1/n
(I'd apologise for the extreme length of each of these many posts, except that if I wrote in a string of brief predicates I suspect it wouldn't be much appreciated either.
I don't mean to speak "with authority" below, but no one else ever seems to speak about this at all. So I may as well complain on the matter as much as is reasonably within my ability.
Personally, I'd just read the blockquotes in this sequence of posts, or visit any links where no excerpts are given.)
These things are getting out of hand.
www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/item/51148-fighting-over-bodhgaya.html?tmpl=component&print=1
Though the topic touched on in the above quoteblock will come first, this set of posts is actually about multiple tangentially-related things that came to mind when reading the above. They're matters which have been gradually developing in the background over some time (and moving to the foreground):
- How the origin of other Indic religions is being shifted backwards in time. As one example: the *later* Buddhist invention of a sequence of Buddhas stretching backwards in time is now presented matter-of-factly as of Buddhism having always existed (in some form). Note that the above reference is to this Buddhist *theology* on previous Buddhas, which is not using "buddhas" in the general sense of the term but in a specific Bauddha sense.
- The origin of yoga and how it is shifted onto other Indic religions.
- Indeed, even Samkhya (until now still regarded as one of the 6 *Astika* schools, just as Yoga) is being similarly transferred.
- And as an inevitable consequence, encroachment on the Upanishads is on too: the most audible claims are being made on those particular Upanishads that clearly mention Yoga, Samkhya and/or concepts related to it (such as Samsara to Samadhi) etc.
- However, there were already preparations afoot for claiming all the Upanishads: that they are "not really Vedic" (not in their "thought"/ideas expressed), but as belonging to some backwards-projected independent ur-'Shramanic' religion, arguing that the Upanishads/Upanishadic thought had somehow "ended up" in Vedic religion. In this, the notion being constructed is that there were always 2 separate religions in India: Shramanism and Vedic religion* and that the former is what "actually" led to the Upanishads, and that the Upanishads therefore "rightfully" belong to the modern Shramanic religions (Jainism and Buddhism) which sprung from Shramanism.
To note, the claim is quite severe: that Upanishadic thought "actually, originally" belongs to the separate non-Vedic religion of "Shramanism" and that it is "therefore" the *Hindus* that would have "encroached" on it.
Indeed, in claiming this much, the fable has evolved further, to evict Vedic Religion as being the invader religion to the subcontinent and the newly invented Shramanism as the native religion.
(Further and more extreme spins place even Jainism and/or Buddhism as the eternally-existing (sanatana) Shramanic religions in India and this is then tied back: that one or both of these religions was behind the Upanishads.)
But the notion that a distinct non-Vedic Indic religion X ("Shramanism" with a capital S*) existed before or during Vedic religion appears to be a more recent consideration. So too that general shramanic practices and ideas "must be independent" of Vedic religion (i.e. of Hindus' religion) rather than always having been a part of it. And that what are regarded as the eventual classical Astika schools like Yoga and Samkhya were again influenced not by Vedic religion, but by "Shramanism" instead.
X appears to have been invented and placed into history just in order to take all elements tied to Yoga - incl. Samkhya usw (and inevitably even encroaching on the Upanishads) - away from Hindus' religion and donate it to an external point, so that it can be claimed that the existence of these things in Hindus' Vedic religion "must therefore be" borrowed from/influenced by X.
* Although, at times another word has been posited for this supposed religion/its adherents too.
Yet where is the evidence for this new additional independent religion X "Shramanism" that is to have overlapped in timeframe with the earliest known-/assigned period of Vedic religion? (I'm not even going to appeal to Occam's Razor. There are more straightforward arguments.)
Where is the evidence, when the ...early range of - or say "core" - Upanishads are part of the Vedas and follow on from the Aranyaka portions? They are *part* of the Vedic religion: constituting an aspect of Vedic thought, Vedic practice and Vedic life. And the Vedic corpus *shows its working* (derivation) on matters pertaining to what came to be viewed as independent "Yoga/Saa~Nkhya".
