13/n
On to the 2 related comments to Sandhya Jain's piece on Ahimsa (linked above), which illustrate the typical behaviour of other Hindus whenever one among them dares to make an observation of fact as to antiquity if not origination w.r.t. the other Indic religions.
And if Hindus ever give out a peep at all, it is only ever as a response to counteract the encroachment on matters concerning Hindu religion. But even reaction is never allowed.
But quick came a reply to the above person - doesn't it always:
It's amazing that the Kashi-s never make the same point heard when Sandhya Jain
- just claimed Ahimsa and vegetarianism in Hindus' religion is "actually" owing to Jainism (without giving reference to proof of Jain literature on the subject that predates say the Upanishads or even the MBh?)
- in an earlier article referred to Jaina scriptures (late ones to boot!) for how Jainism had invented the Varnas, last of all the Brahmanas (like I said, the implication was that the Vedas postdated Jainism, against all common-sense). Kashi was not there even when Sandhya used Jain theology to claim the Vedic Hindu regent Bharata (whose name was given to Bharatavarsha) as being "actually" a Jain - proof by convenient reference to Jain theology. No doubt were a Jain next to refer to their (again late, obviously) Jain versions of "Ramayana" - where Rama etc were similarly reinvented as Jains - to thus claim that Rama et al were "actually" Jain too like the Bharata behind Bharatavarsha, doubtless Kashi would be silent then as well. (No? If so, why not? Is only *one* of the claims patently absurd? Hmmm?)
Of course, Buddhist theology in Sri Lanka similarly reinvented Ramayana's antagonist, the Vedabrahmana rakShasa Ravana, as a much put-upon Buddhist victim instead, who was illegally deposed by the evil - *because* Vedic/Hindu - Rama. <- They didn't pretend Rama was a Jain, but they made up for it by pretending that Ravana was a Buddhist. (But no one allows themselves to be detained by facts nowadays.) Thailand still has Rama as the protagonist of the Ramakien, because Thailand was Hindu before it was Buddhist and the Ramayana tradition there was - for better or worse - inherited from the country's prior Hindu state. The Ramayana, and Rama as indubitably the hero of it, was of such a popularity, that it could not be swept under the carpet (let alone Ravana inverted into its hero and Rama into its villain). Moreover, the kinship that the until-then *Hindu* Thai royalty claimed to Rama was also something that could not be avoided upon the conversion to Buddhism. (The Thai royalty was always inducted into their ceremonial position by Vedabrahmanas, even yet apparently.) Hence Buddhism just Bauddhified the Thai Ramayana along with the royalty and nation: Rama was now to have been a "Buddhist/upholder of Buddhism" all along (again: never mind that Buddhism didn't even exist at the time Ramayana was set), quite the inverse of the SL Buddhist own peculiar inversion of the Ramayanam. Rather like Thai Buddhist writers continue to admit that the popular observance of Shivaratri in Thailand was Bauddhified into I think a commemoration of Buddha's Nirvana on the same day instead.
There is certainly enough of others' theology to go around, as well as the continuous airing of it as some universal fact binding on all Indic religions (since some insist we are all part of one Sanatana Dharma, though others are dictating the terms of its history, its theology, etc). But when some Hindu at last dares observe in response to such lectures that their own religious works came earlier, BAM, other *Hindus* - of course - will slap their wrists and tell them "No, Such Things Must Not Be Said. Everything Hindoo Belongs To All OR None" (or the "else there is no such thing as Hindus" threat <- don't worry, the aliens make that threat much more ominously and have set promises store by it: they'll make it true yet). Except the same Hindus are Never around to say "It belongs to All Onlee" whenever the "It's all *actually* onlee Buddhist/Jain/... originally" claims are vocalised. Yes, where *are* they then?
Poor Muthu, he doesn't seem to know he's made a terrible faux-pax in observing that ahimsa in Hindus' religion predates Jainism. (Moreover, he doesn't seem to know or follow others' theology - the list of Jain Teerthankaras and Buddhas - as he apears to know only of Mahavira and Buddha as being the origins of their respective religions.) He probably has yet to learn the "Leave other Indic religions to claim everything Hindu, piece by piece - don't you dare gainsay them" rule which many Hindus are so adamant to follow and impose. Even long ago at IF, there was the instant and automated insistence on not referring to which Indic religion did(n't) "invent" vegetarianism in India - but silencing Hindus doesn't stop Buddhism and Jainism from repeatedly making claims to uniqueness on this score. There was also insistence - based on a determination to simply assume the best and having No Interest to establish the facts for themselves (a favour only ever rendered to Buddhism, of course) - that no one mention that Buddhist monasteries in several Asian nations kept slaves <- admitted and moreover *documented* though this is, even by east Asian Buddhists themselves. <snip> Doesn't stop Buddhism from claiming it is uniquely "egalitarian" and specifically declaring that Hindus' Vedic religion isn't. Yet in the comparison... But it does not matter.
