4/?
6.
Anyway, let's pretend surprise.
What the? So Buddha has sole dibs on the name Shaasta now?
How is this supposed to be an argument?
Let me see if I understand this right. Rajeev's argument that "since Hariharaputra Ayyappa's famous other name is DharmaShaastaa, it probably means he just has to be identified with the Buddha", would also mean that, say, Skanda, whose other name is BrahmaShaastaa, is also to be identified with the Buddha.
But No.
Why not? Simple.
Shaastaa simply means teacher. Like Buddha means ~enlightened being (standard bad translation). Shaastaa *can* be applied to any of the Hindu Gods and Dharmic characters, and it is certainly applied to some as their rightful names, as just seen. The Shakyamuni Buddha is just *popular* under the name of Buddha, and it makes sense that he would also have been known under the (rather generic, but appropriate) title Shaastaa.
Anyway. Kartik, the Swaminatha, is otherwise also known as the BrahmaShaastaa, because he had to teach BrahmA the Vedam, BrahmaVidya again (and also interrogated him on the meaning of the praNava mantram - see his (S)Kanda purANam, TN. It is all just for his leela of course). The BrahmaShaastaa moorti is one of many episodes in Murugan's life, it is his Own Name.
Anyway, even the title "Buddha" is not unique to the Siddhaartha Gautama Buddha.
e.g. OM buddhAya namaH is in the gaNesha sahasranAmam (the Samskrit language version composed in the south - it is South Indian since gaNesha's other names in there also consistently designate him as the elder brother of Kumaran, just like Shwedarka Ganapati Mantram - not really sure what it is called/spelled like - would be SI too, since it addresses Gajanana with "kumaragurave" - teacher of Kumaran - possibly an allusion to the Mango event which has also been narrated in the KP and elsewhere). Anyway, "Buddha" as one of the names/epithets of gaNesha isn't referring to the Buddha of Buddhism either. It's a title of gaNapati, the elephant headed son of gaNapati (Shiva's Own Name).
DharmaShaastaa is simply one of the names of Ayyappa. What does it matter if Buddha is also called Shaasta? Buddha's name of "Gautama" isn't Buddhist either nor unique to the Buddha: e.g. Gautama muni of Hindu RuShi-dom (husband of Ahalya, see Ramayanam) who predates Buddha of Buddhism.
Now, while the Amarakosha (text which lists names of various Hindu Devas & Asuras and prominent Indic personages, among other matters) lists "shaasta" as one of the "names" (rather titles/epithets) of Buddhism's Buddha, it doesn't mean it's exclusively his name and no one else's. Because, the very same Amarakosha also lists "muni" as a synonym for the Shakyamuni Buddha. Now are all the Hindu RuShis who have ever been referred in Hindus' sacred texts as "Muni" to no longer have a right to that title just because the much later Siddhaartha Gautama became The Muni in Buddhism and so also acquired the title?
No.
As for DharmaShaastaa, as Hindus of the region know, he has 2 wives - the Devis Poorna and Pushkala who are worshipped with him. Meanwhile the same God is a permanent bachelor in the Ayyappa form.* (C.f. like Murugan can be a permanent bachelor when he is manifested as the eternal babe, just like Ganapati - eternal babyness of these two confirmed from texts like Shankaracharya's SL - but then SubrahmaNya has the 2 all-important wives Valli and Devayanai in his manifestations as a slightly older youth, as confirmed by various writers on Muruga. See Kanda Shasti Kavacham, where the author declares Valli Amman to be his eternal Mother and Karthik to be his Father, Shankaracharya's Subrahmanya Bhujangam, Kandar purANam which documents Kumaran's marriage to Valli, etc. Then we have Ganapati, who is also the perpetual celibate in some versions, while he is married in other manifestations. See the pattern? The children of UmaShiva are forever children and/or also young brahmacharis and also married youths (whose children are all the Hindus) - depends on the manifestations of these Gods.)
Back to the DharmaShaastaa moorti's case. Is the shAkyamuni Buddha married to Poorna and Pushkala? No? Is Buddha to be magically equated with DharmaShaastaa then just 'cause someone also conferred the name "Shaasta" on Buddha? Then do people reason that he must also be equated to the (far more ancient) Gautama muni just 'cause Shakyamuni Buddha's parents conferred the name "Gautama" on Shakyamuni Buddha and he eventually became known among his followers as their main Muni? And Buddhism's Buddha I suppose must now also be equated with Vighneshwara then, seeing as how one of Vighneshwara's justly-deserved titles is also Buddha?
No. They're just titles. And - like in the case of "Gautama" - common names.
