Removing The Sheen From Buddhism

[G.Subramaniam]

[quote name='Bharatvarsh2' date='09 May 2010 - 09:34 AM' timestamp='1273377387' post='106291']

Basically says that tilopA from Bengal who is highly regarded among Tibetans was a Buddhist and a subvertionist of dharma (or Astika sampradayas) who preached that Buddhist's shouldn't worship Brahma, Vishnu & Shiva and shouldn't go to the traditional holy places (tIrtha's) of Hindus because one doesn't achieve moksha through these things. Earlier Buddhaghosha from Magadha told the Buddhists that they shouldn't hear the Ramayana or Mahabharata narration. This type of attack is an original aspect of Buddhists that passed unchanged through the transition of yAna-s (vehicles?). Umakant Mishra points to a shiva linga in the Soro village of Orissa that has been defaced by the carving of a nAstika dharaNi (Buddhist "earth"?) on it. Basically the linga was desecrated by Buddhists somehow. This shows that the pAShaNDa-s/Buddhists (another word for nAstika-s of various kinds including Buddhists & Jains but in this case Buddhists) were ready to put into practice the rants of people like tilopA by desecrating Hindu murti's/icons. But nowadays we are told (by commies and assorted enemies of Hindus) that it was the Astikas/Hindus who destroyed Buddhist temples/idols and Buddhism itself from India, to a borrow a term from the Muslims we are told that Hindus were the but (idol) shikhans (breakers) when it comes to Buddhists.

[/quote]



Some years ago, on the internet, I saw a mural of a tibetan buddhist monastery, which had a picture of Ganesha, performing oral sex on a man

[Husky]

Bharatvarsh2



Posted Today, 02:07 AM



Quote

The nAstika tilopA from the va~Nga country is highly regarded among Tibetans. He was an aggressive subversionist of former dharma. He says in apabhraMsha:

bamhA vihNu mahesura devA | bohisattva ma karahu seva | deva ma pUjahu titya Na jAvA | devapUjAhi Na mokkha pAvA ||



Here tilopA says: bodhisattva, do not worship the deva-s brahmA, viShNu and maheshvara; do not do pUjA to deva-s do not go to tIrtha-s. One does not get mokSha by doing pUjA to deva-s. Earlier, the sthaviravAdin buddhaghosha (born a brAhmaNa in magadha) who calls upon the nAstika-s to desist from hearing the rAmAyaNa or the bhArata. Actually, this strain is an original aspect of the tAthagata-s that passed unchanged through the transition of the yAna-s. Umakant Mishra points to a li~Nga in the Soro village of Orissa that has been defaced by the carving of a nAstika dharaNi on it. So the pAShaNDa-s were ready to put these words into practice. Yet we are repeatedly told that it is the Astika-s who were the buddha-busters (to borrow a favorite term of the Mohammedan: bhut-shikhan).



http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/201...of-tilopa/

Somethings don't change I guess.



Then may I paste the following? It was originally the appendage to this old post on the article "Ram temple below Babri structure - Dr B.B. Lal". Be forewarned: I remember being seriously ticked off back when I wrote it. (I left it out for that reason. Not sure I finished it.)

But posting as-is now, except I am highlighting the occurrence of Shivalingam:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



I almost forgot -

[color="#0000FF"]ADDED:[/color]



And yet, some nonsensical claims have been staked - again.



http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?...54,0,0,1,0

UK-based Buddhist body stakes claim over disputed Ayodhya site

Indopia, August 17,2009



[color="#0000FF"]Faizabad , India -- A UK-based Buddhist organisation has staked claim over the disputed site in Ayodhya, claiming that the actual birth place of Ram could be somewhere in Afghanistan.[/color]

[color="#9932CC"](Uh, not more of that recently-invented loser thesis about afghanistan. The secular - i.e. christocommunista - side keeps floating multiple new theories just so that Hindus can waste time disproving all of them and still never get their Temple ground back. Hindus should just take the temple site back and tell muslims they're lucky we don't retake Mecca in the name of the ancient polytheistic Arabians who honoured their Gods and keep it safe for when Arabians revert to their TRUE religion: that of the Arabian Gods.)[/color]





Ambedkar Social& Buddhist movement of UK has staked the claim in a petition which will come up for hearing at a local court tomorrow.





