Removing The Sheen From Buddhism

[Husky]

Post 16/?



Unfortunately, this is going to drag on some more and not end with this post. After pasting the following here, am unfortunately going to have to go over all the allegations made. And there are so darn many.





And here we come to perhaps the most important part. Sadly for Buddhism it's not really evidence. Though there is definitely evidence of Buddhist backprojection and encroachment (aka criminality). And check out the amount of speculations too.





The following is the paper



Some Buddhist Poems in Tamil* by G. Vijayavenugopal

THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BUDDHIST STUDIES

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF A. K. Narain [with lots of western authors contribution]

University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA

Volume 2 1979 Number 2, p. 93-97



https: // journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/viewFile/8492/2399

Introduction

VIracOliyam is a grammatical treatise in Tamil written by Puttamittiran

(< Skt. Buddhamitra) in the 11th century A.D., during the reign of the

Cola king Virarajendra.' In his introductory verse Puttamittiran claims

himself as 'the ruler of Ponparri' which is identified as the present

Ponpetti village in Tanjore district.2 Again the title 'ruler' may imply

that he got an assignment on the revenues of Ponpetti from the Cola

ruler.'3 This grammar, based on the Sanskrit model, explains, though

rather briefly, the structure of the Tamil language, including that used

in inscriptions. For instance, it mentions -icci as one of the feminine

gender suffixes (which is not mentioned by Tolkappiyam, the earliest

Tamil grammar, written around 3rd century B.C.), which is used in

one of the inscriptions of Sundaracola (of 10th century A.D.).4 This

grammar, being written by a Buddhist, was widely used in the Buddhist

monasteries by those who learnt Tamil and, according to Godakumbura,

the Sinhalese grammatical work, viz. Sidada Sankara, is based on

this.



There is a commentary for this grammar, written by one

Peruntevanar, was is also a pupil of Puttamittiran, in which we find a

number of stray Buddhist verses quoted as examples for various

grammatical rules. Since the commentator has not given the name of

the authors of the works to which they belong, nothing can be said

about the origin of these verses. Further, except for casual references,

nothing has been said about these verses in modern studies of

Buddhism in Tamilnadu. However, these poems throw some light on

the religious conditions, especially on the status of Buddhism, in the

Tamil country during the 10th century A.D.





Avalokiteswara cult and Buddha bhakti tradition:

Puttamittiran mentions Avalokiteswara in two verses. First in his

introductory verse6 he mentions that Agastya learnt Tamil under

Avalokiteswara and later spread it to the world. Secondly in the

penultimate verse in the chapter, viz. Kiriya-pata-p-patalam, he

states: 'the true Tamil of Avalokiteswara whose fame shines in several

thousand ways.' According to the Saivite tradition of Tamilnadu, Siva

explains Tamil to Agastya and the hill Potikai/Potiyil is the residence of

Agastya. For our purpose the mentioning of Avalokiteswara is

important. According to the Buddhist tradition this Mount Potikai is

the seat of Bodhisattva Avalokiteswara. Taranath7 mentions that

Potala is a mythical mountain in the South and is the seat of

Avalokiteswara. Hien-Tsiang, the Chinese traveller, also mentions one

Mo-lo-kiu-ch'a. Beal and Hultzsch have identified both Taranath's

Potala and Hien-Tsiangs's Mo-lo-kiu-ch'a (= Malaiyam) as Potikai and

Hultzsch states that Hieun-Tsiang or his Buddhist informants seem to

have transformed Agastya, who is supposed to reside on Podigai, into

the Bodhisattva Avalokiteswara.8 But, as pointed out above, according

to Puttamittiran, Agastya is the disciple of Avalokiteswara. Thus it is

clear that the Buddhist tradition of Tamilnadu has identified Potikai,

the seat of Agastya, as also the seat of Avalokiteswara and made

Agastya his disciple. One of the meanings of the name Avalokiteswara

is 'the Lord who looks from on high (i.e. from the mountains, where he

lives, like Siva)'9 and probably this meaning might be responsible for the

Tamil Buddhist tradition. What is important here is the popularity of

the Avalokiteswara cult in the Tamil country. It attained much

significance when Mahayanism became very popular.



