Removing The Sheen From Buddhism

[Husky]

Post 4/?

Example of desperate Buddhist claims to originating Ramayanam and that Hindus would have plagiarised it from them





3. This next was a priceless find. Because it is a perfect example of how recent subversionist spins on Hindu tradition are taken advantage of by the ever-opportunistic missionary religions. The way Jainism and Buddhism took advantage of the AIT in order to spin their religions as the original dravoodian religion, Buddhism has fastened onto the matter of the multiple Ramayanas in order to sell its late bad copy - and thereby itself - as an original.



The matter of multiple Ramayanas is argued in this way: Because the lately invented nouveau Indic religions eventually cloned the Vedic epic tradition of the Ramayana, "therefore" the Ramayana belongs to all Indic religions "equally", and in fact, it "actually" belongs to Buddhism and Jainism more than it does to Vedic religion (<- which by the way is the very recent argument Buddhism/Jainism have started using to claim Patanjali's Yogasutras and Yoga in general). Hindus will do nothing of course. If there is one action that Hindu vocalists can be guaranteed to take with regards to ongoing Buddhist and Jain encroachment on Hindu stuffs it is Utter Inaction. Yet they will whine about christianism when it commits the same crimes. Once again proving that it isn't the crime itself, but who commits it, that modern Hindus will object to.



First to get the easy one out of the way:



dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Ramayana

Go to Wat Phra Keo, the most important Buddhist temple in the country, and it is not the life of the Buddha that is depicted on the walls of the passageway around the main shrine but scenes from the Thai Ramayana, the Ramakien.

The Thai Ramayana tradition was originally Hindu. When Thailand got converted to Buddhism, they Bauddhified the Thai Ramayana tradition. A very late occurrence.

Most Indonesian Ramayanas (certainly those of Bali) are Hindu. Everything else were Bauddhified versions, because Buddhism like Jainism has no Ramayana tradition, it only has plagiarisms/inculturations. (That's what it would be called if christianism did the same.)



Having realised that no one cared about the poor Buddhist clones of the Hindoo originals, Buddhism did try to peddle the MBh and Ramayanam and other Hindoo (i.e. non-Buddhist) works in SE/E Asia as a Buddhist achievement - "look what great epics India-equated-to-Buddhism gave rise to"* - but they remain Hindoo onlee, and missionary religions' poaching on these and other Hindoo matters will forever remain illegitimate.



* Not unlike how christianism is trying to peddle bharatanatyam as a christian achievement in China, when it is a Hindoo religio-tradition onlee and a credit to Hindoo religion onlee.





Now the relevant portion:



dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Ramayana

The earliest version of the great epic [Ramayana] is the Buddhist one, the one found in the Jatakas (No 461). It’s called the Dasaratha Jataka, Dasaratha being of course Rama’s father. Now although the Dasaratha Jataka is immediately identifiable as a version of the Ramayana it differs greatly from most other versions. For example, Rama and Sita are siblings, not husband and wife; Dasaratha does not banish them but sends them away to protect them from their jealous step-mother; they are exiled to the Himalayas, not to Dandaka in the Deccan; there is no reference to Lanka or Ravana; Rama and Sita return to Benares not to Ayodhya after their exile, and somewhat uncomfortably, they then marry.



Now reading Valmiki’s Ramayana one discovers little bits of Buddhism popping up here and there throughout it. For example, the story of King Sibi giving his eyes to the blind man (Jataka No 499) is there. I strongly suspect that the exile of Vessantra as told in the Vessantra Jataka (No 549) was the inspiration for Rama and Sita’s exile in Valmiki’s Ramayana, although I don’t know what scholars say about this. Having said all this, it is also true to say that the Dasaratha Jataka is not a literary masterpiece and Valmiki’s Ramayana definitely is. It is nowhere near as long (is any poem?), it lacks its narrative charm and excitement, and its didactic elements are much more limited. If you are interested in reading the Ramayana (and you have 6 month to spare) have a look at www.valmikiramayan.net/ where you will find the Sanskrit text and a word by word translation of it with notes.



References

BuddhismA2Z.com/ Buddhism A to Z. Ven. Dhammika, 2007.

sdhammika.blogspot.com/

Buddhist swindling is getting better and better all the time.



This line:

The earliest version of the great epic [Ramayana] is the Buddhist one, the one found in the Jatakas (No 461).

How is the Bauddhified clone remotely the "earliest" version?