I wonder how long Hindus will remain silent, bearing with it all. There's no *virtue* in it - in putting up with falsehood in order to please others - people know that, right?
Adherents of the other Indic religions
a) EITHER insist (in angry tones) they have nothing to do with Hindus' Vedic religion (includes Gods) - not that I wish them to do so - and who are even specifically working to walk away with important parts of Hindus' religion as booty for their invented "ur-Shramanism" and as a means to negate the Vedic religion,
b ) OR other Indics will be willing to form 'a united front' of a 'united religion' by setting the terms of Hindus' surrender, I mean, the terms of how Hindus' religion is to be "related" or rather incorporated into theirs: trying to pass their own (late!) theologies as one that Hindus should recognise as being that of the revised "one" shared "Sanatana Dharma". It's emotional blackmail. (Nor do I care for their sudden turn to allow degrees of various Hindu matters - especially regarding the Vedas - which they most particularly never countenanced before.)
Neither A nor B is in Hindus' interest, but Hindus seem ever willing to be shortchanged by going in for B (and B eventually ends up re-stating most of the same claims as A: a lot of the drivel one could read in the Jain Minority Forum and neo-Buddhist writing is inching its way into the mainstream. But it always seems to become okay and reasonable and acceptable when the *right* person makes the claims. It's never the claims in themselves that Hindus examine let alone wish to contest.)
"Sanatana Dharma" to Hindus means only the religion that traces to the Vedas* and (at the least the) Hindu Gods**. Indeed, to Hindus, "Dharma" itself means only the Vedic Dharma and not Bauddha Dhamma, etc. Oh sure, Hindus will swear by platitudes of all religions, and have an especial place for Indic ones, but the religion they know and live is other: it's their own ancestral one.
[* Among the scriptures of Indic religions, the Vedas - and hence its language - were the first to be claimed as Sanatana and without beginning and not-man-made.
** "Hindu Gods": not to be confused with the same names/claims on them appearing afterward in others' cosmologies and theologies. Even in general, "Gods" do not have the same meaning in the other Indic religions as they do in Hindus' and other heathen religions. And pointing to confused and self-reverting members of others' laities - like in Sri Lanka - does not constitute "proof" of the reverse. Actually - I may as well say it, since I don't know if I'd mention it in future: the Hindu Gods are the other aspect that the fringes were edging towards encroaching on, but in a fortunately and understandably non-commital way.]
"But we're all one religion onlee". Except when tomorrow others choose not to be Again. :grin: And when the oneness religion is dictated by *their* theologies, even/especially when in direct conflict with the Hindu version.
Why can't a sense of unity be derived - not by a forced merger of "theologies", which can only be to everyone's disadvantage (it most certainly is to Hindus') nor from a denial of distinct identities - but from a goodwill to coexistence? I don't expect Buddhists and Jains to diverge from adhering to Buddhist and Jain theologies, I only ask that Hindus realise that there is no need for them to sign up for the same. Hindu religion will not cease were Hindus to abstain from merging it with other Indic religions. Because Hindus' religion is not - just as it was not - dependent on others' religion.
As regards the increasing forays into concretising "ur-Shramanism", they are likely to grow more numerous and more demanding in future - especially considering how English-speaking Hindus never have the will (or the spine?) to correct anything in time, and usually fan the flames themselves. But A Stitch In Time Saves Nine, and Too Late is as bad as doing nothing. It may even yet be that one day this invention will be taught in your children's schools as the "original religion of the ('dravoodian' etc) natives of India" who came to be "oppressed by the invading oryans of the foreign Vedic religion". I wouldn't at all dismiss the possibility, equal absurdities are being taught there. And the current climate in India - determined by christianism as it is - is very much in favour of propping up the minority native religions to antagonise the majority native religion. They will not bat an eye nor lose a moment's sleep in doing so. And despite minority voices being feeble as to number in making their feeble claims, christianism will give them the louderspeaker necessary and manufacture the authority/respectability required to level the playing field: where all hypotheses and possibilities may become "equal" truths. And soon after, established truths may be discarded for being inconvenient to the retelling of the history of religion in the Indian subcontinent. You know, the way the Upanishads, Aranyakas, Yoga, Samkhya, Tantra etc are now declared to have been "actually originally" ur-Shramanic in origin :grin: People should by all means laugh while they may. (Just as the whole "Ayyappa is from Buddhism" story started in the same lunatic circles too. Yet how far that false fable has travelled now into the mainstream. I suppose people may look forward to their own kind propagating the "ur-Shramanism Theory" also. The topic flatters the intellect even more, after all: the very conception of it, the hypothesis, the search for "evidence" - in Hindus' religious literature invariably, since there are none others of such an early time to even consult.)