It is very unfortunate that no systematic study has been done so

far with reference to the origin, development, and fall of Buddhism in

Tamilnadu. The only complete Buddhist literary work in Tamil

available now is Manimekalai (generally assigned to 2nd century A.D.,

but it could have been written around 4th century A.D.) which contains

not only literal translations (though partial) from the I canto of

Mahavagga of Vinayapitaka,10 but also refers to the Paramitas.11 It is

not clear whether these paramitas refer to the six kinds of paramitas of

the Hinayana doctrine or the extended paramitas (i.e. ten paramitas) of

the Mahayana doctrine, though the learned editor interprets it to mean

the ten paramitas. But the verses quoted in Viracoliyam commentary

definitely belong to Mahayanism. According to Har Dayal, 'the

bodhisattva doctrine may be said to have been the inevitable outcome

of the tendency towards bhakti and the new conception of Buddhahood.'

12 Conditions before the 11th century in Tamilnadu reveal that

there was prevalent a strong Buddha bhakti tradition and idol worship

should have been very popular. The period between 650 A.D. and 950

A.D. is considered to be the period of bhakti movement which saw the

revival of Hinduism and the gradual weakening of the influence of

both Buddhism and Jainism. The Alvars and Nayanmars spearheaded

this movement and as a result a large number of Siva and Visnu

temples were built by the kings who adopted these religions. Sometimes

some of the Buddhist temples might have been changed into

Hindu temples.13 [Ref 13: Venkatacami, op. cit., p.59] But at the same time these kings patronised other

religions like Buddhism and Jainism, too, by making liberal donations,

endowments, etc. to the viharas and pallis (of the Jains). The verses

praising Buddha or Bodhisattva Avalokiteswara quoted by the

commentator of Viracoliyam reveal the Buddha bhakti tradition to

have been quite similar to Siva bhakti or Visnu bhakti traditions.

Now the question is, which was the model? Did the Buddhists and

Jains follow the Hindu bhakti movement and compose poetry on those

lines, or vice versa? There are two things involved here. One is the

bhakti movement itself and the other is the bhakti poetry resulting

from this movement. Har Dayal claims that 'the idea of bhakti

originated among the Buddhists and was adopted in self defence by the

Hindus.' '... [The] ideal of bhakti arose and flourished among the

Buddhists.'14 However, he also points out that the new sects of the

Hindus 'exercised a profound influence on the further development

of Buddhism."5 There are counter claims too. For instance Aiyaswami

Sastri, quoting Kimura and Radhakrishnan, states that 'the evolution

of the original atheistic Buddhism into theistic Mahayanism was a

result of the religious fervour of its adherents under the dominating

influence of theistic Hinduism through the centuries.'16 The same

thing could be said about the development in Tamilnadu also. It is

possible that the Tamil poet Cekkilar who wrote the famous Saivite

hagiology called Periyapuranam, 'the big Purana,' might have gotten

some inspiration from the Buddhist Jataka stories in modelling the

biographies of the Saivite saints. Or this could have been done even

before him, at least in oral tradition, since Cekkilar is only giving a

poetic form to these stories.