The Jatakas - as every true scholar has admitted - is a total plagiarism of pre-existing (mostly Hindu) narratives. And no one but apologists for the opportunistic Shramanisms will pretend that the Ramayana is even equally Jain/Buddhist "originally", but will say outright that it is Hindu religion in origin, and its context was always specifically Vedic society. This is even seen, as mentioned in the 2nd post, in the footnote to the Dasharatha Jataka translation, which clearly uses "The Ramayana" as a reference to Valmiki Ramayana in pointing out where the Buddhists diverged in creating their Dasaratha Jataka plagiarism.



And it's all no different from how Buddhism Badly Plagiarised the ancient Shibi narrative of the Hindoos, and copied other pre-Buddhist Hindu sacred narratives to produce the "Jatakas", which Buddhism then went on to try to present as "original Buddhist/Buddhist history and theology".





Then again, Buddhism IS on a major "everything was originally Buddhist" spree. The way Buddhism is reinventing Bon as a post-Buddhist Buddhist sect. So it makes sense that with the theory that "the existence of multiple Ramayanas means all clones are equally valid" being floated about these days, that the Sangha would have leaped on this excuse to conceal their own blatant copying from Hindu religion (to pretend they're the victims of inculturation instead, as Jains have been doing). Buddhists will no doubt believe it. And tomorrow the Bauddhified will parrot it. I mean, if Bauddhified "Hindus" can backproject Buddhism onto the Trivikrama account - or invent Bauddhifying stories about Ayyappa/Shabarimalai in our century - surely they can swear by the Buddhist Jataka spin on Rama and this being the "original", no?



And as for this pathetic statement:

Now reading Valmiki’s Ramayana one discovers little bits of Buddhism popping up here and there throughout it. For example, the story of King Sibi giving his eyes to the blind man (Jataka No 499) is there.

Again, they keep digging a hole. Wow are they an embarrassment to themselves. And the above nonsense being on an official Buddhist site, it moreover reflects on Buddhism as a whole.



Typical Buddhist spin, though. They're able to link to valmikiramayan.net but they clearly haven't bothered reading it.



Like Jains do, Buddhists hear of snatches from Hindu texts and then conveniently read themselves into pre-existing Hindu scriptures. (The way Jains declared that Ramayanam mentioned that shramanas were invited to attend, and that the ref to shramanas "must" be an allusion to Jains. Except that the very reference was an invitation to attend a Vedic yagnya - an ashvamedha - which is specific proof that it could never have been an allusion to Buddhist/Jain/Other later-invented religion, but that the shramanas mentioned were simply Vedic yatis. Duh.)





Here, repeat. But also refer to the longer discussion in posts 265 and 266 above. From the following taken from Valmiki's Ramayanam can see how it is Alarka who gave away his eyes. While the Ramayanam (i.e. Valmiki), like the Mahabharatam - both referencing older Hindu tradition and thus making only summary allusions to Shibi's narrative - refer only to the *Vedic* narrative concerning the Vedic King Shibi: the indra-hawk vs agni-pigeon case where Shibi intervened and donated his flesh (not eyes, as that was Alarka).



valmikiramayan.net/ayodhya/sarga12/ayodhya_12_frame.htm

valmikiramayan.net/ayodhya/sarga12/ayodhya_12_prose.htm

shaibyaH shyenakapotiiye svamaamsaM pakshite dadau |

alarkashchakshushhii datvaa jagaama gatimuttamaam || 2-12-43



43. shaibyaH= Shaibya; dadau= gave; svamamsam= his own flesh; pakshhiNe= to the bird; shyena kapotiiye= when there was a dispute between a hawk and a pigeon; alarka= King Alarka; jagaama= obtained; uttamaam gatim= highest destiny; datvaa= by giving away; chakshhushhii= eyes.



When there was a dispute between a hawk and a pigeon (who were no other than Indra the ruler of gods and the god of fire respectively), the ruler of Sibis* gave away his own flesh to the bird and king Alarka* by parting with his eyes, attained to the highest destiny.



** Ruler of Sibi* We are told in our scriptures how in order to put the large-heartedness of the king to a test, Indra (the ruler of gods) and Agni (the god of fire) once appeared in his court in the disguise of a hawk and a pigeon. Being chased by the hawk, the pigeon which sought the king’s protection, descended into his lap. The hawk which closely followed it, demanded it back from the king; contending that the bird had been allotted to it as its food by providence and the king had no right to rob it of its quarry. The king; however was not prepared to forsake the fugitive on any account and agreed to part with his own flesh in order to indemnify the hawk. The hawk however out weighed the king's flesh every time he chopped it from his body till at last he ascended the scale himself and thus offered himself in exchange for the pigeon. **Alarka*=The royal sage Alarka parted with his own eyes in order to implement a boon granted by him to a blind Brahmana who asked for the king's eyes in order to have his own eyesight restored.