Advocate Harishankar Maurya, who will plead the case of Buddhist party in the court, said,"Our case is pending before the court since 1991 but the court is neither rejecting our case nor transferring it to the special bench of the high court hearing the Ayodhya case."



The petition was filed by the organisation&aposs Indian branch Bhartiya Bauddha Darshan Society in the court of civil judge senior division here in the year 1991 before the demolition of the Babri Masjid.



[color="#0000FF"]Staking claim over the disputed site in Ayodhya, the Buddhist body has demanded that the land be handed over to them[/color] or they be made a party in the Ayodhya suit which is being heard by a special court.



The Buddhist body has filed the suit against both Hindu and Muslim parties, the Archeological Survey of India, Union Home Ministry and Government of Uttar Pradesh.

Note that the neo-"buddhists" lying is not what is galling in all the above (their silly claims have been heard before), but the fact that a purportedly global *Buddhist* site - buddhistchannel.tv - is repeating their nonsense.



First, that their claims are nonsense:



http://koenraadelst.voi.org/books/finale/ch3.html

3.6. The Buddhist gambit



More or less since the beginning of the historical dispute, some secularists have felt that the denial of Islamic iconoclasm in general and of its application to Ayodhya in particular would be unsustainable. So, to weaken the Hindu position vis-à-vis the historical debt which Islam has incurred, they attributed a similar iconoclasm to Hinduism, with Buddhism as the victim. But in the present round of the Ayodhya debate, there has not been more than a vague hint at this scenario, and for good reason.



[color="#0000FF"]There was a little problem with this thesis, viz. the inconvenient fact that Buddhism has flourished in India for 17 centuries under almost uninterrupted non-Buddhist Hindu rule, and that many Buddhist monasteries and universities were still functioning in India at the time of the Muslim invasions. It was the Muslim conquerors who destroyed the entire Buddhist establishment of North India in just a few years following the fatal battle of Tarain (1192), where Mohammed Ghori defeated Prithviraj Chauhan to storm into the Gangetic plain. But here again, the secularists counted on their own overwhelming grip on the influential media to get away with their newly launched myth. So now, numerous people in India and abroad (most damagingly in Buddhist countries which should have been India’s natural allies) actually believe that there was a time when Hindus demolished Buddhist temples and slaughtered Buddhist monks.[/color]

[color="#9932CC"](And yes, they do believe it. That is why buddhistchannel.tv reprint others' false patently anti-Hindu allegations like: [/color]

http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?...73,0,0,1,0

Buddhist monuments systematically destroyed in India

[color="#9932CC"]Includes a zillion references to how the Evil Brahmoons supposedly destroyed and took over Buddhist temples for the "brahminical" - they mean Hindu - religion. Even the criminal silence on the existence of the Hindu religion itself by calling everything brahminical onlee is anti-hindooism.)[/color]



From there, it was but a small step to claiming that, if the Ayodhya site had been taken by Muslims from a native Indian religion at all, the aggrieved party must have been the Buddhists, not the Hindus. Or better still, if there had been a Hindu temple at the site when the Muslim conquerors came to level it, that temple itself had forcibly replaced an earlier Buddhist building as part of the massive Hindu persecution of the poor hapless Buddhists. However, in the documentary record, there is not the slightest indication of a Buddhist presence at that particular site, even though elsewhere in Ayodhya the Buddhist presence (including that of the prominent philosophers Asanga and Vasubandhu) is well-attested. The Jains still have a number of sites in Ayodhya associated with several of their Tirthankaras, but neither Buddhist nor Jain tradition ever laid claim to the Rama Janmabhoomi site.



The material implication of anti-Buddhist iconoclasm at the site, whether Hindu or Muslim, is that distinctively Buddhist temple remains should be found below the mosque, either directly below it or underneath a layer of Hindu architecture. However, the archaeological search in the 1970s and in 1992 has not uncovered any such exclusively Buddhist artefact. And in 2003 again, nothing specifically Buddhistic has surfaced at the site.



