Quote:1.Originally there was Tamil religion in Tamil Nadu, where Maayon, Seyon, Vendhan, [color="#FF0000"]Varunan[/color] were worshipped [color="#FF0000"](refer Tholkappiam period dated BC)[/color]. The absence of other (later additions) gods of Hinduism in Tholkappiam shows the practice of Tamil Religion in pre Aryan age. In Tholkappiam age and Sangam age, the arrival of Aryans and their rituals can be spotted not on a mass following of a vedic religion but as arrival of un organized individual Aryans and their influence on Tamil Society.
- VaruNa (Tamizh: VaruNan) is a Vedic God. Hyper Vedic. That the "original Tamizh religion in TN" worshipped VaruNan is admission by the claimants above that said original religion of Tamizhs was Vedic hence Hindu.
If they next wish to claim that VaruNa is "non-Aryan (whatever) Tamizh onlee and Tamizh in origin", they should first dig up some Tamizh or ur-dravoodian writings on VaruNa that pre-date the Vedam.
[Indran was very noticeably prominent in TN at one point - not even so long ago - and is nowhere near as noticeable in public now, doesn't mean his worship is not of the same Vedic religion as that of Shiva, Vishnu, Uma, Skanda etc. Nor does it mean that Tamizh worship of Indran was of the "pre-Aryan* Tamizh religion" either. Same goes for VaruNa.]
* With "aryan" they mean to insinuate that Vedic is alien.
- If Tolkappiam is BCE, how do they date Tiruvalluvar (was also considered BCE, 2 centuries BCE, until a recent period)? And is Cilappadikaaram still dated 2nd century CE then?
So, what do they reveal about the ground religion of TN and the Tamizh laity?
1. Bodhidharma:
Quote:Bodhidharma was a Tamil prince born in Kancheepuram the Pallava capital in 440 AD.
Claims other than Kanchi have been made for this ex-Hindu (specifically ex-brahmana) convert to Buddhism. E.g. others claim he is from Kodungallur Kerala. Incl. the earlier-posted snippet from Rajeev Srinivasan:
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.
Quote:this Buddhist monk who preached Buddhism, martial arts and medicine in China.No mention that kalari was Hindu in origin?
Also, don't know about Buddhist medicine in China, but - just like the indigenous Daoist martial arts are not Buddhist - acupuncture is Daoist, and so too all Chi-based ancient Chinese medicine, which are part of Daoist tradition.
2. On various statements in the following:
Quote:The following seven were adopted by the Hinduism from Budhdhism
1.Hindu religion accepted Budhdha as one avatar of Thirumal
2.The mini dheivams and village angels of budhdhism were absorbed
3.The animal sacrifice was abandoned by caste Brahmin priests and they converted themselves to vegetarian food for defending their profession
4.The Bodhi tree worship of budhdhism was accepted as it was popular among people
5. Maths were established following such practice by Budhdhist
6.Adi Sankara adopted Soonyavadha of Budhdhism to get Mayavadha
7.The Budhdist Jataka tales were also accepted
1. "Hindu religion accepted Budhdha as one avatar of Thirumal [Vishnu]"
The acceptance is not universal among Hindus. In TN - the geography under consideration - especially: not all Hindus consider Buddha an avataaram.
2. "The mini dheivams and village angels of budhdhism were absorbed"
Tamizh Nadu always had lots of local Hindu Gods: village Gods as well as deified village Chieftains.
Many (still) shown carrying sharp weapons, looking Very unBuddhist, Because they're unBuddhist. Complete with unBuddhist poses. (No, can't be seen as a modified Mahayana either.)
Some of the deified village chieftains were known worshippers of Hindu Gods and had built their own village Hindu temples (and Shivalingas in these temples are not "Buddha" moorties commandeered by Hindus).
These Tamizh Hindu Gods, Aiyannars, are called shasta-s/satta-s too, of course (just like the very major - regionally-known but Kosmic - God, Aiyanar Ayyappa of southern Bharatam). And they are part of Hindu cosmology, but are local Gods. It's the way Daoists and Shintos have local Gods. (Versus Buddhism - which never pretended to be "pagan" before - acquiring local Gods by bauddhification of the same, usually by Mahayana.)
In any case, what these local Gods of TN specifically are NOT is "Buddhist village angels/mini devas".
3. "The animal sacrifice was abandoned by caste Brahmin priests and they converted themselves to vegetarian food for defending their profession"
- Buddhism was not vegetarian to begin with. So it's hardly a Buddhist influence on Brahmanas that Brahmanas turned vegetarian. But see the posts stolen from Pandyan's links to Kalavai Venkat.
(Plus it has been reasonably argued that Buddhism adopted vegetarianism in reaction to competing with the vegetarianism of certain Hindu sects. See vegetarianism thread.)
4. "The Bodhi tree worship of budhdhism was accepted as it was popular among people"
Again: This was not adopted from Buddhism into Hindu religion.
- Hindus have always had VrukSha Devatas (like Hindu water and mountain Gods), just like they have Insect Gods who they worship (yes we do)
- Ashwattha being recognised as a sacred tree by Hindus - with great symbology to do with knowledge of the aatmaa/bypassing samsara - goes back Way-way. And Gita - which mentions the Ashwattha VrukSha in such a manner with backreference - is still pre-Buddhist, Romila Tapars notwithstanding.