On to the 2 related comments to Sandhya Jain's piece on Ahimsa (linked above), which illustrate the typical behaviour of other Hindus whenever one among them dares to make an observation of fact as to antiquity if not origination w.r.t. the other Indic religions.
And if Hindus ever give out a peep at all, it is only ever as a response to counteract the encroachment on matters concerning Hindu religion. But even reaction is never allowed.
Quote:Sandhya Madam. I feel that Mahavir and Buddha have taken a lot from the Upanishads , even though they rejected Vedas . Just read Sandilay Upanishad , there is so much similarity with Mahivirs works. Similarly the Dhammapada looks a rehash of Upanishads ( the major plus some minor ones) Here is a passage from Sandilya Upanishad where Ahimsa is mentioned and explained well.Quick someone, claim this ...Upanishad for ur-Shramanism too - if not straightaway as "post-Buddhist with Buddhist influence" itself. After all, it dares to Hindooistically mention (again) all those very things claimed uniquely for Buddhism/Jainism/"ur-Shramanism": from Ahimsa, Satya - full meaning - to :gulp: Yoga stuffs. Then again, they've already pre-emptively, conveniently - and without actual proof - declared that all Upanishads and even Aranyakas "must have been influenced" in exactly such matters by the invented ur-Shramanism. Muthu appears to have missed that development.
Sandilya questioned Atharvan thus: ââ¬ÅPlease tell me about the eight Angas (parts) of Yoga which is the means of attaining to Atman.ââ¬Â
Atharvan replied: ââ¬ÅThe eight Angas of Yoga are Yama, Niyama, Asana, Pranayama, Pratyahara, Dharana, Dhyana and Samadhi. Of these, Yama is of ten kinds; and so is Niyama. There are eight Asanas. Pranayama is of three kinds; Pratyahara is of five kinds; so also is Dharana. Dhyana is of two kinds and Samadhi is of one kind only.
Under Yama (forbearance) are ten: Ahimsa, Satya, Asteya, Brahmacharya, Daya, Arjava,Kshama, Dhriti, Mitahara and Saucha. Of these, Ahimsa is the not causing of any pain to any living being at any time through the actions of oneââ¬â¢s mind, speech, or body. Satya is the speaking of the truth that conduces to the well-being of creatures, through the actions of oneââ¬â¢s mind, speech, or body. Asteya is not coveting of anotherââ¬â¢s property through the actions of oneââ¬â¢s mind, speech, or body. Brahmacharya is the refraining from sexual inter-course in all places and in all states in mind, speech or body. Daya is kindliness towards all creatures in all places. Arjava is the preserving of equanimity of mind, speech, or body in the performance or non-performance of the actions ordained or forbidden to be done. Kshama is the bearing patiently of all pleasant or unpleasant things, such as praise or blow. Dhriti is the preserving of firmness of mind during the period of gain or loss of wealth or relatives. Mitahara is the taking of oily and sweet food, leaving one-fourth of the stomach empty. Saucha is of two kinds, external and internal. Of these, the external is the cleansing of the body by earth and water; the internal is the cleansing of the mind. This (the latter) is to be obtained by means of the Adhyatma-Vidya (Science of Self).
Muthu
05 Apr 2012
But quick came a reply to the above person - doesn't it always:
Quote:@Muthu - this mentality of this one took from that one and so only that one should survive and the rest should disappear - this comes from a Monotheistic mindset.
Read the article carefully - the common geographical and cultural-spiritual matrix - and breathe easily. We are about Unity and Continuity and not Uniformity and Division.
Get to the Soul of the Tradition, don't get lost in one form only.
Kashi
05 Apr 2012
It's amazing that the Kashi-s never make the same point heard when Sandhya Jain
- just claimed Ahimsa and vegetarianism in Hindus' religion is "actually" owing to Jainism (without giving reference to proof of Jain literature on the subject that predates say the Upanishads or even the MBh?)
