[quote name='Husky' date='20 October 2013 - 01:23 PM' timestamp='1382255108' post='116871']
A Tamizh-origin Buddhist on-fire for Buddhism and peddling it about as hard as he can, and who I see never wastes an opportunity to kick at Hindus (and with blatant falsehoods too), is yet hosting the following 3 pages (no, I'm not linking to him):
...
- and a page on Kamadeva with Hindu mantras to him and Tamizh Hindu materials at links on Kama, despite that Buddhism hisses at Kamadeva as a great evil. But clearly the blogger wants his blog to be popular so he gives access to Hindu mantras of Hindu Gods to the new agey alien clique that no doubt invades his otherwise dull "Buddhism Ra Ra" pages.
Essentially the dude is using Hindu Gods to peddle Buddhism (nothing new I suppose), even while he engages in that hobby of knocking at Hindu religion.[/quote]
Still on the above:
As stated above, the Kamadeva page hosted by the Buddhist dude is full of *Hindu* mantras to the very Vedic God Kamadeva (Manmatha) - not to be confused with Buddhist mantras to the Bauddhified versions of a Hindu God (i.e. not Buddhist mantras to the clones).
I have read the mantras he's hosting before: they're all on a *Hindu* album of Hindu stotras by UM. The Buddhist site claims he sourced his mantras from the *Hindu* text mantra mahodadhi (which he admits is a collection of mantras to "Hindu deities"), but I think he copied at least some part from of the aforementioned album, since he's included the maalamantram to Manmatha verbatim all while declaring that he doesn't know where this is from.* How convenient for the Buddhist to pounce on the "ashta kamamoorti pooja" section and the maalamantram (the one which memorably names the pancha baanas) - which I think are used in Homas to kaamadeva, i.e. in Vedic rituals - and declare that the source is not known to him, just so he can pass it off as "Indian" "culture".
[* What I am saying is that he's included practically all the Kamadeva mantras from the UM track, and chooses to trace most of them to the Hindu collating text mantramahodadhi, but he can't find a source for those Kamadeva mantras from the track that he's not found in the mantramahodadhi. I am almost sure he therefore first came upon all these Kamadeva mantras on UM's album.]
He further hosts a pic of a *Hindu* temple moorty of Kaamadeva, all while still taking every chance to kick at Hindus' Vedic religion (as seen on many other pages of his site).
He did a typically bad translation of a line too: he translates kameshvarI-priya as rati-priya, but kameshvarI here refers to Lalitha. I.e. the line says that Kameshvari (wife of Shiva the Kameshvara) is fond of Kamadeva, not that Kamadeva is Rati's (and Preeti's) beloved husband. C.f. how in a famous Navagraha stotram Shani Bhagavan is described as "shiva priya".
The Uma reference with respect to Kamadeva is common in Hindu stotras to Uma as well as those to Kama. E.g. as seen Kalidaasa's Shyamala daNDakam where Uma is described not only as being worshipped by Indra (ref Upanishads) and Vishnu/Krishna (ref MBh) but also with "pa~nchabANena ratyA cha sambhAvite": worshipped by the panchabANa (=Kamadeva) and his wife Rati. And Kalidaasa himself is a great source of quite a few (exclusively Hindu) stotras on Kamadeva.
Other famous Lalitha texts refer to Uma as being fond of Kamadeva (and his wife Rati). The reason is obvious: he - and his wife - tried/helped to win Shiva for her, despite momentary 'danger' to Kamadeva. Not to mention that Lalitha is "pa~nchabANAtmike" herself (kaalidasa ref again, but seen in every text on Lalitha/Parvati/Uma).
No Hindu would have translated it this way, and it's an obviously *Hindu* mantra the Buddhist is mangling. Even I don't make such mistakes: I translated the same mantras from the UM album some years back (initially to get descriptives of Kamadeva for paw-printing purposes). I think the Buddhist was mangling it *deliberately* by translating Kameshwari with Rati: because all things Lalitha is admitted by Buddhism to be "brahminical" texts onlee [which is Buddhist code for Hindu material]. But all things Kamadeva are exclusively Hindu material as well: he's supposed to be a God of the Rig Vedam whom the Hindus have loved all through the Vedam and Itihasas and Puranas and in Hindu temples.
Buddhism spewed at Kamadeva. Now the Tamizh Buddhist at the site pretends that just because Kamadeva doesn't come across quite as popular among the Hindus as he was some centuries ago [but not with Buddhists even back then, note], that that therefore/somehow makes Kamadeva "open" to being claimed for Buddhism/Jainism/dravoodianism/christianism/who-knows-what-else. Nonsense. Even if Hindus had stopped worshipping him (though that's not at all the case), Kamadeva will never belong to others. However, while it's true Kamadeva was more popular among the (Hindu) natives some centuries back than today, he is still worshipped to this day, in TN at any rate. There are not merely sannidhis to him in Hindu kovils, there still remain at least small shrines to him and Hindus still worship him. Even in some temples of the one called "Kaamaari" he has a position of honour where his garlanded utsava moorti is produced yearly for worship during the marriage celebrations of Shiva and his wife (the one who is fond of Kamadeva), when the birth of Kumara is re-enacted.