But the verses quoted in Viracoliyam show the influence of Siva/

Visnu bhakti poetry. Some of the verses are definitely modelled after

Paripatal, an anthology of poems following the old cahkam tradition,

composed ca. 2nd century A.D. Verses quoted on p. 140 and 142 are in

the old poetic forms called vannaka ottalicai-k-kalippa and ampotaranka

ottalicai-k-kalippa (old poetic metres). The verse quoted on p. 157

follows the poetic form adopted in Tirukkural, an ancient Tamil

ethical work. Similarly verses quoted on p. 161 follow other old metres

like talicai and aciriyattalicai. Thus we find an interesting interaction

between these religious movements; as a result we see some are taken

from the Buddhist/Jain tradition and some are borrowed from the

Tamil bhakti tradition. At least the verses quoted in the commentary of

Viracoliyam reveal the influence of Tamil bhakti poetry on Buddhist

literary activity. One of the characteristic features of the Tamil bhakti

poetry is the praising of the Lord, eulogising His qualities. For

example, Siva is associated with the banyan tree in the Tamil bhakti

poems. In the same way, the verses which praise the qualities of the

Bodhisattva always mention him as the one who sits under the bodhi

tree and showers His Grace. As Siva/Visnu are mentioned by various

names, the Bodhisattva is referred to as Matavar (p. 124) 'the great

medicant,' Punniyan (p. 125, 159) 'the One who does good," Varadan

(p. 125) 'benefactor,' Arivan (p. 126) 'one who knows everything,'

Vaman (p. 125), kotila aram pakarnta kon (p. 127) 'the king who told

the dharma which is flawless,' Punitan (p. 157), the pure one,' Atinata

(p. 161) 'the ancient Lord,' coti (p. 183)'the light,' Niraivar (p. 188)

'the full one,' Kurramana aintotarikor munrarutta natan (p. 127) 'the

Lord who cut the eight faults.' Similarly the verse quoted on p. 140

states that the bodhisattva has told the 32 kalas and 89 siddhis, and the

verse on p.142 mentions him as the yogi who accompanies all the souls in

their births and deaths.



Another characteristic feature of Tamil bhakti poetry is the use of

mythologies of Siva/Visnu. In the Buddha bhakti verses quoted one

sees a number of mythologies associated with the bodhisattva. Thus

there is the story of weighing his flesh (p. 140), the story of offering his

body to a hungry tiger (p. 114, 140, 142), the conquering of Mara (p.

141, 142), the story of becoming a fish and becoming one with truth (p.

141), the story of becoming a deer and revealing the divine qualities (p.

141), the story of preaching the dharma to five rakshasas (p. 144), the

story of removing the sufferings of the Nagas (p. 141), the story of

giving eyes to lndra at the latter's request (p. 125, 165). Another

feature of the Tamil bhakti poetry is the praising of the sacred place/

town of Siva/Visnu. Similarly, we find one verse (p. 188) wherein the

city Tutitapuram (< Dushita) is mentioned as the abode of Niraivar, 'the

full one.'



Two verses which were quoted partially reveal the influence of

Tantric Buddhism. One verse (p. 171) states that 'I will wander around

and play until the exhaustion of the desires before the swung top stops.'

The metaphor vicina pamparam, 'the swung top' refers to the soul and

its birth. The other verse (p. 171) runs like this: 'I will wander and play

before the built palace collapses.' Here the metaphor used is etutta

matam, 'the built palace,' suggesting the soul in a new body. Thus these

poems reveal the Buddha bhakti tradition in Tamilnadu during the

10th/11th centuries A.D. as similar to the Tamil Siva/Visnu bhakti

tradition.



<Refs at link>

1. So, can see Buddhism backprojecting Buddhisms onto Hindus' Agastya and Tamil Grammar to claim both.

Just like Buddhism backprojected Buddhisms onto Hindus' Panini and Skt Grammar to claim both. See www.india-forum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/2224-removing-the-sheen-from-buddhism/page__view__findpost__p__113431

Same nonsense.



Ah Buddhist/Jain (and christian) missionary tactics for inculturation, appropriation and backprojection. Never grows old.

Neither do the bald-faced lies.





2. To note (and with regards to content in previous posts):



a. As per the above article from 1979, Manimekhalai is 2nd-4th century CE. So Silappadikaaram, to which Manimekhalai was the sequel, is also 2nd-4th century CE (or somewhat older).

And Silappadikaaram knows of Hindu Pauranic accounts of Agastya, and that said Agastya dwells at Podiyil; and in the same verse mentioning that, it describes him in relation to Shiva as being "a descendant of Shiva who gave out the Vedas" [combining translations], where I imagine (but wouldn't know) that 'descendant' could be a reference to the Shaiva Siddhantam that originates in Shiva and of which Agastya is the first Shaiva Siddhar in the line.