That is, if the requirement was to find proof of the Hindu evolution of ideas that would lead to Yoga and Samkhyan notions, it has always been there in Vedic texts (which texts include the itihasas - e.g. the MBh is very much about Vedic religious society. And ascetism among Vedic Hindus is rather familiar to the MBh. And not just restricted to ascetic Brahmanas: people in mainstream Hindu society were also seen progressing to ascetic tendencies not just in later stages of life - where elderly kings and queens are seen to withdraw as hermits into the forest, renouncing the comfortable life - but since ancient times many Hindu Yogis, Siddhas and Sadhus have been from all walks of Hindu life.)
Again: the Hindu texts show their working behind the evolution of the ideas. IIRC, some Hindus view the Vedas as theoretically consisting of 2 portions (though constituting one indivisible whole): 1. the Karma Kandam - which are the rituals, for the Gods, for (all life in) this world and for self-purification for the world Beyond as especially happens when the stipulated rituals are performed with [a degree of] renunciation of the fruits for oneself; and 2. the Gnyana Kandam portions (Aranyakas and Upanishads) which are more geared towards contemplating on and realising the (true nature of) Self w.r.t. Kosmos/Brahman/...<bla>. It's why the Gnyana Kandam portions are viewed as part of the "Vedanta" ([color="#0000FF"]edit:[/color] well the Upanishads, but they're said to sort of take the origins of their train of thought from the Aranyakas): the *end* of the Vedam, which implies there is all sorts of stuff that must be done first. Hindus don't skip the Vedic karmas and jump to vedanta (most of those who do that today tend to be new-ageists, the kind that sell "Vedanta" in the west). Usually Hindus tend to recite/perform/etc from all parts of it, though at some point in time, certain more extreme renunciate shramanic type of Vedic Hindus seemed to have eventually considered themselves self-purified to a full extent and felt it was time to renounce even karmas and start planning to no longer being part of ... "this world". [Or something. Which would explain the repeated question-marks about whether *complete* renunciation - not just of the phalam - was actually required or even justified or not. E.g. the Gita considers this question too.]
Anyway, my point was: there is a *natural* relation/logical 'relatedness' between the "Vedic (i.e. Hindu) religion" of the Vedic rituals and the Vedic Hindu religion of Hindu ascetism - i.e. *Hindu* shramanas (lower case s to indicate use in the plain sense of the word). They're both the Vedic religion. [An example: even the performance of the rites of the *Hindu* agamic and tantra texts are specifically described and understood as being internally-performed *Vedic* sacrifices (e.g. the temple is the Yagnyashala, or the flaming Shivalingam in the heart is the Vedic fire), thus mirroring internally within each Hindu the external Vedic sacrifices that are carried out by the Vedabrahmanas. And this internalisation of the Vedic rites seen in the Hindu agama and tantra texts - even when performed as dhyana - is already there in the Upanishads (actually it appears to be there in parts from the rest of the Vedam too: considering how some suktas/mantras/stuff seem to additionally be performed mentally as well, as dhyanam.)]
* And a general attitude of renunciation is part of the "Karmakanda" portion of the Vedam itself, even noticeable in the overall frugality of the lives of many a married Rishi, Vedabrahmana and other Vedic ascetic.
But it is precisely because the Upanishads are so ...footloose ascetic (shramanic, used in the plain sense of the word; as ascetism and renunciation is well-known in Vedic religion)
in both thought and implied lifestyle, and because these texts contain undeniable pointers to Yoga and Samkhya, that the Upanishad portions of the Vedam now Have To Be Encroached on as being part of (else influenced by) "the independent original Shramanic religion" that is being postulated.
How else can claims be made to sever the Upanishads from the Vedas/Vedic religion, than by presupposing a distinct and independent Shramanic ur-religion - which must by necessity be defined as being non-Vedic in origin? Because any admission of the converse would mark a return to what was the generally held status-quo until now: that the *known* Shramanic religions of history at some point found derivation in some manner from the pre-existing Vedic religion, and not from a distinct non-Vedic, un-Vedic ur-religion, existing *in contrast* to the Vedic religion (let alone the argument that the extant Shramanic religions existed always/"were sanatana", to be claimed using e.g. the later "Buddhist theology" of many *Buddhist* Buddhas, placed into remoter history in order to make Buddhism itself into an eternal religion, far predating the Gautama Buddha/the actual origin of Buddhism. IIRC, there was a time when Buddhism was so insane as to attempt to make out that the very Daoist God, the Jade Emperor of Daoist Heaven himself, was a Buddha. But then, it's not encumbent on Hindus to subscribe to Buddhist theology).