The Buddhist site then has a further page on the Kamadeva *Rewrite* in Buddhism, completely ignoring the Buddhist booing and hissing about Maara (Kamadeva under his own name). Instead, the Buddhist jumped straight past Maara in Buddhism to discussing "Manjushri" instead (IIRF he's that fictional Buddha declared to be the patron Santa - I mean Buddha - of China). Note: Manjushri is the replacement for Kamadeva the way VajrapaNi is the replacement for Indra, and Avalokiteshwara is the Buddhist replacement for Shiva [and the way countless 'Buddhas' etc in the east are replacement for Daoist Gods etc].
That is, Buddhisms' cloning process is actually a two step process. The first step is where Buddhism reduces others' named and well-described Gods to evil or converted-and-subordinated characters, and places them somewhere under the Buddhas in the concocted Buddhist cosmology. This is the stage where the Hindu/Vedic Gods' names and descriptives are copied verbatim and reduced to minor bit actors working by Buddhas' leave. The second step is where Buddhism (re)invents a *new* Buddha (or major Bodhisattva) with a new Buddhist name and significant position in the Buddhist hierarchy having all the features of and importance of - and being a clear replacement for - the Hindu original. And Indra's Vajraayudha isn't all that was transferred to the concocted Buddhist VajrapaNi, just like the -ishwara suffix isn't all of Maheshwara that Buddhism wrote onto their concocted Avalokiteshwara. Likewise, while Buddhism trampled Maara the PushpabaaNa underfoot under that name, they invented Manjushri and transferred the importance and features of Kamadeva onto him.
(It's clear that the Tamizh Buddhist site hosts the Manjushri page purely in order to use Manjushri to claim the *Hindu* Kamadeva and his mantras as well as the history of Tamizh Hindu worship of Kamadeva for Buddhism instead, under the garb that it is "Indian" [culture] and his worship was part of historical "Tamizh" worship/"culture", whereas it was exclusively Hindu. If the site had intended anything else, it would have mentioned how the Buddhism treated its Maara clone, which would clearly have indicated to readers that Buddhism has no claim whatsoever on Kamadeva, certainly not under Kama's [Maara's] names, and that Hindu mantras on Kaama - which are never even about the Buddhist clone Manjushri - are clearly exclusively Hindu and out of bounds for Buddhism.)
This is a Buddhist replacement theology practice. The idea behind it is to control what converts to Buddhism think when they hear of Maara (Kamadeva) and Indra and Rudra-Shiva [i.e. the autoresponse is that these are 'evil' or subordinated to the Buddha's dharma] versus what converts to Buddhism think of when they hear of Vajrapani, Avalokiteshwara and Manjushri where the autoresponse is "venerable Buddhas", even though this are just non-existent Bauddhified clones of very real Hindu Gods. The subtle difference in this two-fold approach to Hindu Gods is the treatment that got meted out to for instance the ShreShTha ShreShTha Jade Emperor of the Daoists.
Clearly, the fact that Buddhism etc feels it can rewrite Hindus' Vedic Gods so easily means that Buddhism never entertained the notion that the Hindu Gods are real at all. It doesn't *care* about them, it only cares to *use* them: it clones them precisely to undermine Hindu religion and simultaneously promote Buddhism in its place as a replacement. (Same as Buddhism did - and more obviously - in Daoism and Shintoism's case, but I'd already stated the same for them long ago on this thread.) The point is to replace the Hindu perception of the Hindu Gods with the Buddhist perception of the Bauddified Gods. Which is replacement theology. It is the Hindu *perception* of Hindu Gods/rituals/etc that is objectionable to Buddhism, since Buddhism doesn't care about the Gods themselves (and didn't pretend they're real, though some converts to Buddhism today do.)
Anyway. How come Buddhists think they have a right to pounce on Hindu mantras to Hindu Gods? It's one thing for them to clone Hindu Gods (sometimes in two ways) thus Bauddhifying them and then pen some Buddhist 'mantras' (i.e. structural copies of Hindu mantras but with Buddhist purpose) and peddle these Buddhist 'mantras' about. But why are they encroaching on *Hindu* mantras, which are exclusively concerned with Hindu Gods? Although this Buddhist encroachment does not happen exclusively against Hindu religion but to others also (Daoism is similarly affected), I am here restricting the conversation to the Hindu case.
The phenomenon is becoming all too common.
