Post 1/?
Several posts about the rediff link further below mentioned at rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2010/10/true-story-of-hindu-kings-destroying.html ["the true story of hindu kings destroying buddhist/jain shrines. they did not"] where Rajeev speculates - also with reference to another's speculation - that Ayyappa was a Buddhist deity of some sort. (The audience at the blog doesn't seem to want to ask some basic questions.)
www.rediff.com/news/dec/31rajeev.htm
Rajeev Srinivasan's old Rediff piece titled "The Buddhist Connection: Sabarimala and the Tibetans"
1.
It's no more "mythical" than say Kumarasambhavam. And there's certainly nothing "unusual" about it.
But I have never heard that Mohini and Shiva brought forth Ayyappa for the purpose of working some kind of conciliation between Vaishnavas and Shaivas *, but rather for the usual objective: that the God called for to destroy the oppressive Mahishi, the sister of MahishAsura, specifically should not be either Shiva or Vishnu as she had stipulated this in a boon she'd obtained.
The modern assumption/interpretation on Ayyappa's origins being for the purpose of bringing Shaivas and Vaishnavas closer (Hindu traditions on the matter and what the chronicles on Ayyappa say be damned) - seems to be *reaching*.
(That Ayyappa and his origins may also additionally have had and still have the effect of attracting and joining both Vaishnavas and Shaivas or any Hindu is another matter.)
* - There are cases where the two Gods manifest as one for purposes that include showing that they are unified or one (depending on how you see it):
e.g. the ShankaraNarayana moorty (a manifestation distinct from that other combination of Vishnu and Shiva known as Harihara) IIRC declares to his pashus that Vishnu is not different from Shiva. Come wedding time, he assumes a Shiva-only form - since Gomathi, being a manifestation of Uma, can't marry Shiva as the ShankaraNarayana moorty since one half of it is her own brother. So for the Hindu public he changes to the solo Shiva form.
- On the other hand, there are other combined forms of these Gods that are not really for the purpose of "unifying" any Shiva-only and Vishnu-only peoples. E.g. Vishnu's manifestation as Dattatreya - who is a combination of Brahma, Vishnu and Maheshwara - isn't for the purpose of uniting any adamant individual-God worshippers who can't see the relation. It is just a Trimoorti form, for the purpose of being ... a Trimoorti form (again, the very form of the Vedam), thereby representing the vedam and the praNava mantram.
[As far as I know, Ayyappa is not the son of the moorty known as Harihara (i.e. that particular manifestation) - he is called Hariharaputra because he is the son of Hari *as Mohini* and Shiva (Hara), as per the narratives concerning Ayyappa.]
2. Let's get an easy item out of the way first:
- Bodhidharma - IIRC an ex-Brahmana (i.e. ex-Hindu) convert to Buddhism - did indeed use Kalari payattu to create *Shaolin* Gong Fu. But the "various martial arts of E Asia" are *not* all owing to Buddhism as the above implies (as an aside, if people are going to be focussing on giving credits: Kalari Payattu is *Hindu*, not Buddhist, plus note also that Hindus had already been introducing and innovating martial arts in E (and SE) Asia before Buddhism even set foot there). More importantly, several other, more ancient martial arts of E Asia are from Daoism - more ancient than the Hindu presence and subsequent contribution in E Asia. The origins of these ancient martial arts are even confirmed in the oral traditions concerning the Daoist Gods, and the (much smaller) collection of narratives on the Gods that got written down a lot later. These martial arts are generally Tai Chi based, rather like how various Hindu martial arts of India (as also Hindu religious dance forms such as Bharata Natyam) were derived from Hindu Dharmic religion's Yoga.
So: No, Bodhidharma/Buddhism is not the origin of all the various martial arts of E Asia as the above implies. That is simply the usual unfounded Indian ueber-superiority complex.
- "presumably this means he also took the tea plant with him"
Buddhism is frequently and very unreasonably credited for every Chinese thing. The way every Taoist ritual that also "magically" happens to exist simultaneously in Buddhism is therefore now described as having had Buddhist influences. Except that people easily forget the following:
a. those "Buddhist" rituals in China that have a grand similarity with age-old Hindu rituals actually got them from Hindu religion.
b. In fact, the pre-Buddhist Hindu presence in China and Japan rubbed off some Hindu rituals. So, as was already stated elsewhere, Taoism and Shinto did not get Hindu Gods and Hindu rituals from Buddhism but from .... Hindu religion. (The way Shintos use a few specifically Hindu rituals on the *Hindu* forms of Hindu Gods - rather than the Buddhist re-packaging of Hindu Gods - and this is recognised as *Hindu* religion, *not* Buddhism.)
c. And most important to note is that certain ritual practices present in both Taoism and Buddhism - as also Gods, religious architecture and moorty-fashioning, indigenous moorty related rituals, etc. - are actually from Taoism, which Buddhism took over (even though they bear no relevance to and have no meaning and no purpose in Buddhism).
Any actual *proof* for tea in China coming from Buddhism? "Presumably" doesn't suffice and is just leading the public.
Continued in next.
Several posts about the rediff link further below mentioned at rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2010/10/true-story-of-hindu-kings-destroying.html ["the true story of hindu kings destroying buddhist/jain shrines. they did not"] where Rajeev speculates - also with reference to another's speculation - that Ayyappa was a Buddhist deity of some sort. (The audience at the blog doesn't seem to want to ask some basic questions.)
www.rediff.com/news/dec/31rajeev.htm
Rajeev Srinivasan's old Rediff piece titled "The Buddhist Connection: Sabarimala and the Tibetans"
1.