Silappadikaaram knows nothing Buddhist (incl. Avalokiteshwara-related) about Potiyil's Agastya, though the Agastya's (=Potiyil Muni) connection with Shiva IS well-known/was already established, and so is implicitly alluded to.



In Silappadikaaram, Potiyil is already known as sacred. And a 1st century BCE/CE Tamil work - ciRupANARRuppaTai - already had a Hindu chieftain of Potiyil make a gift to Dakshinaamoorthy-Shiva (i.e. probably at a temple/shrine in his locality). See post 11.





b. Hsuan-Tsang's accounts from hearsay are from the 7th century. They document clearly that the sightings at Podiyil are only of "Ishwara/Maheshwara", a "PAshupata Yogin". I.e. whether it be in the 7th century or the present (as per yesterday's wackypedia page on Podigai), there is nothing that can even describe the sightings as Buddhist in any way**: rather, there's only Shaiva (i.e. Hindoo, Vedic-Shiva-related) features about the manifestations to sincere devotees at Podigai.





c. And the late Buddhist Tamil-language grammar work "vIracholiyam" is from the 11th century CE, as per the 1979 article above (though like Silappadikaaram and Manimekhalai, vIracholiyam may be considered more recent today). And it is in vIracholiyam that Agastya is claimed as having an association with Avalokiteshwara; i.e. that Agastya is suddenly a Buddhist, rather than a pAshupata=Shaiva.



This means that between Hsuan-Tsang's 7th century account and Puttamitiran's 11th century vIracholiyam is when the Buddhist notion started - and solely among Buddhists - that Agastya was ever a Buddhist and was ever connected to the concoction known as Avalokiteshwara and that there was any Buddhism driving his Grammar and other work let alone the formation of the Tamil language. In the meantime and since the beginning, Agastya has only ever been associated with Vedic religion, and the original traditions on his connection to Tamil and its Grammar are Hindoo onlee.





** In particular a pAshupata is a very particular type of Shaiva Hindu, their practices and views derive from the Vedam (e.g. ShvetAshvatara Upanishad), and can simply not be a Buddhist because of seriously conflicting cosmological views.

ShaivaSiddhantam - the Shaivam taught by Agastyar in TN - is very closely related to the Shaivam of pAshupatas, so pAshupata is quite an accurate description of Agastya. Taken from a Hindu Swami's summary (a few words paraphrased):

The philosophy of ShaivasiddhAnta is very similar to that of the PAshupata [branch of Shaivam=Hindooism], the only difference being that the former accepts 36 tattvas (like Kashmir Shaivam) whereas the latter only [accepts] 25.

The numbers 25 and 36 concern the enumerations related to the Veda-derived, i.e. Hindoo, theistic, pre-Classical Sankhyam views. It is expressly cosmological (ShvetAshvataropaniShad). Meaning it's not the later, non-cosmological (non-theistic) Classical Sankhya, though this last did have a bearing on the Sankhyam elements found in Shramanic religions. [And which is another thing that dates Buddhism/Jainism.]



** And it's because the manifestations that Hsuan-Tsang (=HT) relayed from hearsay are so Shiva-related that all Buddhist apologist historians have fallen over themselves to point out how Avalokiteshwara had subsumed Shiva features (though it was for inculturation purposes). Because otherwise there is nothing to argue the case that the deity at the temple site of HT's description is Buddhist in any sense, and they end up in a bind of having to admit Buddhist encroachment on a Hindu site. Shu resolved this problem - as modern Bauddhified Hindus like to do, too - by proposing a period of Hindu-Buddhist "syncretism" and so making it all sound chummy and amicable and innocent. [Except whenever one side is a missionary religion, the syncretism is... replacement theology.]





So in a-c above, can already see when and in what - obviously very late - timeframe Buddhist appropriating lies had developed concerning Agastya and Tamil being "Buddhist".