Quote:OordhvamUlam-adaHshAkham-ashvatthaM prAhur-avyayam | ChandAmsi yasya parNAni yas taM veda sa veda-vit ||
Knowing (the nature of) *The* ashwattha tree is associated with true knowledge. And as seen above, Krishna in the Gita says this was already known about the tree from pre-existing Hindu texts.
That the Bo tree in Buddhism similarly came to have a relation to "knowledge/enlightenment" may be - I more than suspect - owing to the influence of pre-existing Hindu views on the tree.
- Finally, as for the Hindu Agamic worship: the Ashwattha/Pipala/Bodhi VrukSha (and related strains) worshipped by Hindus is an ancient Hindu practice. It is viewed and worshipped identical to the Shivalingam: it is the Trimoorti (i.e. the Parabrahmam) in the same order they appear in the Shivalingam. Also seen entirely as the ParamapuruSha Vishnu. As well as (always) all the Hindu Devas together. And this is even literally spelled out:
Quote:moolato brahmarUpAya madhyato viShNurUpiNe | agrataH shivarUpAya vR^ikSharAjAya te namaH ||
mUlebrahmA tvachi viShNuH shAkhAyAM sha~Nkara eva cha | patre patre sarvadevAH vAsudevAya te namaH ||
And NO. Shivalinga worship does not derive from Bo or Buddha worship. Buddha wasn't even depicted originally.
Repeat from earlier: Buddhists' veneration for the Bo tree is owing to the tradition that Buddha gained enlightenment under it. Like the narrative that IIRC the hooded cobra sheltered him at some point.
- But the Bodhi tree was important in pre-existing (Hindu) cosmology, as stated
- Just like Nagasarpa association with Hindu Gods and Hindu Yogis/Siddhars predates Buddhism
So a case can be made that the borrowing is rather in the Opposite direction to the one claimed by/for Buddhism.
Also, Hindus are a bit like Shintos (even Daoists) in that we really do worship everything in the natural world. And like the Daoists, we have all kinds of "deep" (i.e. Vedic-UpaniShadic-Agamic-Tantric) reasoning for it.
[5. No comments on Maths, as I wouldn't know, but monastic traditions existed and were not a Buddhist monopoly nor need it have been their innovation. Jainism had something like it (but apparently not nuns, in the south leastways?) I wouldn't know if Ajeevikas had it or not, but they were a bunch of ascetics/lived the life of ascetics too.
But Hindus had long had Yogis/Siddhars and Yatis of their own, including lineages, and also (included therein) bunches of brahmanas carrying out ascetic practices. The Sannyasin state is a sort of Yoga order going by what I imagine the word Nyaasa means, having seen it in preambles.]
6. "Adi Sankara adopted Soonyavadha of Budhdhism to get Mayavadha"
- While there are several slightly differing, pre-existing, established Hindu POVs on advaitam itself (all derived from ancient Hindu texts), Shankara BP finds that advaitam as he iterated it (including his view on the un/reality of Maya) derived entirely from *Hindu* views and scriptures like the Upanishads and Gita (even refs to Vedas) which predate Buddhism. That is, Shankara didn't think he was saying anything new (or innovating anything), but merely parroting the old Hindu scriptures etc, and claims his view to be an established tradition of learning/understanding of said upaniShads (i.e. Hindu tradition).
- Add to that that Shankara actually opposed various aspects of the (multiple) Buddhist views at his time. Including I think Buddhist opinion/negation of the Hindus' (pre-existing) conception of Atma. Apparently Shankara even declared that Buddha* was wrong and either ignorantly or deliberately deluded people. [* I.e. the teachings attributed to Buddha.]
(But while one of Shankara's stotras does say "dehaM prANamapIndriyANyapi chalAM buddhiM cha shUnyam viduH strIbAlAndhakajaDopamAstvahamiti bhrAntA bR^isham vAdinaH |" (includes critique of the view of non-existence identified with the self or denial of the self - or something), I am not sure if the criticism is not more generally directed than at Buddhism.)
- Also, the use of Shunya - including as a .... religio/metaphysical concept - pre-existed Buddhism and has various different meanings to what it does in Buddhism. Apparently it's described in the AV (but I wouldn't know), but I think it's also mentioned in Hindu upanishads where it is apparently equated with (Nirguna) Brahman*. [* In the meaning of: state of neutrality (i.e., which nirguNa is).]
In any case, the religious/metaphysical meaning it has in Hindu contexts is not the same as in Buddhism. Even the very Hindoo and very religiously Hindu Pauranic work, the DA (performed as part of the DM) - which parrots parts of at least one sooktam from an Upanishad, looks very much to be using shunya in the original Hindu meaning of Nirguna Brahman. (I speculate that in the DA it may even also imply the neutrality that results from the cancelling-action of the equality of the 3 inherent qualities/guNas in existing Prakriti as is the case when it is in its state as mere potential. I.e. neutrality the way -1 + 1 = 0, or 3 equal forces balancing each other out.)
7. "The Budhdist Jataka tales were also accepted"
Jatakas are known to be - and recognisably - Buddhist. I didn't know that there were Hindus who considered "accepted" these works as "Hindu".
May continue commenting on the rest of the previous post some other day. Before I finally end today's spam, though, KamakShi Kovil (etc) can't be Buddhist for various [should be obvious] reasons. But of course it's too much to hope that Hindus at a Hindu site would ever say anything.
Also, the history of Buddhism against Hinduism in Kanchi - but not at all only Kanchi - is pretty ugly. The problem is closely related to exactly the Buddhist tendency to try and usurp popular heathen religious sites. "Would Buddhism do such a thing?" (Oh yes it would. See E Asia.)