Dhu (assuming he ever reads this),
Regarding post 179.
To avoid taking too long, will just state stuff matter-of-factly:
1. On samurai: even Japanese Buddhist authors on the subject explain that, upon entry into Japan, Buddhism converted the existing warrior classes* [along with the government and administration. <- This was part of the usual top-down replacement/conversion process which Buddhism used frequently in Asia, after which the government/admin/military would "trickle down" the new religion onto the laity. A feature of missionary religion.]
* That is, Buddhist historians admit the martial caste pre-existed (in the pre-existing status-quo of Shinto society), and that Buddhism drew its converts from there.
And in the last major re-take for Shinto, it was again Samurai professing Shinto who retook the Japanese government.
If Buddhism is to be specifically related back to Samurai, then so can christianism be: Portuguese catholic priests in the 16th or so century converted a significant number of Japanese Samurai too (and admin and local retainer), and these subsequently became catholic Samurai marching under a christian banner upon Buddhist and Shinto warriors.
But by definition and origin, they were Shinto. That is why there are no *Samurai* (not to be confused with "any" type of warrior/martial caste) in Indian Buddhism, Sri Lankan Buddhism, Chinese or other Asian Buddhisms.
Ninjas are Shinto too in origin and derivation.
And so was another famous Japanese martial caste, except that this last got infiltrated by one Bauddhified clan trying to bauddhify the remaining 5 or 6 staunchly Shinto ones. (The arguments of the Shinto side are very instructive, especially the degree of Immunity to subversion exhibited.)
2. Yuddhisthira (in the MBh) says that the veda is seen in all the Varnas. And this goes all the way back to before.
The underlying "self-evidential" nature of the matter can be phrased as a predicate:
(Kshatriyas | Shudras | Vaishyas | Brahmanas) <---> Vedic
where the double-headed arrow is supposed to be the logical equivalence operator.
That is, kShatriya (etc) implies Vedic and vice-versa (i.e. Vedic likewise implies any of the varnas). They're all *defined* by the Vedic religion.
It's more than merely a community identifier: it's tied to religion.
People who convert out to other religions either howl at varNas - treating it as a crime for which Vedic religion is to blame, which is then often reduced to "brahminism" exclusively (conveniently forgetting that kShatriyas, for example, were no less Vedic, e.g. the solar and lunar dynasties from the 2 Itihasas) - while at times still hanging on to their own pre-conversion identity for superficial self-identification (where in the new religion it's reduced to ethnicity or mere ancestry, since they're no longer Vedic), seeing no hypocrisy in this. But that's part of the Replacement procedure: superficial identity terms and forms kept intact, and even *transferred* into becoming "ties" to the replacement religion. The same is apparent still: apparent in many ex-Hindu converts to christianism who hang on to not just their jatis after conversion, but also Varnas: e.g. Mangalorean catholics meaninglessly calling themselves brahmins. I suppose christians must argue to themselves that if the nastika religions can get away with it - and that "therefore" such identities could not be directly related to Vedic religion, and would apply to "any and all Indians" - so should christianism.
Regarding post 179.
To avoid taking too long, will just state stuff matter-of-factly:
1. On samurai: even Japanese Buddhist authors on the subject explain that, upon entry into Japan, Buddhism converted the existing warrior classes* [along with the government and administration. <- This was part of the usual top-down replacement/conversion process which Buddhism used frequently in Asia, after which the government/admin/military would "trickle down" the new religion onto the laity. A feature of missionary religion.]
* That is, Buddhist historians admit the martial caste pre-existed (in the pre-existing status-quo of Shinto society), and that Buddhism drew its converts from there.
And in the last major re-take for Shinto, it was again Samurai professing Shinto who retook the Japanese government.
If Buddhism is to be specifically related back to Samurai, then so can christianism be: Portuguese catholic priests in the 16th or so century converted a significant number of Japanese Samurai too (and admin and local retainer), and these subsequently became catholic Samurai marching under a christian banner upon Buddhist and Shinto warriors.
But by definition and origin, they were Shinto. That is why there are no *Samurai* (not to be confused with "any" type of warrior/martial caste) in Indian Buddhism, Sri Lankan Buddhism, Chinese or other Asian Buddhisms.
Ninjas are Shinto too in origin and derivation.
And so was another famous Japanese martial caste, except that this last got infiltrated by one Bauddhified clan trying to bauddhify the remaining 5 or 6 staunchly Shinto ones. (The arguments of the Shinto side are very instructive, especially the degree of Immunity to subversion exhibited.)
2. Yuddhisthira (in the MBh) says that the veda is seen in all the Varnas. And this goes all the way back to before.
The underlying "self-evidential" nature of the matter can be phrased as a predicate:
(Kshatriyas | Shudras | Vaishyas | Brahmanas) <---> Vedic
where the double-headed arrow is supposed to be the logical equivalence operator.
That is, kShatriya (etc) implies Vedic and vice-versa (i.e. Vedic likewise implies any of the varnas). They're all *defined* by the Vedic religion.
It's more than merely a community identifier: it's tied to religion.
People who convert out to other religions either howl at varNas - treating it as a crime for which Vedic religion is to blame, which is then often reduced to "brahminism" exclusively (conveniently forgetting that kShatriyas, for example, were no less Vedic, e.g. the solar and lunar dynasties from the 2 Itihasas) - while at times still hanging on to their own pre-conversion identity for superficial self-identification (where in the new religion it's reduced to ethnicity or mere ancestry, since they're no longer Vedic), seeing no hypocrisy in this. But that's part of the Replacement procedure: superficial identity terms and forms kept intact, and even *transferred* into becoming "ties" to the replacement religion. The same is apparent still: apparent in many ex-Hindu converts to christianism who hang on to not just their jatis after conversion, but also Varnas: e.g. Mangalorean catholics meaninglessly calling themselves brahmins. I suppose christians must argue to themselves that if the nastika religions can get away with it - and that "therefore" such identities could not be directly related to Vedic religion, and would apply to "any and all Indians" - so should christianism.