Hindu. And stop speaking for Hindu Dharma altogether.

Reminds me of the kind of 'Hindu' vocalist whose words I came across in recent months and who declared that (paraphrasing, as it's from memory): 'Buddhism condensed the best of Hinduism. Except it was a pity that Mahayana Buddhism then developed and incorporated so much of Hindu superstition again'. (Seems in line with the mindset of some Indian nationalist quoted by Elst on the Bharatvani site: the nationalist was asked whether Jains were Hindus and declared instantly that "Jains were the best (type of) Hindus". Or something. Is this suppposed to be clever? Is no one else offended? Why are Hindus such shove-overs? But, No. *Hindus* are the best type of Hindus. Jains are the best type of Jains. Parallel statements for Buddhists, Sikhs, enz.)

Why do all these modern Indians want to enforce some 'unity' (the kind of 'unity' that is contingent on conformity) and, moreover, seek to achieve it by sacrificing the Hindu identity of Hindus and Hindus' religion? You don't see other Indic traditions doing this. They like to preserve their uniqueness and value their religions. Good for them. Why can't Hindus? Why are they forever to be represented by self-appointed ignorants and self-loathing people ashamed of their ancestral religion. Who knows.



However, these 'Hindu' scholars could not be speaking for any traditional Hindus. Hindus are not ashamed of their religion.



Anyway:

a) First of all, Buddhism and its nihilism attempted to subvert Hindu religion. Fortunately for Hindus, Buddhism just ended up becoming its own religion instead of hijacking all Hindudom in entirety.



b.) Buddha/Buddhism is NOT the fulfillment of Sanatana Dharma. (Neither is Jainism, nor is Sikhism, etc.) Hindu religion is not dead. Nor does it find fulfilment in other religions or other Gods or other non-God views. It is its own fulfilment: the Hindu Dharmic tradition is a complete religion in itself. I've had enough of Replacement Theology that each missionary religion practices in its own way.



Buddha is not the "seal of the prophets" in the Dharmic context. <- That's a convenient ruse to hijack Hindus/Hindu religion with. Such a ruse continues to be used by Indian Buddhisms - such as that in SL - to call for the conversion of India.



I'm sure people here can't be ignorant of the following older case:

[color="#0000FF"]www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=43,2636,0,0,1,0[/color]

Lankan leader sought India’s return to Buddhism

by PK Balachandran, The Hindustan Times, May 1, 2006



Colombo, Sri Lanka -- Anagarika Dharmapala, the famous Sri Lankan Buddhist leader who spearheaded a successful movement to revive Buddhism and Buddhist culture in his island country in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, had also urged the Hindus of India to return to Buddhism.

(Pass. And what is this "Return" to Buddhism? Again, what presumption. Its demographic success was never as great as some claim - also seen from the fact that islamism was able to mostly extinct Buddhists in India whereas large swathes of Hindus still remained.

Any success Buddhism had in the past was largely due to royal patronage, and furthermore obtained only after hijacking native religions. To this day, Buddhist laity in Asia are retained by that earlier hijack of their ancestral religions. <- Hardly a success that Buddhist tenets themselves won for Bauddha Dharma. Any use of "return" would imply a directional movement *into* people's ancestral religions.)

[...]



Dharmapala also argued that India would be united into a "compact whole" only if the polity was based on Buddhism.

(And only jeebus brings peace. Yes, heard it all before.)

[...]



He wondered how powerful Buddhism would be in the world, and how wonderful relations between India and Sri Lanka would be, if only India, with its teeming millions, were to go back to Buddhism.

(Maybe Hindus don't want "wonderful relations" with SL on these terms... Islamics also promise great relations between India and the islamic world, such as with Pukestan, by Hindus' conversion to islamism. Don't know about others, but am going to have to pass again on *both* invites.)



Dharmapala was by no means an enemy of Hinduism. He did not desire the annihilation of Hinduism.

(No, he just wants Hindu religion to disappear by Hindus becoming Buddhists. Comes down to the same thing.)



He recognised the basic differences between the two systems of beliefs and practices, and yet he saw a basic commonality, which made co-existence possible and desirable.

(Where "co-existence" is defined as all of India's Hindus becoming Buddhists instead.)



To him, Hinduism and Buddhism were part of a continuum, with Buddhism being a higher stage of development in a long series.