I recall a site of alien "converts" (dabblers) to *Japanese* Buddhism. One forum member - IIRC with a gravatar image of a Bauddhified Shinto Kami (of all things) associated with their username - was seen spouting *Hindu* beeja mantras to the *Hindu* Goddess Durga. First of all, since when does an alien convert to Japanese Buddhism have any right to the Hindu Goddess Durga, let alone the Hindu beeja mantra to her? In a post soon after, the same alien dabbler or other alien dabblers then posted entire lines (i.e. mantras) from Devi AtharvasheerSham! I mean, that's the Atharva Vedam. Since when does that belong "equally" (or at all) to Buddhism (Jainism, etc)? I don't know what sense of entitlement was behind those aliens' reasoning to encroach on the Vedam too with their dabbling in *Buddhism*, but their excerpt from the AtharvasheerSham included the line on Shoonya. Let me guess, dopey alien "converts" to Buddhism imagine that any use of Shunya in any Sanskrit text - even when used in a Hindu text, and even when it's part of the Vedam itself - magically refers to Buddhism/hence belongs to Buddhism. Since when?
Next to that, there was a googlebook declaring itself to be about "Goddesses" in Indian Buddhism (nevermind that originally Buddhism didn't have Goddesses - even the earliest ones were copied and cloned from Hindu religion down to Buddhism copying from Bon later on - while Theravada Buddhists insist that Buddhism *still* doesn't have Goddesses):
the book purporting to be about Goddesses in Indian Buddhism wasn't just speaking on the Bauddhified clones of the Hindu Vedic Goddesses (or Bauddhified clones of Daoist, Shinto or Bon Goddesses either). Because you know, that's not what alien dabblers want. They want a breadth of choice, and a breadth of ritual material to dabble in. AKA they want to pounce on *Hindu* religion (and elsewhere, on Daoist and Shinto religion) using Buddhism as a cat's paw. And so, predictably, the chapters on stotras and mantras to the alleged Goddesses in Buddhism contained - you guessed it - Vedic Suktas to the Vedic Hindu Goddesses! Everything from Sarasvati Suktas and the Shri Sukta. Who died that Buddhism inherited the Vedam? How do alien dabblers claiming to dabble in Buddhism (but clearly they want to dabble in *Vedic* religion and then mangle this into their new-age fantasies on what Buddhism is about) have any right to the Vedam? Aliens have no right to the Vedam even if they threatened to "convert" (i.e. dabble) in *Hindu* religion. A lot of alien dabblers in "eastern" religion just use Buddhism to encroach on Hindu, Daoist and Shinto materials. Except they still try to pass this off as "Buddhist". (Perhaps because they know the religions to which these matters authentically belong would never allow their dabbling or their threats to "convert". Alternatively, some aliens just want to dabble in a range of "Eastern" religions. And the fact that Buddhism had inculturated on all those that survived it means that it has "absorbed" - illegally of course - the "features" of all those religions they want to dabble in.)
I think I'm starting to respect Theravada Buddhism more in that they don't allow aliens' misuse of Buddhism just to dabble in Hindu religion, though in Mahayana Buddhism's favour will say I've not seen eastern Mahayana Buddhists pretend that the Vedam belongs to Buddhism either, let alone their using the Vedam to acquire converts to Buddhism, alien or otherwise. I used to think this penchant to encroach on the Vedam using Buddhism as a ruse was purely an alien dabbling tendency, right until the case of the Tamizh Buddhist dude and his site's pages peddling not only the Bauddhified clones of the Hindu Gods Shiva and Vishnu (and mentions of the Bauddhified clones of Indra, Brahma etc), but also his page on Kamadeva using *Hindu* mantras to the very Hindu Kamadeva, and his referring to (Hindu) Tamizh literature documenting the longstanding worship of Kamadeva by *Hindus* of TN and hosting even a typically Hindu kovil moorty of Kamadeva. From other "mantra" pages on the Buddhist site (including one to the Buddhist Tara, IIRC) - it's clear he's using the mantra pages to sell these as Buddhist practices to readers. (Don't know that he has mantra deekSham in Buddhism but I am certain he doesn't have it in Hindu religion, so since when can he play Guru for *Hindu* Kamadeva mantras? Let alone pass them off to readers on the site as casual material to be dabbled in?)
This is a very deceptive form of peddling of Buddhism. He can't claim innocence as it's made all the more suspect by the fact that he knows full wel that these mantras and materials were Hindu - and he certainly has no love for Hindu (Vedic) religion. He even lied blatantly (as only the peddlers can) about the Nazhanmars, in order to peddle Nastikas as superior and to accuse Hindus as plagiarists of the latter:
One of the Tamizh NRI Buddhist's pages mentioned that the 63 Nazhanmars 'must have' been copied off the 63 Sakala puruShas of Jainism. (Note: the Buddhist peddler is clearly a very modern 'Buddhist'*, the kind that imagines dreamily that Shramanas - capital S - get along. They certainly didn't historically, which is why even today, the Jain Minority Forum has nothing but contempt for Buddhism - second only to their hatred for Hindus' religion. *He just projects himself as an expert Buddhist to his readership by collating information from other sources on his site, in reality he probably has no Buddhist ancestry and hence no ancestral tradition in Buddhism/no traditional Buddhist peceptions either. Buddhism may be a nouveau religion w.r.t. Hindus' Vedic religion, but that doesn't mean it does not have established traditions and traditional views. In contrast, his are very new-agey pseudo-Buddhist.)