Actually the tendency among other Indic religions to at some point start perceiving themselves as "eternal religions" seems to parallel that other move: their *eventual* (late) decision to claim their chosen languages/languages of their liturgy as "eternal languages" much after seeing how Vedic Hindus' considered (Chandas) Samskritam to be eternal/divine (or something). [In this, Buddhism eventually latching onto Samskritam as their (note 2nd) choice for "eternal language of Buddhism" came only after they had already spent considerable time blasting I mean critiquing the Vedic Hindus and their Vedas and (attachment to) Samskritam.]
What comes hereafter is (cut 'n paste) examples of:
1. what others concerned thought before now
2. what other (pro-Buddhist, specifically *not* pro-Hindu) 'scholars' on Buddhism had to say as recently as 2001-2003 about Yoga and related ideas in Buddhism, and where the notion of multiple *Buddhist* Buddhas comes from (i.e. not merely any self-perfected beings, but particularly self-perfected beings that were ever specifically *Buddhist* in view and therefore 'proof' of Buddhism's sanatana-ness)
3. And the main point of the current slew of posts: how, since then, matters are being developed/history rewritten - including how Vedic religion is slowly being written out.
(I'd apologise for the extreme length of each of these many posts, except that if I wrote in a string of brief predicates I suspect it wouldn't be much appreciated either.
I don't mean to speak "with authority" below, but no one else ever seems to speak about this at all. So I may as well complain on the matter as much as is reasonably within my ability.
Personally, I'd just read the blockquotes in this sequence of posts, or visit any links where no excerpts are given.)
These things are getting out of hand.
www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/item/51148-fighting-over-bodhgaya.html?tmpl=component&print=1
Quote:By admitting the plea on the Mahabodhi temple, the bench has taken a narrow view of the oceanic nature of native Indian tradition. In the 1920s itself, renowned archaeologist RP Chanda noted the Indus roots of Yogic tradition (possibly Indiaââ¬â¢s most significant spiritual dimension), particularly the meditation forms that came to be associated with Bauddha and Jaina practice. He observed that the discoveries at Indus sites show that both traditions are indebted to the Indus civilisation for some of their cardinal ideas. Scholars now believe that what were later identified as distinct Hindu, Jaina and Bauddha spiritual streams, had common roots in the Indus civilisation.
Prince Siddhartha (6th century BC) said there had been many Buddhas before him; Buddhist theology has rich genealogies of past Buddhas and the previous lives of Sakya Muni. [...]
Though the topic touched on in the above quoteblock will come first, this set of posts is actually about multiple tangentially-related things that came to mind when reading the above. They're matters which have been gradually developing in the background over some time (and moving to the foreground):
- How the origin of other Indic religions is being shifted backwards in time. As one example: the *later* Buddhist invention of a sequence of Buddhas stretching backwards in time is now presented matter-of-factly as of Buddhism having always existed (in some form). Note that the above reference is to this Buddhist *theology* on previous Buddhas, which is not using "buddhas" in the general sense of the term but in a specific Bauddha sense.
- The origin of yoga and how it is shifted onto other Indic religions.
- Indeed, even Samkhya (until now still regarded as one of the 6 *Astika* schools, just as Yoga) is being similarly transferred.
- And as an inevitable consequence, encroachment on the Upanishads is on too: the most audible claims are being made on those particular Upanishads that clearly mention Yoga, Samkhya and/or concepts related to it (such as Samsara to Samadhi) etc.