The Hindu Gods and RuShis are distinct from each other. And they are most certainly distinct from the Shakyamuni Buddha.
Plus why the peculiar focus on only the name (Dharma)Shaastaa of Ayyappa?
His other very well-known name (a name under which Muttuswami DikShitar has predictably composed a kriti) is HariHaraPutra. Now, is The Shakyamuni Buddha a putra of Hari and Hara?
No.
- Some of the titles that Ayyappa/DharmaShaastaa shares with his brothers (usually because they all inherited these from their father): e.g. gaNapati and gaNeshwara which he shares with his brother with the gaja mukha (and which both of them share with Shiva himself, whose Own Name it also is - see Yajur Vedam I think), while titles like senApati and devasenaadhipaH (sp?) are shared with his brother Shanmukha. Like his brothers, DharmaShaastaa is also called Bhavaniputra and Parvati-Tanaya since he is the son of Bhava's wife, Parvati.
- Other well-known epithets of DharmaShaastaa include Shaivadharmarakshitah, for protecting/upholding the Shaiva path of Hindu Dharma (as he does other *Hindu* paths of the region. Specifically not the Bauddha one).
- And he inherited his Parents' Own Names too, such as Damodara (of Vishnu). And also the Own Names of several Vedic Gods (but this sharing of names often happens with other Hindu Gods).
- More interestingly, perhaps, are descriptive epithets like Samavedaparayana and Yagnyapriya (rather a common title among Hindu Gods) and more along those lines: he who is fond of Vedic sacrifices. And that tells us what Dharma he is the Shaastaa of: Vaidika Dharma. I.e. he is the Teacher of the Dharmic religion of the Hindu Gods, the religion of the Vedam.
Specifically not the Bauddha Dharma which is known to reject yagnyas/the religion of the Hindus.
Why ignore such informative names?
After all, if the generic "Shaastaa" title of Dharmashaastaa is to be allowed as "evidence" for something, so is Yagnyapriya, Hariharaputra, etc. (Hari and Hara being Gods of the Vedam too and having *everything* to do with yagnyas.)
Latching onto just one thing while ignoring other equally admissable evidence is not an argument.
Anyone can play name games. But people who can't resist playing should do so honestly.
It is disingenuous of Rajeev Srinivasan - as it is of the ambedkar site of neo 'Buddhists' famous for needling Hindus with this same topic, as also of the angry Sinhalese known to taunt Shri Lankan Tamizh Hindus as "actually" worshipping the Buddha ("So Convert Already") for being devotees of Ayyappa, just because of the superficial similarity in the accorded title of "Shaastaa" -
it is disingenuous of all these people to not give equal mention to the Great Many other names of DharmaShaastaa - names which, when combined altogether, show who he is really perceived as (versus who he is not), as opposed to them focussing only on the name that they imagine can prove their pet theory.
Because these excluded other names are also Ayyappa's Own Names, including his more famous ones like Hariharaputra. And because when taken together, instead of just Shaastaa on its own, these names do not point to the Shakyamuni Buddha at all. Just like GaNesha's epithet of Buddha doesn't point to the one known with the epithet Shakyamuni Buddha.
It is also disingenuous for these people not to point out what Shaastaa literally means - and hence why the Buddha can be known as Shasta *entirely independent from* how Ayyappa can have the name DharmaShaastaa. Again: just like Buddha is a 'common' title that can be conferred to any number of deserving; and in Buddhism's case it is the title conferred on the Indian prince whose actual/birth name was Siddhaartha Gautama.
Despite some angry Sinhalese Buddhists' ignorant claims, the Shri Lankan Hindus (just like those of S-India) are not worshipping the Buddha. They are worshipping the Yagnyapriya Damodara Shaivadharmarakshita etc Hariharapriya Bhavaniputra who is most famously known under names like Hariharaputra DharmaShaastaa Ayyappa.
And this point of the speculation ("Shaastaa" as automatically implying the Buddha) is also thrown out. Even something as common-knowledge as Murugan being well-known under one of his other names of BrahmaShaastaa would throw that point of insistence out. (I am not suprised that genuine Buddhists - forget the neo claimants to the title such as at the ambedkarites.org - don't know all this. But that those of Hindu ancestry should suffer from a peculiar amnesia concerning these things does baffle.)
The fact is, Buddha's famous titles were never unique. *Because* they are common titles: teacher, enlightened one, muni. That Hindu Gods and RuShis should have such titles is only natural - which is why several have long had them.
6.