Quote:It is a most unusual pilgrimage to a most unusual deity; for Sri Ayyappan is Hariharaputra, the Son of Lord Vishnu and Lord Siva -- and this is the only ancient temple to Him.
It is likely that the unusual myth of the Son of Vishnu and Siva is due to another historical event: a reconciliation between Saivite and Vaishnavite Hindus. Unlike other parts of the South, where the two were often in conflict, Kerala has typically seen harmony between them.
I have been on the Sabarimala pilgrimage several times, and it is a remarkable experience: one is swept away by the palpable tide of faith all around one. The climb up from the Pamba riverbank to the sanctum is difficult: up steep slopes, through dense forests. Since you walk uphill barefoot, with a small sack on your head (a two part sack, representing one's deeds, both sins and good deeds), it is not easy: but the pilgrims chant that the sharp pebbles underfoot are as mere flowers.
It's no more "mythical" than say Kumarasambhavam. And there's certainly nothing "unusual" about it.
But I have never heard that Mohini and Shiva brought forth Ayyappa for the purpose of working some kind of conciliation between Vaishnavas and Shaivas *, but rather for the usual objective: that the God called for to destroy the oppressive Mahishi, the sister of MahishAsura, specifically should not be either Shiva or Vishnu as she had stipulated this in a boon she'd obtained.
The modern assumption/interpretation on Ayyappa's origins being for the purpose of bringing Shaivas and Vaishnavas closer (Hindu traditions on the matter and what the chronicles on Ayyappa say be damned) - seems to be *reaching*.
(That Ayyappa and his origins may also additionally have had and still have the effect of attracting and joining both Vaishnavas and Shaivas or any Hindu is another matter.)
* - There are cases where the two Gods manifest as one for purposes that include showing that they are unified or one (depending on how you see it):
e.g. the ShankaraNarayana moorty (a manifestation distinct from that other combination of Vishnu and Shiva known as Harihara) IIRC declares to his pashus that Vishnu is not different from Shiva. Come wedding time, he assumes a Shiva-only form - since Gomathi, being a manifestation of Uma, can't marry Shiva as the ShankaraNarayana moorty since one half of it is her own brother. So for the Hindu public he changes to the solo Shiva form.
- On the other hand, there are other combined forms of these Gods that are not really for the purpose of "unifying" any Shiva-only and Vishnu-only peoples. E.g. Vishnu's manifestation as Dattatreya - who is a combination of Brahma, Vishnu and Maheshwara - isn't for the purpose of uniting any adamant individual-God worshippers who can't see the relation. It is just a Trimoorti form, for the purpose of being ... a Trimoorti form (again, the very form of the Vedam), thereby representing the vedam and the praNava mantram.
[As far as I know, Ayyappa is not the son of the moorty known as Harihara (i.e. that particular manifestation) - he is called Hariharaputra because he is the son of Hari *as Mohini* and Shiva (Hara), as per the narratives concerning Ayyappa.]
2. Let's get an easy item out of the way first:
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.
- Bodhidharma - IIRC an ex-Brahmana (i.e. ex-Hindu) convert to Buddhism - did indeed use Kalari payattu to create *Shaolin* Gong Fu. But the "various martial arts of E Asia" are *not* all owing to Buddhism as the above implies (as an aside, if people are going to be focussing on giving credits: Kalari Payattu is *Hindu*, not Buddhist, plus note also that Hindus had already been introducing and innovating martial arts in E (and SE) Asia before Buddhism even set foot there). More importantly, several other, more ancient martial arts of E Asia are from Daoism - more ancient than the Hindu presence and subsequent contribution in E Asia. The origins of these ancient martial arts are even confirmed in the oral traditions concerning the Daoist Gods, and the (much smaller) collection of narratives on the Gods that got written down a lot later. These martial arts are generally Tai Chi based, rather like how various Hindu martial arts of India (as also Hindu religious dance forms such as Bharata Natyam) were derived from Hindu Dharmic religion's Yoga.
So: No, Bodhidharma/Buddhism is not the origin of all the various martial arts of E Asia as the above implies. That is simply the usual unfounded Indian ueber-superiority complex.
- "presumably this means he also took the tea plant with him"
Buddhism is frequently and very unreasonably credited for every Chinese thing. The way every Taoist ritual that also "magically" happens to exist simultaneously in Buddhism is therefore now described as having had Buddhist influences. Except that people easily forget the following:
a. those "Buddhist" rituals in China that have a grand similarity with age-old Hindu rituals actually got them from Hindu religion.
b. In fact, the pre-Buddhist Hindu presence in China and Japan rubbed off some Hindu rituals. So, as was already stated elsewhere, Taoism and Shinto did not get Hindu Gods and Hindu rituals from Buddhism but from .... Hindu religion. (The way Shintos use a few specifically Hindu rituals on the *Hindu* forms of Hindu Gods - rather than the Buddhist re-packaging of Hindu Gods - and this is recognised as *Hindu* religion, *not* Buddhism.)
c. And most important to note is that certain ritual practices present in both Taoism and Buddhism - as also Gods, religious architecture and moorty-fashioning, indigenous moorty related rituals, etc. - are actually from Taoism, which Buddhism took over (even though they bear no relevance to and have no meaning and no purpose in Buddhism).
Any actual *proof* for tea in China coming from Buddhism? "Presumably" doesn't suffice and is just leading the public.
Continued in next.