To be sure, it is rather artificial to conceive of Buddhism as a separate tradition from Hinduism, (depends on the definition of Hinduism: if Hinduism is declared a universal religion as some have insisted that it be) and in their artistic conventions, the two have a lot in common. So, some artefacts could be Buddhist as well as Hindu, e.g. the new ASI report, in describing the “massive structure below the disputed site”, states that one of the architectural fragments belonging to the 12th century, is “similar to those found in Dharmachakrajina Vihara of Kumaradevi at Sarnath which belongs to the early 12th century” (quoted by Anjali Mody: “ASI report raises more questions”, The Hindu, 27 June 2003). Kumaradevi was the Buddhist wife of Govindachandra, king of Kanauj, and the remains of the building she patronized have been interpreted as those of a Buddhist monastery. But this interpretation has been disputed (as Mody recounts), and the said type of architectural fragments could not decide the matter precisely because it formed part of a pan-Indian culture in evidence in both Hindu and Buddhist buildings. By contrast, what was found at the contentious site in Ayodhya, when not part of this indistinctive pan-Indian register, was distinctively part of the non-Buddhistic traditions of Hinduism. Interestingly, in the pre-medieval layers, indications of Shiva and Devi (goddess) worship have been found, so the history of the temple site was not exclusively Vaishnava. But it was definitely not Buddhist.



So far, the Buddhist escape route has not been tried anymore after the ASI report was presented. Apparently the evidence for the site’s non-Buddhist history is just too overwhelming, and the secularists already have enough to deny.

Meanwhile, the (presumably) NEO-"Buddhist" whinies are back in action wanting Hindus to get lost from the Boddh Gaya Buddhist temple, since it bothers them no end that Hindu priests are also in there (never mind that it was the Buddhists who ran off leaving the temple to its own fate when islamism came to massacre them, and that it had been Hindus who had maintained it respectfully all this while. And it's not like Hindus shoved off Buddha from there to replace with the Hindu Gods.)

The news article says that Buddhist monks are agitating for Hindus to get lost - I had so far assumed it was only the neo-"Buddhist" kind:



http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?...44,0,0,1,0

Buddhist monks want control of Bodh Gaya temple

Sify News, Nov 30, 2009



Bodh gaya, India -- Buddhist monks want control over the management of the Mahabodhi temple in Bodh Gaya, one of Buddhism's holiest shrines. They have decided to intensify their agitation as the Bihar government is not paying heed to their demands.



For a long time Buddhist monks have been demanding total control over the 1,500-year-old temple at Bodh Gaya, located 110 km from here, where the Buddha attained enlightenment 2,550 years ago.



Buddhist monks are unhappy with the Bihar government for 'deliberately' delaying an amendment to the Mahabodhi Temple Management Act, 1949, to ensure Buddhist control over the management of the temple.



'It is clear the Bihar government does not want to favour the Buddhists' genuine demand for total control over the Mahabodhi temple. We will have to fight for it by mobilizing support for it,' Bhadant Anand, president of the Bodhgaya Mahabodhi Vihar All-India Action Committee, said.



The committee has decided to spread its network across India to intensify the agitation for total control over the Mahabodhi temple, Anand told IANS over telephone Friday.





'We will launch a membership drive to induct new people in our fold and will open offices of the committee at different places in the country to mobilize support for our agitation,' Anand said.





Buddhist monks like Anand say the delay is a 'conspiracy' by the government to keep the management under the control of non-Buddhists. 'We fail to understand why non-Buddhists have control over the holiest shrine of Buddhists. We have decided to take up the issue by lobbying support to demand Buddhist control over the management,' he said.



'If the management of temples, churches, mosques and gurdwaras are not under the control of other sects, then why so in the case of the Mahabodhi temple? Buddhists have been given little role in managing the affairs of the temple since 1949,' Anand said.



According to the existing law, the Bodh Gaya Temple Management Committee (BGTMC) should comprise four Buddhists and the same number of Hindu members for a three-year period with the Gaya district magistrate as its ex-officio chairman.

And once again, it isn't just neo-Buddhists anymore, as actual Buddhists - buddhistchannel.tv are repeating their claims everywhere.



As for loony claims of "the evil brahmoons persecuting Buddhism":

http://koenraadelst.voi.org/books/acat/ch3.htm

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

6Dipak K. Barua: Buddha Gaya, Bodh Gaya 1981, p.41, 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.'