By the way, the Shibi Jataka postdates the Valmeeki Ramayanam tradition. As already discussed in posts 265 and 266 further above, this conclusion is derived from the fact that Buddhism clearly conflated the single Valmeeki Ramayanam verse that mentioned both Alarka donating his eyes and Shibi donating his flesh in order to create the Jataka of the cloned Buddhist Shibi donating his eyes. (Unless some other ancient Hindu text mentions Alarka and Shibi within a short space, sufficient for inept Buddhist plagiarists to confuse the two.) The MBh - as per Ganguly's translation - does not appear to mention Alarka and Shibi in the space of the same paragraphs. Therefore Buddhism's case of Bad Copying for the Cloned Shibi Jataka was derived from the mention of Shibi in *Valmeeki Ramayanam* and not the mention of Shibi in other Hindu texts. <- This last is inference, but it is so very likely that it can be regarded a certainty hereafter.



I've - for all intents and purposes - proven that the Shibi Jataka postdates the Valmeeki Ramayanam, as it clearly plagiarised from it. Do I even need to prove that the Buddhist Dasharatha Jataka similarly plagiarised from the Valmeeki Ramayanam?



Besides, the fact that not just the Buddhists but the Jains too plagiarised from the Valmeeki Ramayanam points to the original Ramayana tradition being the Hindu one. That is, the Jains didn't copy the Buddhist Dasharatha Jataka. They plagiarised what they knew to be the original Ramayanam, for a similar purpose as the Buddhist plagiarised the Valmeeki Ramayanam: that of creating a Jainised variant. Again, here's the earliest Jain spin on the Ramayanam:

Paumacariya - Vimalasūri, Hemasāgarasūrī - Google Books

Poem in Āryā metre, Uddesa and Pavva, based on the Rāmāyaṇa and adapted to the Jaina point of view; composition date unknown, 2nd-4th centuries A.D.

If the Jains had remotely considered the lame Buddhist spin as the original (let alone as worth imitating in any sense), surely they would have encroached on the Buddhist version? (Some Jains tried claiming that the first Jain rip-off of the Hindu Ramayanam was the "original" Ramayanam, except that not even alien scholars have bothered humouring that delusion.)



And even ancient Buddhists - presumably coming after the Dasharatha Jataka was concocted and included in Buddhist canon - didn't copy from the Dasharatha Jataka, but continued to pilfer from the Valmeeki original of the Hindoos. More proof is barely needed as to whose material is original, nah, when even the Buddhists couldn't 1. keep their story straight for very long and 2. chose to include further details not from the Jataka but from the Valmeeki Ramayanam. See next post below.



Arguing the way Buddhists do:

Surely that means one can simply reason that "the exile of Vessantra as told in the Vessantra Jataka" was inspired by the exile part of Valmeeki's Ramayanam, no? I mean, considering they stole the Shibi Jataka from there, Dasharatha Jataka from there. And they're not above stealing I mean plagiarising partial life-stories: only one part of Agastya's life was stolen for a Buddhist clone Jataka.

I strongly suspect that the exile of Vessantra as told in the Vessantra Jataka (No 549) was the inspiration for Rama and Sita’s exile in Valmiki’s Ramayana, although I don’t know what scholars say about this.

Admission that the revisionist spew was written by someone who doesn't regard himself as a scholar. And no one else (but the Bauddhified) would regard him as such either: I mean, the whole "Valmeeki mentions Shibi giving his eyes" nonsense is clearly the conclusion that someone who can't read even the English translation at valmeekiramayanam.net (despite linking to it) would come to.





And *this* is why Hindus can't fight inculturation. Because they never stopped Buddhisms and Jainisms from inculturating, they won't stop christianism from doing it either.

Christianism can easily write a christian Ramayanam tomorrow where Rama and Sita etc were all christians etc. Then slowly that will become equally valid and, say 2000 years from now, the progeny of today's Bauddhified (or apologists for Buddhist/Jain inculturation) can declare that christianism's version was the original. Because that's exactly how Buddhist/Jain inculturations have become legitimised: over time, and by growing forgetfulness among Hindus, and the stupid tendency in modern Hindus to not recognise blatant inculturation but to accord it an equal status (or any respectable status at all). I don't mind unity with other dharmic religions, but hereafter, it will be on the condition that they repudiate *all* their inculturations on Hindoo religion, and admit to this, instead of their pretending they were the originals and were victims of Hindus plagiarising from them.