Quote:The Buddhist character of Ayyappa is explicit in his merger with Dharma-sasta. Sasta is a synonym of Lord BuddhaI have heard this stupid argument before - never from Hindus of course, only from ignorant anti-Hindus.
Anyway, let's pretend surprise.
What the? So Buddha has sole dibs on the name Shaasta now?
How is this supposed to be an argument?
Let me see if I understand this right. Rajeev's argument that "since Hariharaputra Ayyappa's famous other name is DharmaShaastaa, it probably means he just has to be identified with the Buddha", would also mean that, say, Skanda, whose other name is BrahmaShaastaa, is also to be identified with the Buddha.
But No.
Why not? Simple.
Shaastaa simply means teacher. Like Buddha means ~enlightened being (standard bad translation). Shaastaa *can* be applied to any of the Hindu Gods and Dharmic characters, and it is certainly applied to some as their rightful names, as just seen. The Shakyamuni Buddha is just *popular* under the name of Buddha, and it makes sense that he would also have been known under the (rather generic, but appropriate) title Shaastaa.
Anyway. Kartik, the Swaminatha, is otherwise also known as the BrahmaShaastaa, because he had to teach BrahmA the Vedam, BrahmaVidya again (and also interrogated him on the meaning of the praNava mantram - see his (S)Kanda purANam, TN. It is all just for his leela of course). The BrahmaShaastaa moorti is one of many episodes in Murugan's life, it is his Own Name.
Anyway, even the title "Buddha" is not unique to the Siddhaartha Gautama Buddha.
e.g. OM buddhAya namaH is in the gaNesha sahasranAmam (the Samskrit language version composed in the south - it is South Indian since gaNesha's other names in there also consistently designate him as the elder brother of Kumaran, just like Shwedarka Ganapati Mantram - not really sure what it is called/spelled like - would be SI too, since it addresses Gajanana with "kumaragurave" - teacher of Kumaran - possibly an allusion to the Mango event which has also been narrated in the KP and elsewhere). Anyway, "Buddha" as one of the names/epithets of gaNesha isn't referring to the Buddha of Buddhism either. It's a title of gaNapati, the elephant headed son of gaNapati (Shiva's Own Name).
DharmaShaastaa is simply one of the names of Ayyappa. What does it matter if Buddha is also called Shaasta? Buddha's name of "Gautama" isn't Buddhist either nor unique to the Buddha: e.g. Gautama muni of Hindu RuShi-dom (husband of Ahalya, see Ramayanam) who predates Buddha of Buddhism.
Now, while the Amarakosha (text which lists names of various Hindu Devas & Asuras and prominent Indic personages, among other matters) lists "shaasta" as one of the "names" (rather titles/epithets) of Buddhism's Buddha, it doesn't mean it's exclusively his name and no one else's. Because, the very same Amarakosha also lists "muni" as a synonym for the Shakyamuni Buddha. Now are all the Hindu RuShis who have ever been referred in Hindus' sacred texts as "Muni" to no longer have a right to that title just because the much later Siddhaartha Gautama became The Muni in Buddhism and so also acquired the title?
No.
As for DharmaShaastaa, as Hindus of the region know, he has 2 wives - the Devis Poorna and Pushkala who are worshipped with him. Meanwhile the same God is a permanent bachelor in the Ayyappa form.* (C.f. like Murugan can be a permanent bachelor when he is manifested as the eternal babe, just like Ganapati - eternal babyness of these two confirmed from texts like Shankaracharya's SL - but then SubrahmaNya has the 2 all-important wives Valli and Devayanai in his manifestations as a slightly older youth, as confirmed by various writers on Muruga. See Kanda Shasti Kavacham, where the author declares Valli Amman to be his eternal Mother and Karthik to be his Father, Shankaracharya's Subrahmanya Bhujangam, Kandar purANam which documents Kumaran's marriage to Valli, etc. Then we have Ganapati, who is also the perpetual celibate in some versions, while he is married in other manifestations. See the pattern? The children of UmaShiva are forever children and/or also young brahmacharis and also married youths (whose children are all the Hindus) - depends on the manifestations of these Gods.)
Back to the DharmaShaastaa moorti's case. Is the shAkyamuni Buddha married to Poorna and Pushkala? No? Is Buddha to be magically equated with DharmaShaastaa then just 'cause someone also conferred the name "Shaasta" on Buddha? Then do people reason that he must also be equated to the (far more ancient) Gautama muni just 'cause Shakyamuni Buddha's parents conferred the name "Gautama" on Shakyamuni Buddha and he eventually became known among his followers as their main Muni? And Buddhism's Buddha I suppose must now also be equated with Vighneshwara then, seeing as how one of Vighneshwara's justly-deserved titles is also Buddha?