So Hindus built the temple. Doesn't stop the neo-Buddhists from destroying a Shivalingam at the temple now:

http://koenraadelst.voi.org/books/acat/ch3.htm

In particular, the Ambedkarite neo-Buddhists have started a movement for the “liberation of the Mahabodhi shrine” in Bodh Gaya. Its aim is to remove the statutory four Hindu members of the eight-member temple management committee, and to prohibit worship of a sivalingam in the temple. Quite in contrast with the secularist calls for “composite culture” and for multi-religious worship at the Rama-Janmabhoomi site, this is a demand to free the Mahabodhi site from multi-religious worship and particularly from the “taint” of Hinduism. The agitation has been marked by petty vandalism, as when the neo-Buddhists desecrated their own holiest site, or at least the sivalingam standing there, in October 1992.

http://koenraadelst.voi.org/books/acat/ch3.htm

3. The Bodh Gaya temple controversy



Apparently it's not just neo-Buddhists, but the international kinds that feel called upon to kick out Hindus from the temple:

The movement for the “liberation” of the Mahabodhi temple was formally launched by a Japanese monk, Bhadant Arya Nagarjuna Surai Sasai. His involvement provides a typical example of how people spoiling for a fight tend to attack meek rather than dangerous adversaries. Buddhism has been eclipsed by Christianity in South Korea and among the Indonesian Chinese.3 In Bangladesh, the Buddhist Chakmas of the Chittagong Hill Tracts have been driven out by the Muslim settlers and the Government of Bangladesh. Buddhism is oppressed by Communism in China, North Korea, Tibet and Vietnam. If Sasai had started a similar agitation in those countries, it would not have lasted a single day, and he would have been lucky to get expelled rather than locked up or killed.



By contrast, Buddhism is not oppressed or endangered in India. It is not obstructed in worshipping at its traditional sacred sites, including the Mahabodhi temple, which Hindus have made available for Buddha worship. India provides shelter to the Dalai Lama, and has sanctioned the creation of a network of Buddhist monasteries and institutes, including a Tibetan-Buddhist university (in Sarnath) and the nerve centres of several international Buddhist organizations. It welcomes Buddhist associations from Japan, Taiwan and other countries and allows them to build pilgrim hostels and research institutes in Sarnath, Bodh Gaya and other Buddha-related sites. It is, moreover, one of the few countries where even most non-Buddhists have a sincere respect for the Buddha and his Dharma. And yet, of all places, India is the one where Arya Sasai has to “liberate” Buddhism from Hindu “oppression”.

http://koenraadelst.voi.org/books/ayodhya/ch3.htm

Hindus have nothing to gain from such a law. Hindu temples up for dispute are very few. While Hindus historians have published long lists of mosques built on demolished temples, no-one has come forward with a similar list of Hindu temples. An impression has been created by the dishonest crowd of secularists that there are many Hindu temples that once were Buddhist. Well, let them start with pointing out where these temples are. Let them secondly bring up documentary or archaeological indications for a forcible rather than a mutually voluntary take-over. And let them show that there is an existing Buddhist community with a genuine use in taking over such a temple. I am sure that Hindus will not object, even regardless of whether the same procedure is applied to mosques that have forcibly replaced temples.



The Bodh Gaya temple case, in which Buddhists and non- Buddhists have co-operated to restore this erstwhile Buddhist place of pilgrimage, has clearly proven this willingness on the part of the Hindu leadership. The British interference and the stubbornness of one temple priest have drawn out the process over several decades, but since 1953 the Bodh Gaya temple is functioning as the Buddhist shrine it originally was.16



Two facts about the Bodh Gaya temple case are particularly inconvenient for the secularist theory of Hindu-Buddhist antagonism. One is that a decisive role in the settlement was played by the "Hindu communalist" organization Hindu Mahasabha. The second is that the Bodh Gaya temple was never forcibly taken over nor destroyed by the Hindus.