But back to his false claim that the 63 Nazhanmars of Tamizh Shaivam 'must have' been copied off the 63 Sakala puruShas of Jainism:
[color="#0000FF"]To Repeat where the "63" in the 63 Nazhanmars of Tamizh Shaivam comes from. The following is something all Tamizh Hindus and certainly all Shaivas among them know (but Buddhism peddlers wouldn't know or will certainly pretend not to know, as the implications are not flattering for their argument) -
The Nazhanmars as exemplary devotees of Shiva were limited to 63 + 1 for a specific reason, to do with the importance of that number in Hindus' religion:
* SaMkhya's 25 is reflected in the larger set of 24 Vishnu incarnations and the specific subset of 25 Shiva moorties. Another famous subset of Shiva moorties (forms) is 64 in number, others include sets sized 100, 108, etc.
* the 18/28 Shaiva Agamas - with Rudra-s or Sadaashiva-s presiding over each (the texts' origin is ascribed to a line of Rudras and a line of Sadaashivas either as the Rishis of the texts themselves or as transmitting the texts via earthly Rishis) - are reflected in the 18/27 Siddhars of Shaivam (27 Siddhars is off by one from 28 Shaiva Agamas, just like "63 Nayanmars" is off by one from 64 Shiva Tantras when Manickavachagar isn't mentioned alongside. I think Shiva is posited as the implicit first - before Agastya - to make the lineage of Siddhars 28 anyway).
* the 64 Shiva Tantras - with one Shivamoorty of the subset of 64 Shiva moorties presiding over each of these Tantras - are reflected in the 63 Nayanmars + Manikkavachagar.
(Also 64 kalas of Hindu religion that the Hindu Gods originate and preside over. In Shaivam, Shiva and his wife originate and preside over the 64 kalaas)
* the 8 Yamalas (e.g. Rudra Yamala) which IIRC are to be associated with or presided over by one of the AshtaBhairavas each. Or something
And similar sets of important numbers including 32 Ganapatis, 108 Shiva moorties, shata rudrIyam and the rest. These are all numbers significant to Hindu religion, and they were significant to Hindus long before either Buddhism or Jainism made claims to them. In exhalting a limited set of specifically 63 + 1 devotees in Shaiva tradition, the Hindus of the Tamizh regions were naturally acting on ancient Hindu tradition in doing so.[/color]
So either the Buddhist making allegations about Tamizh Hindus plagiarising the 63 from the Jains is simply ignorant, OR he's feigning ignorance with intent to mislead. Certainly the thing that he's conveniently silent about is where Buddhism got its magic number of multiple Buddhas from, or - more famously/tellingly/obviously - where Jainism got its magic number of Teerthankaras from. The number of teerthankaras is 24 or 25 or 26 (forgot the exact number as this is not my religion): it's owing to the influence of the very *Hindu* Sankhyan view. (Even the later classical Sankhya is classed Astika.) It makes sense that Hindus had 24/25 Vishnu and Shiva moorties, relating these back to the original, theistic Sankhya. But what's the excuse the Buddhist wants to give for the Jain plagiarism from Hindu religion here? Probably "ur-shramanism", since that's the only way to claim that Sankhya belongs equally if not more to Jainism/Buddhism than to Hindu religion. [As a sidenote, I think even the "Sakala Purushas" - going by the name - is a throwback to Sankhyan views, though the more classical variant.]
Why does the Tamizh Buddhist guy even have an audience?
Why did he not correct some (obviously) neo-Buddhist looney-toon claiming - IIRC in the comments section of the Bauddhified Shiva page - that Krishna in the Gita told Arjuna to seek shelter in the Buddha? :delirium: [Must be yet another instance of neo-Buddhist swindling: inventing lines not in the Gita.]
Why are there *Hindus* applauding at his site?
Why are Hindus falling over themselves to affirm the new-agey adage that Yes, Shiva/Vishnu/etc must be Buddhist (too/equally), let alone the pretence that Hindus are talking about the *same* entities called Shiva etc as the Buddhists etc are.
I'm sure these are just the sort of dangerous 'Hindu' people that if they were ever to learn about the existence of Daoism and Shinto [oh please the Shen, no], they will declare that Daoist and Shinto Gods are "equally Buddhist" using the same logic by which they fell for the Buddhist inculturation on the Hindu Gods. (Tomorrow they should fall for christian inculturation too, anything less would be discrimination, after all.) But someone should tell such stupid Hindus not to mess with (the religion upheld by his supreme pre-eminence) the Jade Emperor. After all, even Buddhists were sorry when they tried to encroach on Him...
There's a moral to all this. It's that wonderful Japanese (?) phrase I once heard: "Only death cures stupidity".
("Not education?"
Apparently not. Well, not where stupidity has become innate and is chronic.)
I'm not surprised Hindus are falling for christian inculturation anymore.