To be fair, Buddhism wasn't the only Indic missionary religion that indulged in this class of delusional mythmaking (encroachment using backprojection via literature). But such obvious Buddhist myths/encroachments on Hindu religion get more international interest and support, because of the large foreign base of converts.



Can also compare with how christianism is now writing fictions about Tiruvalluvar/Tirukkural being christian and that Manickavasagar/TiruvAchakam was talking about jeebus/biblical monogawd. And similarly, a 1000 years from now, that too may be held up as proof of christianism of the two Tamil language works. Oh and of "proof" that christianism invented bhakti.





Avalokiteshwara was simply Buddhism's means to declare it automatically "inherited" all things related to the Hindoo God Shiva (and other Hindu Gods elsewhere, and a certain Taoist Goddess in other Asian lands), and thereby encroach on those things for Buddhism. This Bodhisattva was the means by which Buddhism tried to encroach on Panini and his grammar, and on Agastya, his works, and his influence on Tamil. In particular, the Avalokiteshwara fiction/excuse was employed to shift Panini and Agastya's derivation of Grammar from Shiva onto Avalokiteshwara=Buddhism's replacement for Shiva. Depending on what part of India the Buddhist claims to Panini's grammar were launched, wonder whether there was historically some Buddhist collaborative effort - collusion, pre-meditation between Buddhism in different parts of the country - to Bauddhify the established Hindu origins of grammar/languages/texts on languages (and Hindu perceptions regarding them)*. Same reasoning as behind creating the Jatakas to contain Bauddhified parallels to many pre-Buddhist (usually Hindu) Indian narratives: to give converts to Buddhism an alternate, Buddhist history and of a more ancient Buddhism; and that Buddhism was the origin for all things valuable (which had actually been originate by Hindus' religion).



* The way christians collude to edit wackypedia to make everything that attests to Hindu religion in TN and Kerala in ancient times to be dated to the 8th century CE instead. And thereby, to alter Hindu, christian and international perceptions of when each was present in the region.





Long ago, there was a comment at Vijayvaani - no doubt by Buddhists distressed that the Mahabodhi Buddhist temple had been commissioned by a Shaiva Brahmana - claiming that Shaivas were often Buddhists and Brahmanas were often Buddhists too (No, they'd be ex-Shaivas, ex-Brahmanas) and that this therefore meant that the person who had the Mahabodhi Buddhist temple built was a Buddhist not a Hindu "after all".** A convenient excuse for how all things Hindu - and Hindoo religious labels - magically refer to Buddhism/Jainism when it suits Buddhist/Jain/etc purposes. [Like Rajeev Srinivasan regularly describes christianism's encroachment tactics: "What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too." Of course the Indic missionary religions had long ago perfected that artform, and their peddlers continue it.] No matter. Because PAshupatas - southern ones at any rate* - are NOT Buddhists, but Vedic Hindoos only, deriving their views and rituals from the Vedas, and is one of the oldest forms of Shaivam.



** Except that it was a Buddhist who recorded that the Mahabodhi Buddhist temple had been commissioned by a Shaiva Brahmana, and the Buddhist writer specifically implies this contrastively with Buddhism:



koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/acat/ch3.htm

koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/acat/ch3.htm#6

More than that, a Buddhist member of the Bodh Gaya temple management committee has admitted that "the laudable work of the construction of the Mahabodhi temple" was "undertaken by a Brahmana minister of Shaivite persuasion".6

[ref 6:] "With reference to Xuan Zang, who saw the temple in 637 A.D., shortly after it was built, and who explicitly gave the credit to a Brahmin worshipper of Shiva Maheshwara."

Not a Brahmin worshipper of the Buddhist Avalokiteshwara clone, note. Clearly Xuanzang knew enough to make the distinction, as in this case it's not hearsay of a place he didn't visit: he was there "shortly after it was built", he would have consulted sources for details. Plus Hsuan-Tsang/Xuanzang is on record screeching at "worshippers of Shiva Maheshwara" at other times - though I reckon if you had a shrine built for his religion, he'll keep quiet for a bit and even oh-so-graciously credit you. So this is an important admission.





To be continued.