- However, there were already preparations afoot for claiming all the Upanishads: that they are "not really Vedic" (not in their "thought"/ideas expressed), but as belonging to some backwards-projected independent ur-'Shramanic' religion, arguing that the Upanishads/Upanishadic thought had somehow "ended up" in Vedic religion. In this, the notion being constructed is that there were always 2 separate religions in India: Shramanism and Vedic religion* and that the former is what "actually" led to the Upanishads, and that the Upanishads therefore "rightfully" belong to the modern Shramanic religions (Jainism and Buddhism) which sprung from Shramanism.
To note, the claim is quite severe: that Upanishadic thought "actually, originally" belongs to the separate non-Vedic religion of "Shramanism" and that it is "therefore" the *Hindus* that would have "encroached" on it.
Indeed, in claiming this much, the fable has evolved further, to evict Vedic Religion as being the invader religion to the subcontinent and the newly invented Shramanism as the native religion.
(Further and more extreme spins place even Jainism and/or Buddhism as the eternally-existing (sanatana) Shramanic religions in India and this is then tied back: that one or both of these religions was behind the Upanishads.)
But the notion that a distinct non-Vedic Indic religion X ("Shramanism" with a capital S*) existed before or during Vedic religion appears to be a more recent consideration. So too that general shramanic practices and ideas "must be independent" of Vedic religion (i.e. of Hindus' religion) rather than always having been a part of it. And that what are regarded as the eventual classical Astika schools like Yoga and Samkhya were again influenced not by Vedic religion, but by "Shramanism" instead.
X appears to have been invented and placed into history just in order to take all elements tied to Yoga - incl. Samkhya usw (and inevitably even encroaching on the Upanishads) - away from Hindus' religion and donate it to an external point, so that it can be claimed that the existence of these things in Hindus' Vedic religion "must therefore be" borrowed from/influenced by X.
* Although, at times another word has been posited for this supposed religion/its adherents too.
Yet where is the evidence for this new additional independent religion X "Shramanism" that is to have overlapped in timeframe with the earliest known-/assigned period of Vedic religion? (I'm not even going to appeal to Occam's Razor. There are more straightforward arguments.)
Where is the evidence, when the ...early range of - or say "core" - Upanishads are part of the Vedas and follow on from the Aranyaka portions? They are *part* of the Vedic religion: constituting an aspect of Vedic thought, Vedic practice and Vedic life. And the Vedic corpus *shows its working* (derivation) on matters pertaining to what came to be viewed as independent "Yoga/Saa~Nkhya".
That is, if the requirement was to find proof of the Hindu evolution of ideas that would lead to Yoga and Samkhyan notions, it has always been there in Vedic texts (which texts include the itihasas - e.g. the MBh is very much about Vedic religious society. And ascetism among Vedic Hindus is rather familiar to the MBh. And not just restricted to ascetic Brahmanas: people in mainstream Hindu society were also seen progressing to ascetic tendencies not just in later stages of life - where elderly kings and queens are seen to withdraw as hermits into the forest, renouncing the comfortable life - but since ancient times many Hindu Yogis, Siddhas and Sadhus have been from all walks of Hindu life.)
Again: the Hindu texts show their working behind the evolution of the ideas. IIRC, some Hindus view the Vedas as theoretically consisting of 2 portions (though constituting one indivisible whole): 1. the Karma Kandam - which are the rituals, for the Gods, for (all life in) this world and for self-purification for the world Beyond as especially happens when the stipulated rituals are performed with [a degree of] renunciation of the fruits for oneself; and 2. the Gnyana Kandam portions (Aranyakas and Upanishads) which are more geared towards contemplating on and realising the (true nature of) Self w.r.t. Kosmos/Brahman/...<bla>. It's why the Gnyana Kandam portions are viewed as part of the "Vedanta" ([color="#0000FF"]edit:[/color] well the Upanishads, but they're said to sort of take the origins of their train of thought from the Aranyakas): the *end* of the Vedam, which implies there is all sorts of stuff that must be done first. Hindus don't skip the Vedic karmas and jump to vedanta (most of those who do that today tend to be new-ageists, the kind that sell "Vedanta" in the west). Usually Hindus tend to recite/perform/etc from all parts of it, though at some point in time, certain more extreme renunciate shramanic type of Vedic Hindus seemed to have eventually considered themselves self-purified to a full extent and felt it was time to renounce even karmas and start planning to no longer being part of ... "this world". [Or something. Which would explain the repeated question-marks about whether *complete* renunciation - not just of the phalam - was actually required or even justified or not. E.g. the Gita considers this question too.]