I *am* surprised that all this still bothers me.
A Tamizh-origin Buddhist on-fire for Buddhism and peddling it about as hard as he can, and who I see never wastes an opportunity to kick at Hindus (and with blatant falsehoods too), is yet hosting the following 3 pages (no, I'm not linking to him):
...
- and a page on Kamadeva with Hindu mantras to him and Tamizh Hindu materials at links on Kama, despite that Buddhism hisses at Kamadeva as a great evil. But clearly the blogger wants his blog to be popular so he gives access to Hindu mantras of Hindu Gods to the new agey alien clique that no doubt invades his otherwise dull "Buddhism Ra Ra" pages.
Essentially the dude is using Hindu Gods to peddle Buddhism (nothing new I suppose), even while he engages in that hobby of knocking at Hindu religion.[/quote]
Still on the above:
As stated above, the Kamadeva page hosted by the Buddhist dude is full of *Hindu* mantras to the very Vedic God Kamadeva (Manmatha) - not to be confused with Buddhist mantras to the Bauddhified versions of a Hindu God (i.e. not Buddhist mantras to the clones).
I have read the mantras he's hosting before: they're all on a *Hindu* album of Hindu stotras by UM. The Buddhist site claims he sourced his mantras from the *Hindu* text mantra mahodadhi (which he admits is a collection of mantras to "Hindu deities"), but I think he copied at least some part from of the aforementioned album, since he's included the maalamantram to Manmatha verbatim all while declaring that he doesn't know where this is from.* How convenient for the Buddhist to pounce on the "ashta kamamoorti pooja" section and the maalamantram (the one which memorably names the pancha baanas) - which I think are used in Homas to kaamadeva, i.e. in Vedic rituals - and declare that the source is not known to him, just so he can pass it off as "Indian" "culture".
[* What I am saying is that he's included practically all the Kamadeva mantras from the UM track, and chooses to trace most of them to the Hindu collating text mantramahodadhi, but he can't find a source for those Kamadeva mantras from the track that he's not found in the mantramahodadhi. I am almost sure he therefore first came upon all these Kamadeva mantras on UM's album.]
He further hosts a pic of a *Hindu* temple moorty of Kaamadeva, all while still taking every chance to kick at Hindus' Vedic religion (as seen on many other pages of his site).
He did a typically bad translation of a line too: he translates kameshvarI-priya as rati-priya, but kameshvarI here refers to Lalitha. I.e. the line says that Kameshvari (wife of Shiva the Kameshvara) is fond of Kamadeva, not that Kamadeva is Rati's (and Preeti's) beloved husband. C.f. how in a famous Navagraha stotram Shani Bhagavan is described as "shiva priya".
The Uma reference with respect to Kamadeva is common in Hindu stotras to Uma as well as those to Kama. E.g. as seen Kalidaasa's Shyamala daNDakam where Uma is described not only as being worshipped by Indra (ref Upanishads) and Vishnu/Krishna (ref MBh) but also with "pa~nchabANena ratyA cha sambhAvite": worshipped by the panchabANa (=Kamadeva) and his wife Rati. And Kalidaasa himself is a great source of quite a few (exclusively Hindu) stotras on Kamadeva.
Other famous Lalitha texts refer to Uma as being fond of Kamadeva (and his wife Rati). The reason is obvious: he - and his wife - tried/helped to win Shiva for her, despite momentary 'danger' to Kamadeva. Not to mention that Lalitha is "pa~nchabANAtmike" herself (kaalidasa ref again, but seen in every text on Lalitha/Parvati/Uma).
No Hindu would have translated it this way, and it's an obviously *Hindu* mantra the Buddhist is mangling. Even I don't make such mistakes: I translated the same mantras from the UM album some years back (initially to get descriptives of Kamadeva for paw-printing purposes). I think the Buddhist was mangling it *deliberately* by translating Kameshwari with Rati: because all things Lalitha is admitted by Buddhism to be "brahminical" texts onlee [which is Buddhist code for Hindu material]. But all things Kamadeva are exclusively Hindu material as well: he's supposed to be a God of the Rig Vedam whom the Hindus have loved all through the Vedam and Itihasas and Puranas and in Hindu temples.
Buddhism spewed at Kamadeva. Now the Tamizh Buddhist at the site pretends that just because Kamadeva doesn't come across quite as popular among the Hindus as he was some centuries ago [but not with Buddhists even back then, note], that that therefore/somehow makes Kamadeva "open" to being claimed for Buddhism/Jainism/dravoodianism/christianism/who-knows-what-else. Nonsense. Even if Hindus had stopped worshipping him (though that's not at all the case), Kamadeva will never belong to others. However, while it's true Kamadeva was more popular among the (Hindu) natives some centuries back than today, he is still worshipped to this day, in TN at any rate. There are not merely sannidhis to him in Hindu kovils, there still remain at least small shrines to him and Hindus still worship him. Even in some temples of the one called "Kaamaari" he has a position of honour where his garlanded utsava moorti is produced yearly for worship during the marriage celebrations of Shiva and his wife (the one who is fond of Kamadeva), when the birth of Kumara is re-enacted.
