Removing The Sheen From Buddhism

[Husky]

Post 5/6



(Still on the article's Ramayanam section pasted in the previous post.)





5. Interesting pretence that the earliest Jain plagiarism I mean clone of the Vedic Hindu Ramayana is at least "as authoritative" as the (original, Hindu) Ramayanam. And a quaint plea that people should recognise that the Ramayana narrative/tradition must "therefore" be originally Jain. Except that Jains - like the Buddhists - are famous for being unable to keep even their version of the story quite straight throughout their many spins on it:



At an online site geared toward a Hindu target audience (the Bharatabharati blog I think it was), a Jain commenter declared: "Sita, Lord Rama’s wife was also Jain according to Jain scriptures" [a literal quote]. Note the declaration is for missionary purposes: only Jains could attach theological value to their late texts - late even by Jain standards - and refer to it for authority in the face of a Hindu audience; an audience with an older Hindu tradition on the subject, one where where Sita was never a Jain but a Vedic Hindu. But who the commenter expected to convince - other than their own kind - of this quaint credo is beyond my ability to fathom.



But the fact that they specifically didn't make the same claim about Rama or Ravana that they made concerning Sita, implies that the Jain "scripture" the commenter was quoting for authority *here*, differs from both a. Vimala Suri's earlier Jain clone of the Vedic Ramayanam (where Ravana and his kind were all magically turned into "originally Jains", misrepresented/marginalised by Vedic religion) and b. the Jain clone by one Ravisenacharya below, where, Rama Lakshmana and Hanuman are all Jains and moreover have 1000s of wives each. I'm not sure how many wives the Bauddhified clones of Ravana and Rama were meant to have, but no doubt Jain claimants will dismiss equally-valid (or rather, equally invalid) Buddhist claimants as "unauthoritative"...





vedamsbooks.com/no57443/jain-rama-katha-or-padma-purana-padmacarita-composed-sanskrit-by-ravisenacarya-seventh-century-ad-vols-i-ii-shantilal-nagar.htm

Jain Rama Katha or Padma Purana : Padmacarita: Composed in Sanskrit by Ravisenacarya (In the Seventh Century A.D), Vols. I and II



<snipped chapter listing>



"The story of Ramayana has been dominating the Indian religious scene from the time immemorial. After the composition of the story by the great sage Valmiki in the form of Ramayana, there had been a great boost in its popularity, which very much impressed the masses in general. Soon the story was patronized in regional languages by the local authors but there was no death of the literature in Prakrt as well. In due course of time the story was patronized in Jainism. The first creation of the story in Jainism was in Prakrt by Vimala Suiri under the title of Paumacarya by about the first century A.D., followed by Vasudevahindi by Sanghadasa in the start of the seventh century A.D. While Ravisenacarya composed Padma Purana also known as Padmacarita in Sanskrit by about the close of there seventh century A.D. Thereafter several works on the Ramayana were created in Jainism. The present Padma Purana of Ravisenacarya is the unique work of its kind and comes under the category of the Mahakavyas. It has the style of its own and is beyond comparison, though there are several deviations in the story as compared to the story of Valmiki. In this work Rama, Laksmana and Sita besides other characters have been projected as the followers of Jina dharma, who perform Vratas prescribed in Jainism, adore the Jina ascetics, Jina images, Jina temples and even build the Jina temples and finally achieve Jina-diksa. More than the story of Rama, the work lays emphasis on following the Jina dharma and highlights the merits one earns by doing so. Though Rama and Laksmana are claimed to have all the virtues, but they are not devoted to one wife. Both Rama and Laksmana are said to have thousands of wives and so is the case with Hanuman. [...]"

Apparently, next to declaring that one Indra achieved Jain nirvANa - a character who, charitably put, must be a Jain clone of the Vedic Indra (comparable to the Buddhist clone(s) of the same, who are however mutually exclusive to the Jain versions again. My, so many Indra-s among people seeking to evict Vedic religion as alien and as oppressors....) -

But next to that, the chapter overview of the above work shows that the composition provides a convenient listing/hagiography of the Jain teerthankaras. The pre-existing Ramayana of Hindus' religion is used as backdrop not only to Jainise the context of it - backwards in time - but to insert the later Jain teerthankara listing into it, to provide these persons with some historicity and in an earlier era/earlier setting. Just as the (late) Jain clones of the Vedic Harivamsha were used as a backdrop for the Jain Neminatha in order to backdate him and serve as "proof" that he existed in the era/context the Harivamsha/MBh's Vedic society was set. [I'm going to guess that's what the late Jain clone of the Vedic Mahabharata does too.]





And an 8th century CE Jain Ramayana has a summary at the same site too. The summary further describes Vimala Suri's earlier version, and appears to notice what the real reason for that earliest Jain take on the [earlier, original, Hindu] Ramayanam was: "reactionary" -



www.vedamsbooks.com/no28051/jain-ramayanapaumacaryu-rendering-into-english-apabhramsa-shantilal-nagar

Jain Ramayana-Paumacaryu : Rendering into English from Apabhramsa



Contents: Preface. 1. Vidyadharakanda. 2. Ayodhya kanda. 3. Sundarakanda. 4. Yuddhakanda. 5. Uttarakanda. Hymn of glory. Index.



