Removing The Sheen From Buddhism

[Husky]

3/?





5.

'Hsuen Tsang refers to Avalokitesvara on the Potala in the following words, summarised by Waters (1905): ''In the south of the country near the sea was the Mo-lo-ya (Malaya) mountain, with its lofty cliffs and ridges and deep valleys and gullies, on which were sandal, camphor and other trees. To the east of this was Pu-ta-lo-ka (Potalaka) mountain with steep narrow paths over its cliffs and gorges in irregular confusion...'' '



All of this is still true; Hsuen Tsang's description could easily be of contemporary Sabarimala. The only difference perhaps is that the forests are no longer so dense. Pilgrims believe that those who ignore the strict penances -- abstinence from alcohol, smoking, meat-eating and sex -- are in danger of being attacked by wild animals while on their trek. However, there are not too many large animals in these forests any more, as a result of human encroachment.



Lokesh Chandra continues: 'Hsuen Tsang clearly says that Avalokitesvara at Potala sometimes takes the form of Isvara (Siva) and sometimes that of a Pasupata yogin. In fact, it was Siva who was metamorphosed into Avalokitesvara...The image at Potalaka which was originally Siva, was deemed to be Avalokitesvara when Buddhism became dominant... The Potalaka Lokesvara and the Thousand-armed Avalokitesvara have echoes of Siva and Vishnu, of Hari and Hara.'



'...Lord Ayyappa of Sabarimala... could have been the Potala Lokesvara of Buddhist literature. The makara jyoti of Sabarimala recalls Potala's "brilliance"... The long, arduous and hazardous trek through areas known to be inhabited by elephants and other wildlife to Sabarimala is spoken of in the pilgrimage to Potala Lokesvara. The Buddhist character of Ayyappa is explicit in his merger with Dharma-sasta. Sasta is a synonym of Lord Buddha.'

(I'll get to the last quoted line in another post.)



Yes, it is known that there was a significant Hindu presence in Tibet's population: with special focus on Shiva-Shakti - physical Kailasa is located in Tibet, a sacred Hindu site for Hindus since ancient times, hence also a centre for pilgrimage since ages - but also worship of other Gods, including Vishnu, Lakshmi, Mahendra, Saraswati, etc. But when Buddhism took over the region, even as it drove out Bon to establish itself, it masked the Hindu identities of the Gods already present as it usurped (and then further imported from the Indian NE) the Hindu practices concerning them. The Hindu identity of Uma and Shiva (the latter is Mahakala here, even the depictions are the same as that of Mahakaleshwara with Tara as in India's Hindu NE) was masked by Avalokiteshwara as a Buddhist character. The consort Tara, while retaining her Hindu DMV name and various Hindu-origin rituals, likewise was masked by being covered with the identity of a Buddhist character.



And it's called Buddhism now. Where else is this called Buddhism (not counting areas influenced by such Tibetan Buddhism of course)? What else could have given rise to it if not a pre-existing Hindu base? Nothing.



But I am not surprised that Tibetan Buddhism would carry over any originally Hindu Sthala PuraNas and other traditions related to the Shiva (and his wife) that they had taken over, such as how that particular Shiva manifestation could be connected to Kerala. Though I do find it more than likely that they masked even those traditions with a Buddhist veneer too: hence their version of such events would of course be that "Avalokiteshwara is connected with Kerala", rather than this being the Hindu identity of the Hindu God Shiva.



It still doesn't imply that Kerala's Hariharaputra - known also as the ShaivaDharmaRakShita for being the saviour of Shaiva Dharma - was supposedly a figure of Buddhism. Still waiting: where is the actual evidence for this claim?

All that has been admitted to (although it was common knowledge to Hindus) is that Avalokiteshwara + Tara, their homes and their practices are taken from Hindu religion. (And it isn't the only deeply Hindu thing on Shiva-Shakti that Tibetan Buddhism took and masked and renamed and repackaged. A very important *core Hindu* ritual practice also, complete with the Yoga that is an intrinsic part of it. And most importantly, the masking of the very identity of the Goal of it.)

It's the hijacking of Hindu religion, but the modern Hindus in favour of believing in some Syncretist 'Indian' Religion In The Past will think it's all a lovely fairy tale. The actual truth is not at all so pretty.



But again: where in all the speculation offered is the PROOF that the temple area in Kerala didn't remain continuously Hindu, even as in Tibet the Shiva-Shakti identity was being subsumed and masked and any memory of its Hindu relations to Kerala were being converted into a Buddhist story about Buddhist characters? Let alone any evidence given that Ayyappa's origins had anything to do with Buddhism?

The Potalaka Lokesvara and the Thousand-armed Avalokitesvara have echoes of Siva and Vishnu, of Hari and Hara.'



'...Lord Ayyappa of Sabarimala... could have been the Potala Lokesvara of Buddhist literature.

"could have been"?

Again, they admit to no more than speculation, yet Hindus are expected - as ever (and by other Hindus once more, who else) - to just roll over and admit this absurd speculation as true/a possible truth. In contravention to their own tradition of their history, of course.

Speculation. And of the most dubious nature. Creating a fantasy that actually hides a less pleasant reality.



The events on the Tibetan Buddhist end clearly show takeover of Shaiva-Shaktam there. Meanwhile, the Hindu traditions in India only recall and record Hindu Gods. And in all this, we are asked to create an opening to insert badly-supported *speculation* of an entirely unnecessary Buddhist middle part to the story - only because it will make all those clammering for Hindu-Buddhist amity in Kerala's past or wherever happy? Speculation with as "evidence" things like Ayyappa's pose - a pose no where like that of the Buddha - and Ayyappa's mantram (at least as close to the rAma mantram) and oh yeah, the rather common title "Shaastaa" (see future post).



In any case, their fundamental contention of a happy marriage lies in the dust: in Kerala there was no amity between H and B, including as regards this God (Ayyappa), as anyone who knows his names would be aware. Of course opportunists would declare that any friction would then "prove" that it "must have been evil brahmoons who would have persecuted Buddhism away from there" and took over some "Buddhist Deity" whose alleged Buddhist nature hasn't been proven at all, and the only arguments given thus far for his identity can most certainly be read in the opposite direction as supporting his Hindu identity instead.