(Not really. Hindu Dharma stands on its own. Hindu Dharma was already perfectly developed and can be found at its highest stages in Vedic and other ancient *Hindu* Shastraic literature.)

And more of the usual when he comments on Hindu religion - where have people seen this before:

"Hence we find polytheism (worship of many Gods) in the early days."



Rituals, sacrifices, the development of a priesthood and hierarchies appeared during the effort to appease the Gods as seen as in the forces of nature. Worship also began to be directed towards worldly gains.

(Boo to the rituals and sacrifices again, and to the Gods. And he trivialises what the Gods mean, as only those ignorant of them can.

Later, the same Dharmapala will then claim that Buddhism is miraculously not nastika. Yes it is.)



When the intellect grew, new ideas came into existence, as seen in the celebrated Upanishads, Dharmapala pointed out.

(Never mind that the Vedas too are very much "celebrated" among Hindus.)



On the Upanishads, he could do no better than quote the well-known German Indologist, Max Muller.

So then he resorts to quoting mueller's Translator's Opinion - of all lame ducks (<- see, it's obviously not just the Indoos that keep bringing up that dead horse) - to selectively "find" that the Gita and Upanishads Boo at the rituals of the Vedas. I read the Gita, and from memory it never booed at the Vedic rituals but rather said (I really ought to confirm this) that 'mere austerities and rituals will not allow one to know Bhagavan'. Which is not the same thing.

[color="#0000FF"][INSERTED: It's not "know" Bhagavan, but "see" the Vishwaroopam: end of Gita's chapter on the Vishvaroopam says that Bhagavan's Vishvaroopam form can't be seen by mere austerities,... etc. Better to read it. But he does not repudiate the Vedas or its sacrifices. After all, in a later chapter of the same Gita, Krishna not only declares himself to BE the Vedas and its Knower, as well as the Vedanta, he eventually also revisits Dharma: that the sacrifices prescribed by the shaastras must be performed, and with the right/specified offerings etc and I think also the right purpose in mind. He then goes on to explain what kind of sacrifices are unsattvic (those not recognised by [Hindu] Dharma i.e. against [Hindu] Dharma, and those done with the wrong purpose, etc).][/color]

I've not read much of the Upanishads and whatever I did read was in translation and in my teens - in Ancient Times, in other words - but based on that large limitation, I can't remember coming across anything there hissing at Vedic yagnyas. Besides, among Hindus (the Astikas), the Vedas are their own authority and hold their own, their position upheld by the Gods themselves. The Vedas don't rely on other sacred Hindu scriptures to confirm their validity.



Then Dharmapala essentially declares that Gita is superior to the Upanishads, and finds that Buddhism's "philosophy" - which he finds 'remarkably similar' to Gita (very debatable) - to be superior to that of Gita. Of course he does. Besides, if he didn't make these declarations on how the grass is supposedly greener on his side, he could hardly be telling Hindus to "Convert Already" now could he.



There's a lot more self-congratulation at the link, but it's too tiring to wade through.



Like I said, while Anagarika Dharmapala does condescend to say Let's Be Friends and that Hindu and Buddhist religions are not inimical (and later in the article admits Buddhism was snuffed out in India by islamism), he also declares Buddhism to be the 'natural evolutionary result' of Hindoooo religion. Maybe there's a reason the Taoists and Shintos don't like Buddhists' assertion of "we're your religion's evolutionary end-product" either....



What is it with all these missionary religions that they have this horrid habit of regarding Hindu India as ripe for harvest/conversion - like we're some empty space waiting for someone to stick an Ownership Flag on. As if Hindus don't have a complete religion already.

Hindus do. They're perfectly happy with their religion, their Gods.

The 19th century saw a revival of interest in Buddhism in South India. The Buddhist revival movement in North India and South India began almost around the same time. The revival movement had its impact on scholarly work as well as socio political movements in South India.

The sponsorship for conversions to Buddhism in India - both in northern and southern regions - is on-going, if you look in SL news entries at places like IIRC Lankaweb. (And it's not all of the benign, Dharmic sort either: not infrequently, it sounds neo-Buddhist in its anti-Hinduness even without the neo tag. Rather a worry. Or it should be. Makes Dharmapala's overtures - dismissive of Hindu religion though they are - seem positively flattering.)





ADDED: insertion in blue somewhere above.