"The Ramayana has been popular with the masses of the country from the time immemorial. Initially it was known in fragments or in the form of folk tales but after the composition of the Ramayana by the sage Valmiki, there had been a boost in its popularity. The importance of the story of Rama became quite wide-spread and it influenced the hearts of the poets irrespective of the religious barriers. After the composition of the text by the sage Valmiki, the text influenced the poets of the other faiths like the Buddhism and Jainism. Though the adoption of the story was not quite impressive with the Buddhist but with the Jainas, however, it became quite popular and it was Vimala Suri who for the first time composed Paumacaryu (Padmacarita) by about the beginning of the Christian era. It was a sort of reaction to various mythological statements of Valmiki or the critical appreciation of his work. Vimala Suri was indeed the forerunner of the Ramayana of the later Jaina poets. Thereafter there had been a continuous flow of Jaina Ramayana works right from the Gupta period to the late medieval times and over a dozen works on Rama were composed by these Jaina poets, and each one of them his own importance. The present work Jain Ramayana-Paumacaryu has been composed by Svayambhu by about the 8 century A.D. which has been rendered from Apabhramsa language into English for the convenience of the readers."

Sure it wasn't initially popular among the Buddhist monkhood (nor even among the Jain non-laity at first, that much seems apparent from the statement that Suri composed his version as "a sort of reaction to various mythological statements of Valmiki or the critical appreciation of his work"). But inculturation fixes all that. All people need to do is Bauddhify or Jainise etc pre-existing [heathen] traditions popular among the masses et voila: it *becomes* acceptable. [And even "mythological" aspects of Hindu religion become acceptable once they're cloned into others' cosmologies. Like Vidyadharas, Indra, Kubera, the Tridasha, and Meru etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.]



The fact that the (original, implicitly Hindu) Ramayanam doesn't really know of these new religions at all is also the reason why Buddhists/Jains have long felt the need to pencil themselves in "somehow": by declaring that all references to RAvaNa/rAkShasas etc "must" be to Jains/Buddhists themselves. Elsewhere, more recently, the dravoodianists claim this is instead a reference to the Ur-dravoodians, which is another instance of back-projection of an identity.

And indeed, why *should* people be bothered about "little" details like how in the original [i.e. only authoritative] context, rAvaNa and his whole family was a VedabrAhmaNa-rAkShasa and his country was obviously Hindu, i.e. a vedic society? (But that's hardly surprisingly since rAkShasas are part of Vedic cosmology, both by origin and definition).



Repeat: Buddhists/Jains (and more recently, the dravoodianists invented in the modern era, also back-projected) *need* Hindu religion to *mangle* it into "proof" for their early existence and of their historical oppression by Hindus. [And reading references to rAkShasas in Hindu literature/cosmology etc as being references to oppressed Jains/Buddhists/dravoodianists/etc instead IS mangling.]



Still, never did quite understand why Rajeev Srinivasan declared that the Trivikrama-Bali account was allegory for a Hindu-Buddhist struggle, when he could (or really should) have gone the whole stretch and declared the same about the Ramayanam: since there are old-ish Buddhist and Jain accounts concerning the Ramayanam which has the RakShasas as being the "actually poor unfortunate Buddhists/Jains, misrepresented by the Vedic narrators of the Vedic Ramayanam". Indeed, one of the chapters in that aforementioned 7th century CE Jain clone of Ramayanam (the one by Ravisenacarya) is titled as the Nirvana of one Bali, which may well be the late Jain clone of the Hindu Bali of the Hindu Vamana/Trivikrama account. Although that can't help Rajeev I suppose, since he claimed Bali and his people were allegory for southern Buddhists as opposed to Jains. Nevertheless, that needn't stop him/any other Hindu vocalist from equally peddling about that the *Ramayanam* is likewise allegory for the Hindu oppression of Buddhists/Jains (or dravoodianists - pick one, or in fact, why not pick all 3 and throw in muslims, christians and aliens for good measure) "painted as rAkShasas/Vanaras/etc" by the "intolerant Vedic Hindus". Never mind that Vidyadharas and Vanaras and Rakshasas etc are originally Hindu cosmology. And never mind that it is the latecomers who have opportunistically encroached on pre-existing *Hindu cosmology* and have seen fit to twist this to benefit themselves and to evict Hindus.





Anyway, if Jains/anyone else *are* going to invoke late plagiarisms of the Vedic itihAsas by non- and anti-Vedic ideologies, then why not invoke the medieval, mughal, summarised copy of the Mahabharatam (in late Persian) as "equally valid/authoritative too"? All else being equal, after all. If enough time passes, this last too will become "ancient" and may come to be deemed as being "therefore" "established".

Not having read it (life being too short and all), I still somehow think the mughals who did the summarising wouldn't have pretended that even their late copy concerned islam - nor may Akbar who (from memory) commissioned the translated summary. <- Which I suppose could be the difference between theirs and the Jain/Buddhist spins on the Hindu itihaasas. So I suppose Hindus should be grateful that unlike Buddhism/Jainism - which booed and hissed at Vedic religion even as they ripped off Vedic religious works and cosmology (and now seek to paint Vedic religion as the invader and themselves as the oppressed natives) and pretend their late bauddhified/jainised plagiarisms of the Vedic itihasas were "Buddhist/Jain" all along - at least islam today may be less likely to try the same with the mughal copy of the MBh. That's something. (Or just something to look forward to?)