No. They're just titles. And - like in the case of "Gautama" - common names.
The Hindu Gods and RuShis are distinct from each other. And they are most certainly distinct from the Shakyamuni Buddha.
Plus why the peculiar focus on only the name (Dharma)Shaastaa of Ayyappa?
His other very well-known name (a name under which Muttuswami DikShitar has predictably composed a kriti) is HariHaraPutra. Now, is The Shakyamuni Buddha a putra of Hari and Hara?
No.
- Some of the titles that Ayyappa/DharmaShaastaa shares with his brothers (usually because they all inherited these from their father): e.g. gaNapati and gaNeshwara which he shares with his brother with the gaja mukha (and which both of them share with Shiva himself, whose Own Name it also is - see Yajur Vedam I think), while titles like senApati and devasenaadhipaH (sp?) are shared with his brother Shanmukha. Like his brothers, DharmaShaastaa is also called Bhavaniputra and Parvati-Tanaya since he is the son of Bhava's wife, Parvati.
- Other well-known epithets of DharmaShaastaa include Shaivadharmarakshitah, for protecting/upholding the Shaiva path of Hindu Dharma (as he does other *Hindu* paths of the region. Specifically not the Bauddha one).
- And he inherited his Parents' Own Names too, such as Damodara (of Vishnu). And also the Own Names of several Vedic Gods (but this sharing of names often happens with other Hindu Gods).
- More interestingly, perhaps, are descriptive epithets like Samavedaparayana and Yagnyapriya (rather a common title among Hindu Gods) and more along those lines: he who is fond of Vedic sacrifices. And that tells us what Dharma he is the Shaastaa of: Vaidika Dharma. I.e. he is the Teacher of the Dharmic religion of the Hindu Gods, the religion of the Vedam.
Specifically not the Bauddha Dharma which is known to reject yagnyas/the religion of the Hindus.
Why ignore such informative names?
After all, if the generic "Shaastaa" title of Dharmashaastaa is to be allowed as "evidence" for something, so is Yagnyapriya, Hariharaputra, etc. (Hari and Hara being Gods of the Vedam too and having *everything* to do with yagnyas.)
Latching onto just one thing while ignoring other equally admissable evidence is not an argument.
Anyone can play name games. But people who can't resist playing should do so honestly.
It is disingenuous of Rajeev Srinivasan - as it is of the ambedkar site of neo 'Buddhists' famous for needling Hindus with this same topic, as also of the angry Sinhalese known to taunt Shri Lankan Tamizh Hindus as "actually" worshipping the Buddha ("So Convert Already") for being devotees of Ayyappa, just because of the superficial similarity in the accorded title of "Shaastaa" -
it is disingenuous of all these people to not give equal mention to the Great Many other names of DharmaShaastaa - names which, when combined altogether, show who he is really perceived as (versus who he is not), as opposed to them focussing only on the name that they imagine can prove their pet theory.
Because these excluded other names are also Ayyappa's Own Names, including his more famous ones like Hariharaputra. And because when taken together, instead of just Shaastaa on its own, these names do not point to the Shakyamuni Buddha at all. Just like GaNesha's epithet of Buddha doesn't point to the one known with the epithet Shakyamuni Buddha.
It is also disingenuous for these people not to point out what Shaastaa literally means - and hence why the Buddha can be known as Shasta *entirely independent from* how Ayyappa can have the name DharmaShaastaa. Again: just like Buddha is a 'common' title that can be conferred to any number of deserving; and in Buddhism's case it is the title conferred on the Indian prince whose actual/birth name was Siddhaartha Gautama.
Despite some angry Sinhalese Buddhists' ignorant claims, the Shri Lankan Hindus (just like those of S-India) are not worshipping the Buddha. They are worshipping the Yagnyapriya Damodara Shaivadharmarakshita etc Hariharapriya Bhavaniputra who is most famously known under names like Hariharaputra DharmaShaastaa Ayyappa.
And this point of the speculation ("Shaastaa" as automatically implying the Buddha) is also thrown out. Even something as common-knowledge as Murugan being well-known under one of his other names of BrahmaShaastaa would throw that point of insistence out. (I am not suprised that genuine Buddhists - forget the neo claimants to the title such as at the ambedkarites.org - don't know all this. But that those of Hindu ancestry should suffer from a peculiar amnesia concerning these things does baffle.)
The fact is, Buddha's famous titles were never unique. *Because* they are common titles: teacher, enlightened one, muni. That Hindu Gods and RuShis should have such titles is only natural - which is why several have long had them.