The Buddhist site then has a further page on the Kamadeva *Rewrite* in Buddhism, completely ignoring the Buddhist booing and hissing about Maara (Kamadeva under his own name). Instead, the Buddhist jumped straight past Maara in Buddhism to discussing "Manjushri" instead (IIRF he's that fictional Buddha declared to be the patron Santa - I mean Buddha - of China). Note: Manjushri is the replacement for Kamadeva the way VajrapaNi is the replacement for Indra, and Avalokiteshwara is the Buddhist replacement for Shiva [and the way countless 'Buddhas' etc in the east are replacement for Daoist Gods etc].
That is, Buddhisms' cloning process is actually a two step process. The first step is where Buddhism reduces others' named and well-described Gods to evil or converted-and-subordinated characters, and places them somewhere under the Buddhas in the concocted Buddhist cosmology. This is the stage where the Hindu/Vedic Gods' names and descriptives are copied verbatim and reduced to minor bit actors working by Buddhas' leave. The second step is where Buddhism (re)invents a *new* Buddha (or major Bodhisattva) with a new Buddhist name and significant position in the Buddhist hierarchy having all the features of and importance of - and being a clear replacement for - the Hindu original. And Indra's Vajraayudha isn't all that was transferred to the concocted Buddhist VajrapaNi, just like the -ishwara suffix isn't all of Maheshwara that Buddhism wrote onto their concocted Avalokiteshwara. Likewise, while Buddhism trampled Maara the PushpabaaNa underfoot under that name, they invented Manjushri and transferred the importance and features of Kamadeva onto him.
(It's clear that the Tamizh Buddhist site hosts the Manjushri page purely in order to use Manjushri to claim the *Hindu* Kamadeva and his mantras as well as the history of Tamizh Hindu worship of Kamadeva for Buddhism instead, under the garb that it is "Indian" [culture] and his worship was part of historical "Tamizh" worship/"culture", whereas it was exclusively Hindu. If the site had intended anything else, it would have mentioned how the Buddhism treated its Maara clone, which would clearly have indicated to readers that Buddhism has no claim whatsoever on Kamadeva, certainly not under Kama's [Maara's] names, and that Hindu mantras on Kaama - which are never even about the Buddhist clone Manjushri - are clearly exclusively Hindu and out of bounds for Buddhism.)
This is a Buddhist replacement theology practice. The idea behind it is to control what converts to Buddhism think when they hear of Maara (Kamadeva) and Indra and Rudra-Shiva [i.e. the autoresponse is that these are 'evil' or subordinated to the Buddha's dharma] versus what converts to Buddhism think of when they hear of Vajrapani, Avalokiteshwara and Manjushri where the autoresponse is "venerable Buddhas", even though this are just non-existent Bauddhified clones of very real Hindu Gods. The subtle difference in this two-fold approach to Hindu Gods is the treatment that got meted out to for instance the ShreShTha ShreShTha Jade Emperor of the Daoists.
Clearly, the fact that Buddhism etc feels it can rewrite Hindus' Vedic Gods so easily means that Buddhism never entertained the notion that the Hindu Gods are real at all. It doesn't *care* about them, it only cares to *use* them: it clones them precisely to undermine Hindu religion and simultaneously promote Buddhism in its place as a replacement. (Same as Buddhism did - and more obviously - in Daoism and Shintoism's case, but I'd already stated the same for them long ago on this thread.) The point is to replace the Hindu perception of the Hindu Gods with the Buddhist perception of the Bauddified Gods. Which is replacement theology. It is the Hindu *perception* of Hindu Gods/rituals/etc that is objectionable to Buddhism, since Buddhism doesn't care about the Gods themselves (and didn't pretend they're real, though some converts to Buddhism today do.)
Anyway. How come Buddhists think they have a right to pounce on Hindu mantras to Hindu Gods? It's one thing for them to clone Hindu Gods (sometimes in two ways) thus Bauddhifying them and then pen some Buddhist 'mantras' (i.e. structural copies of Hindu mantras but with Buddhist purpose) and peddle these Buddhist 'mantras' about. But why are they encroaching on *Hindu* mantras, which are exclusively concerned with Hindu Gods? Although this Buddhist encroachment does not happen exclusively against Hindu religion but to others also (Daoism is similarly affected), I am here restricting the conversation to the Hindu case.
The phenomenon is becoming all too common.