- in an earlier article referred to Jaina scriptures (late ones to boot!) for how Jainism had invented the Varnas, last of all the Brahmanas (like I said, the implication was that the Vedas postdated Jainism, against all common-sense). Kashi was not there even when Sandhya used Jain theology to claim the Vedic Hindu regent Bharata (whose name was given to Bharatavarsha) as being "actually" a Jain - proof by convenient reference to Jain theology. No doubt were a Jain next to refer to their (again late, obviously) Jain versions of "Ramayana" - where Rama etc were similarly reinvented as Jains - to thus claim that Rama et al were "actually" Jain too like the Bharata behind Bharatavarsha, doubtless Kashi would be silent then as well. (No? If so, why not? Is only *one* of the claims patently absurd? Hmmm?)
Of course, Buddhist theology in Sri Lanka similarly reinvented Ramayana's antagonist, the Vedabrahmana rakShasa Ravana, as a much put-upon Buddhist victim instead, who was illegally deposed by the evil - *because* Vedic/Hindu - Rama. <- They didn't pretend Rama was a Jain, but they made up for it by pretending that Ravana was a Buddhist. (But no one allows themselves to be detained by facts nowadays.) Thailand still has Rama as the protagonist of the Ramakien, because Thailand was Hindu before it was Buddhist and the Ramayana tradition there was - for better or worse - inherited from the country's prior Hindu state. The Ramayana, and Rama as indubitably the hero of it, was of such a popularity, that it could not be swept under the carpet (let alone Ravana inverted into its hero and Rama into its villain). Moreover, the kinship that the until-then *Hindu* Thai royalty claimed to Rama was also something that could not be avoided upon the conversion to Buddhism. (The Thai royalty was always inducted into their ceremonial position by Vedabrahmanas, even yet apparently.) Hence Buddhism just Bauddhified the Thai Ramayana along with the royalty and nation: Rama was now to have been a "Buddhist/upholder of Buddhism" all along (again: never mind that Buddhism didn't even exist at the time Ramayana was set), quite the inverse of the SL Buddhist own peculiar inversion of the Ramayanam. Rather like Thai Buddhist writers continue to admit that the popular observance of Shivaratri in Thailand was Bauddhified into I think a commemoration of Buddha's Nirvana on the same day instead.
There is certainly enough of others' theology to go around, as well as the continuous airing of it as some universal fact binding on all Indic religions (since some insist we are all part of one Sanatana Dharma, though others are dictating the terms of its history, its theology, etc). But when some Hindu at last dares observe in response to such lectures that their own religious works came earlier, BAM, other *Hindus* - of course - will slap their wrists and tell them "No, Such Things Must Not Be Said. Everything Hindoo Belongs To All OR None" (or the "else there is no such thing as Hindus" threat <- don't worry, the aliens make that threat much more ominously and have set promises store by it: they'll make it true yet). Except the same Hindus are Never around to say "It belongs to All Onlee" whenever the "It's all *actually* onlee Buddhist/Jain/... originally" claims are vocalised. Yes, where *are* they then?
Poor Muthu, he doesn't seem to know he's made a terrible faux-pax in observing that ahimsa in Hindus' religion predates Jainism. (Moreover, he doesn't seem to know or follow others' theology - the list of Jain Teerthankaras and Buddhas - as he apears to know only of Mahavira and Buddha as being the origins of their respective religions.) He probably has yet to learn the "Leave other Indic religions to claim everything Hindu, piece by piece - don't you dare gainsay them" rule which many Hindus are so adamant to follow and impose. Even long ago at IF, there was the instant and automated insistence on not referring to which Indic religion did(n't) "invent" vegetarianism in India - but silencing Hindus doesn't stop Buddhism and Jainism from repeatedly making claims to uniqueness on this score. There was also insistence - based on a determination to simply assume the best and having No Interest to establish the facts for themselves (a favour only ever rendered to Buddhism, of course) - that no one mention that Buddhist monasteries in several Asian nations kept slaves <- admitted and moreover *documented* though this is, even by east Asian Buddhists themselves. <snip> Doesn't stop Buddhism from claiming it is uniquely "egalitarian" and specifically declaring that Hindus' Vedic religion isn't. Yet in the comparison... But it does not matter.
I wonder how long Hindus will remain silent, bearing with it all. There's no *virtue* in it - in putting up with falsehood in order to please others - people know that, right?