Anyway, my point was: there is a *natural* relation/logical 'relatedness' between the "Vedic (i.e. Hindu) religion" of the Vedic rituals and the Vedic Hindu religion of Hindu ascetism - i.e. *Hindu* shramanas (lower case s to indicate use in the plain sense of the word). They're both the Vedic religion. [An example: even the performance of the rites of the *Hindu* agamic and tantra texts are specifically described and understood as being internally-performed *Vedic* sacrifices (e.g. the temple is the Yagnyashala, or the flaming Shivalingam in the heart is the Vedic fire), thus mirroring internally within each Hindu the external Vedic sacrifices that are carried out by the Vedabrahmanas. And this internalisation of the Vedic rites seen in the Hindu agama and tantra texts - even when performed as dhyana - is already there in the Upanishads (actually it appears to be there in parts from the rest of the Vedam too: considering how some suktas/mantras/stuff seem to additionally be performed mentally as well, as dhyanam.)]
* And a general attitude of renunciation is part of the "Karmakanda" portion of the Vedam itself, even noticeable in the overall frugality of the lives of many a married Rishi, Vedabrahmana and other Vedic ascetic.
But it is precisely because the Upanishads are so ...footloose ascetic (shramanic, used in the plain sense of the word; as ascetism and renunciation is well-known in Vedic religion)
in both thought and implied lifestyle, and because these texts contain undeniable pointers to Yoga and Samkhya, that the Upanishad portions of the Vedam now Have To Be Encroached on as being part of (else influenced by) "the independent original Shramanic religion" that is being postulated.
How else can claims be made to sever the Upanishads from the Vedas/Vedic religion, than by presupposing a distinct and independent Shramanic ur-religion - which must by necessity be defined as being non-Vedic in origin? Because any admission of the converse would mark a return to what was the generally held status-quo until now: that the *known* Shramanic religions of history at some point found derivation in some manner from the pre-existing Vedic religion, and not from a distinct non-Vedic, un-Vedic ur-religion, existing *in contrast* to the Vedic religion (let alone the argument that the extant Shramanic religions existed always/"were sanatana", to be claimed using e.g. the later "Buddhist theology" of many *Buddhist* Buddhas, placed into remoter history in order to make Buddhism itself into an eternal religion, far predating the Gautama Buddha/the actual origin of Buddhism. IIRC, there was a time when Buddhism was so insane as to attempt to make out that the very Daoist God, the Jade Emperor of Daoist Heaven himself, was a Buddha. But then, it's not encumbent on Hindus to subscribe to Buddhist theology).
Actually the tendency among other Indic religions to at some point start perceiving themselves as "eternal religions" seems to parallel that other move: their *eventual* (late) decision to claim their chosen languages/languages of their liturgy as "eternal languages" much after seeing how Vedic Hindus' considered (Chandas) Samskritam to be eternal/divine (or something). [In this, Buddhism eventually latching onto Samskritam as their (note 2nd) choice for "eternal language of Buddhism" came only after they had already spent considerable time blasting I mean critiquing the Vedic Hindus and their Vedas and (attachment to) Samskritam.]
What comes hereafter is (cut 'n paste) examples of:
1. what others concerned thought before now
2. what other (pro-Buddhist, specifically *not* pro-Hindu) 'scholars' on Buddhism had to say as recently as 2001-2003 about Yoga and related ideas in Buddhism, and where the notion of multiple *Buddhist* Buddhas comes from (i.e. not merely any self-perfected beings, but particularly self-perfected beings that were ever specifically *Buddhist* in view and therefore 'proof' of Buddhism's sanatana-ness)
3. And the main point of the current slew of posts: how, since then, matters are being developed/history rewritten - including how Vedic religion is slowly being written out.