I recall a site of alien "converts" (dabblers) to *Japanese* Buddhism. One forum member - IIRC with a gravatar image of a Bauddhified Shinto Kami (of all things) associated with their username - was seen spouting *Hindu* beeja mantras to the *Hindu* Goddess Durga. First of all, since when does an alien convert to Japanese Buddhism have any right to the Hindu Goddess Durga, let alone the Hindu beeja mantra to her? In a post soon after, the same alien dabbler or other alien dabblers then posted entire lines (i.e. mantras) from Devi AtharvasheerSham! I mean, that's the Atharva Vedam. Since when does that belong "equally" (or at all) to Buddhism (Jainism, etc)? I don't know what sense of entitlement was behind those aliens' reasoning to encroach on the Vedam too with their dabbling in *Buddhism*, but their excerpt from the AtharvasheerSham included the line on Shoonya. Let me guess, dopey alien "converts" to Buddhism imagine that any use of Shunya in any Sanskrit text - even when used in a Hindu text, and even when it's part of the Vedam itself - magically refers to Buddhism/hence belongs to Buddhism. Since when?
Next to that, there was a googlebook declaring itself to be about "Goddesses" in Indian Buddhism (nevermind that originally Buddhism didn't have Goddesses - even the earliest ones were copied and cloned from Hindu religion down to Buddhism copying from Bon later on - while Theravada Buddhists insist that Buddhism *still* doesn't have Goddesses):
the book purporting to be about Goddesses in Indian Buddhism wasn't just speaking on the Bauddhified clones of the Hindu Vedic Goddesses (or Bauddhified clones of Daoist, Shinto or Bon Goddesses either). Because you know, that's not what alien dabblers want. They want a breadth of choice, and a breadth of ritual material to dabble in. AKA they want to pounce on *Hindu* religion (and elsewhere, on Daoist and Shinto religion) using Buddhism as a cat's paw. And so, predictably, the chapters on stotras and mantras to the alleged Goddesses in Buddhism contained - you guessed it - Vedic Suktas to the Vedic Hindu Goddesses! Everything from Sarasvati Suktas and the Shri Sukta. Who died that Buddhism inherited the Vedam? How do alien dabblers claiming to dabble in Buddhism (but clearly they want to dabble in *Vedic* religion and then mangle this into their new-age fantasies on what Buddhism is about) have any right to the Vedam? Aliens have no right to the Vedam even if they threatened to "convert" (i.e. dabble) in *Hindu* religion. A lot of alien dabblers in "eastern" religion just use Buddhism to encroach on Hindu, Daoist and Shinto materials. Except they still try to pass this off as "Buddhist". (Perhaps because they know the religions to which these matters authentically belong would never allow their dabbling or their threats to "convert". Alternatively, some aliens just want to dabble in a range of "Eastern" religions. And the fact that Buddhism had inculturated on all those that survived it means that it has "absorbed" - illegally of course - the "features" of all those religions they want to dabble in.)
I think I'm starting to respect Theravada Buddhism more in that they don't allow aliens' misuse of Buddhism just to dabble in Hindu religion, though in Mahayana Buddhism's favour will say I've not seen eastern Mahayana Buddhists pretend that the Vedam belongs to Buddhism either, let alone their using the Vedam to acquire converts to Buddhism, alien or otherwise. I used to think this penchant to encroach on the Vedam using Buddhism as a ruse was purely an alien dabbling tendency, right until the case of the Tamizh Buddhist dude and his site's pages peddling not only the Bauddhified clones of the Hindu Gods Shiva and Vishnu (and mentions of the Bauddhified clones of Indra, Brahma etc), but also his page on Kamadeva using *Hindu* mantras to the very Hindu Kamadeva, and his referring to (Hindu) Tamizh literature documenting the longstanding worship of Kamadeva by *Hindus* of TN and hosting even a typically Hindu kovil moorty of Kamadeva. From other "mantra" pages on the Buddhist site (including one to the Buddhist Tara, IIRC) - it's clear he's using the mantra pages to sell these as Buddhist practices to readers. (Don't know that he has mantra deekSham in Buddhism but I am certain he doesn't have it in Hindu religion, so since when can he play Guru for *Hindu* Kamadeva mantras? Let alone pass them off to readers on the site as casual material to be dabbled in?)
This is a very deceptive form of peddling of Buddhism. He can't claim innocence as it's made all the more suspect by the fact that he knows full wel that these mantras and materials were Hindu - and he certainly has no love for Hindu (Vedic) religion. He even lied blatantly (as only the peddlers can) about the Nazhanmars, in order to peddle Nastikas as superior and to accuse Hindus as plagiarists of the latter:
One of the Tamizh NRI Buddhist's pages mentioned that the 63 Nazhanmars 'must have' been copied off the 63 Sakala puruShas of Jainism. (Note: the Buddhist peddler is clearly a very modern 'Buddhist'*, the kind that imagines dreamily that Shramanas - capital S - get along. They certainly didn't historically, which is why even today, the Jain Minority Forum has nothing but contempt for Buddhism - second only to their hatred for Hindus' religion. *He just projects himself as an expert Buddhist to his readership by collating information from other sources on his site, in reality he probably has no Buddhist ancestry and hence no ancestral tradition in Buddhism/no traditional Buddhist peceptions either. Buddhism may be a nouveau religion w.r.t. Hindus' Vedic religion, but that doesn't mean it does not have established traditions and traditional views. In contrast, his are very new-agey pseudo-Buddhist.)