Adherents of the other Indic religions
a) EITHER insist (in angry tones) they have nothing to do with Hindus' Vedic religion (includes Gods) - not that I wish them to do so - and who are even specifically working to walk away with important parts of Hindus' religion as booty for their invented "ur-Shramanism" and as a means to negate the Vedic religion,
b ) OR other Indics will be willing to form 'a united front' of a 'united religion' by setting the terms of Hindus' surrender, I mean, the terms of how Hindus' religion is to be "related" or rather incorporated into theirs: trying to pass their own (late!) theologies as one that Hindus should recognise as being that of the revised "one" shared "Sanatana Dharma". It's emotional blackmail. (Nor do I care for their sudden turn to allow degrees of various Hindu matters - especially regarding the Vedas - which they most particularly never countenanced before.)
Neither A nor B is in Hindus' interest, but Hindus seem ever willing to be shortchanged by going in for B (and B eventually ends up re-stating most of the same claims as A: a lot of the drivel one could read in the Jain Minority Forum and neo-Buddhist writing is inching its way into the mainstream. But it always seems to become okay and reasonable and acceptable when the *right* person makes the claims. It's never the claims in themselves that Hindus examine let alone wish to contest.)
"Sanatana Dharma" to Hindus means only the religion that traces to the Vedas* and (at the least the) Hindu Gods**. Indeed, to Hindus, "Dharma" itself means only the Vedic Dharma and not Bauddha Dhamma, etc. Oh sure, Hindus will swear by platitudes of all religions, and have an especial place for Indic ones, but the religion they know and live is other: it's their own ancestral one.
[* Among the scriptures of Indic religions, the Vedas - and hence its language - were the first to be claimed as Sanatana and without beginning and not-man-made.
** "Hindu Gods": not to be confused with the same names/claims on them appearing afterward in others' cosmologies and theologies. Even in general, "Gods" do not have the same meaning in the other Indic religions as they do in Hindus' and other heathen religions. And pointing to confused and self-reverting members of others' laities - like in Sri Lanka - does not constitute "proof" of the reverse. Actually - I may as well say it, since I don't know if I'd mention it in future: the Hindu Gods are the other aspect that the fringes were edging towards encroaching on, but in a fortunately and understandably non-commital way.]
"But we're all one religion onlee". Except when tomorrow others choose not to be Again. :grin: And when the oneness religion is dictated by *their* theologies, even/especially when in direct conflict with the Hindu version.
Why can't a sense of unity be derived - not by a forced merger of "theologies", which can only be to everyone's disadvantage (it most certainly is to Hindus') nor from a denial of distinct identities - but from a goodwill to coexistence? I don't expect Buddhists and Jains to diverge from adhering to Buddhist and Jain theologies, I only ask that Hindus realise that there is no need for them to sign up for the same. Hindu religion will not cease were Hindus to abstain from merging it with other Indic religions. Because Hindus' religion is not - just as it was not - dependent on others' religion.
As regards the increasing forays into concretising "ur-Shramanism", they are likely to grow more numerous and more demanding in future - especially considering how English-speaking Hindus never have the will (or the spine?) to correct anything in time, and usually fan the flames themselves. But A Stitch In Time Saves Nine, and Too Late is as bad as doing nothing. It may even yet be that one day this invention will be taught in your children's schools as the "original religion of the ('dravoodian' etc) natives of India" who came to be "oppressed by the invading oryans of the foreign Vedic religion". I wouldn't at all dismiss the possibility, equal absurdities are being taught there. And the current climate in India - determined by christianism as it is - is very much in favour of propping up the minority native religions to antagonise the majority native religion. They will not bat an eye nor lose a moment's sleep in doing so. And despite minority voices being feeble as to number in making their feeble claims, christianism will give them the louderspeaker necessary and manufacture the authority/respectability required to level the playing field: where all hypotheses and possibilities may become "equal" truths. And soon after, established truths may be discarded for being inconvenient to the retelling of the history of religion in the Indian subcontinent. You know, the way the Upanishads, Aranyakas, Yoga, Samkhya, Tantra etc are now declared to have been "actually originally" ur-Shramanic in origin :grin: People should by all means laugh while they may. (Just as the whole "Ayyappa is from Buddhism" story started in the same lunatic circles too. Yet how far that false fable has travelled now into the mainstream. I suppose people may look forward to their own kind propagating the "ur-Shramanism Theory" also. The topic flatters the intellect even more, after all: the very conception of it, the hypothesis, the search for "evidence" - in Hindus' religious literature invariably, since there are none others of such an early time to even consult.)