But back to his false claim that the 63 Nazhanmars of Tamizh Shaivam 'must have' been copied off the 63 Sakala puruShas of Jainism:
[color="#0000FF"]To Repeat where the "63" in the 63 Nazhanmars of Tamizh Shaivam comes from. The following is something all Tamizh Hindus and certainly all Shaivas among them know (but Buddhism peddlers wouldn't know or will certainly pretend not to know, as the implications are not flattering for their argument) -
The Nazhanmars as exemplary devotees of Shiva were limited to 63 + 1 for a specific reason, to do with the importance of that number in Hindus' religion:
* SaMkhya's 25 is reflected in the larger set of 24 Vishnu incarnations and the specific subset of 25 Shiva moorties. Another famous subset of Shiva moorties (forms) is 64 in number, others include sets sized 100, 108, etc.
* the 18/28 Shaiva Agamas - with Rudra-s or Sadaashiva-s presiding over each (the texts' origin is ascribed to a line of Rudras and a line of Sadaashivas either as the Rishis of the texts themselves or as transmitting the texts via earthly Rishis) - are reflected in the 18/27 Siddhars of Shaivam (27 Siddhars is off by one from 28 Shaiva Agamas, just like "63 Nayanmars" is off by one from 64 Shiva Tantras when Manickavachagar isn't mentioned alongside. I think Shiva is posited as the implicit first - before Agastya - to make the lineage of Siddhars 28 anyway).
* the 64 Shiva Tantras - with one Shivamoorty of the subset of 64 Shiva moorties presiding over each of these Tantras - are reflected in the 63 Nayanmars + Manikkavachagar.
(Also 64 kalas of Hindu religion that the Hindu Gods originate and preside over. In Shaivam, Shiva and his wife originate and preside over the 64 kalaas)
* the 8 Yamalas (e.g. Rudra Yamala) which IIRC are to be associated with or presided over by one of the AshtaBhairavas each. Or something
And similar sets of important numbers including 32 Ganapatis, 108 Shiva moorties, shata rudrIyam and the rest. These are all numbers significant to Hindu religion, and they were significant to Hindus long before either Buddhism or Jainism made claims to them. In exhalting a limited set of specifically 63 + 1 devotees in Shaiva tradition, the Hindus of the Tamizh regions were naturally acting on ancient Hindu tradition in doing so.[/color]
So either the Buddhist making allegations about Tamizh Hindus plagiarising the 63 from the Jains is simply ignorant, OR he's feigning ignorance with intent to mislead. Certainly the thing that he's conveniently silent about is where Buddhism got its magic number of multiple Buddhas from, or - more famously/tellingly/obviously - where Jainism got its magic number of Teerthankaras from. The number of teerthankaras is 24 or 25 or 26 (forgot the exact number as this is not my religion): it's owing to the influence of the very *Hindu* Sankhyan view. (Even the later classical Sankhya is classed Astika.) It makes sense that Hindus had 24/25 Vishnu and Shiva moorties, relating these back to the original, theistic Sankhya. But what's the excuse the Buddhist wants to give for the Jain plagiarism from Hindu religion here? Probably "ur-shramanism", since that's the only way to claim that Sankhya belongs equally if not more to Jainism/Buddhism than to Hindu religion. [As a sidenote, I think even the "Sakala Purushas" - going by the name - is a throwback to Sankhyan views, though the more classical variant.]
Why does the Tamizh Buddhist guy even have an audience?
Why did he not correct some (obviously) neo-Buddhist looney-toon claiming - IIRC in the comments section of the Bauddhified Shiva page - that Krishna in the Gita told Arjuna to seek shelter in the Buddha? :delirium: [Must be yet another instance of neo-Buddhist swindling: inventing lines not in the Gita.]
Why are there *Hindus* applauding at his site?
Why are Hindus falling over themselves to affirm the new-agey adage that Yes, Shiva/Vishnu/etc must be Buddhist (too/equally), let alone the pretence that Hindus are talking about the *same* entities called Shiva etc as the Buddhists etc are.
I'm sure these are just the sort of dangerous 'Hindu' people that if they were ever to learn about the existence of Daoism and Shinto [oh please the Shen, no], they will declare that Daoist and Shinto Gods are "equally Buddhist" using the same logic by which they fell for the Buddhist inculturation on the Hindu Gods. (Tomorrow they should fall for christian inculturation too, anything less would be discrimination, after all.) But someone should tell such stupid Hindus not to mess with (the religion upheld by his supreme pre-eminence) the Jade Emperor. After all, even Buddhists were sorry when they tried to encroach on Him...
There's a moral to all this. It's that wonderful Japanese (?) phrase I once heard: "Only death cures stupidity".
("Not education?"
Apparently not. Well, not where stupidity has become innate and is chronic.)
I'm not surprised Hindus are falling for christian inculturation anymore.
I *am* surprised that all this still bothers me.