The Buddhists abandoned the place when they were exterminated by the Islamic invaders, around 1200 AD. It was lying there, deteriorating, even after a Shaiva monk order came to inhabit the domain in 1590. Only around 1880 did a Hindu priest move in to use the building as a temple, after efforts by the king of Myanmar to repair it were stopped because of the Burmese war. The priest was pressured by the British not to make concessions to the foreign (Lankan and, more seriously, Japanese) Buddhists who were working to revive this Buddhist place of pilgrimage. It was this priest's successor who would thwart all attempts at settlement, even when these involved Swami Vivekananda and Surendranath and Rabindranath Tagore. But the settlement won through. Hindus had never forcibly taken the place from the Buddhists, and yet (or should I say : and that's why) they have shown sensitivity to the Buddhists' attachment to the temple, and restored it as one of Buddhism's chief places of pilgrimage.



If there are more such places (and the anti-Hindu crowd claims there are many), let these secularists put their evidence on the table. As a man of scientific temper, I will not forgive them if they repeat their allegation without substantiating it. You see, the case with allegations is simple : either you prove them, or you withdraw them and offer apologies. The secularists should not get away with doing neither one of these two.



Hindus have, until proof to the contrary, no temples to protect from historical claims, and so they have nothing to gain from a law fixing the status of places of worship. But since I don't think these buildings are really the point, I also don't think such a law would hurt the Hindu cause very much. However, it would be wrong to agree to the enactment of such a law as a quid pro quo for the hand-over of the Ram Janmabhoomi site. Since you don't have to pay for what is yours, Hindus should not give anything in return for the Ram Janmabhoomi. And Muslims will show that their new respect for Hindu sacred places is genuine by not making it conditional. The enactment of a further status-quo should be considered on its own merits and not as a part of a deal.

I guess Hindus have no pride, they'll just keep taking it since they (are the only ones to) declare that we are all of the same religion onlee.



Some Hindu builds the temple for the Buddha. Several centuries after islamania ethnically cleanses Buddhism from the region, Hindus restore the temple and start worshipping there: offering prayers to Shiva(lingam).

Now neo-Buddhists desecrate a Shivalingam at the temple and stomp around to get the temple back from the 'evil Hindooos'. Japanese buddhist spearheads agitation to "liberate" the temple from the "evil greedy Hindoos" who have been worshipping there, and an international Buddhist online site publishes neo-buddhist claims as if they are legitimate.

Still we must all be one religion onlee.



Oh just give that Bodh Gaya temple to them. And next time islamania attacks the Bodh Gaya temple (yes it will, give it time), let's see how far the neo-Buddhists get if Hindus do not lift a finger to defend Buddhism in India. They'll probably just do their disappearing act of last time: running off to Tibet and Sri Lanka and Burma waiting for Hindus to keep their temple safe again.



Even the Dalai Lama didn't get a thousand offers to resettle, and it wasn't the Buddhists of say Sri Lanka or Burma or wherever who found a new home for Tibetan refugees, but the Hindus (who, interestingly, continue to be called "pagans", "animists" and "Hindu animists" and "Hindu pagans" on unguarded occasions - slip of the tongue? - by even the Buddhists in Bangladesh. That's fresh - but not unprecedented - coming as it does from non-theistic "idolators" to "polytheistic idolators").



I'm sorry. I don't make friends with people who desecrate my Shivalingam. And then others of the same religion - but say from Japan or the international BuddhistTV - who gang up with them against the Hindus - Hindus who've lost their Shivalingam. For what?

It's like when islamania does the same. Why make a distinction?



This is something I never understood: why is it always only Hindus who claim all Indic religions are an equal part of Hindu religion and that any who calls themselves Hindu but does not automatically include Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism, they are to be threatened that there is No Hindu Religion Otherwise - just a lot of tattered, equally unrelated sects or something. "Either we're all equally related and are part of the Hindu religion, or there is no Hindu religion". (Except that all those other Indic religions are fortunate enough to have their own names and will choose to declare themselves independent religions whenever they want. If only we were allowed that luxury. It's Hindus that won't allow it.)



And does the other side reciprocate ever?

[G.Subramaniam]

I remember reading that in the later years, a lot of left-hand practises had happened in buddhist monasteries and lots of sex scandals involving buddhist monks and buddhist nuns



Thats why I hate these swaminis who go celibate instead of breeding 5

[Husky]

Post #21

Some years ago, on the internet, I saw a mural of a tibetan buddhist monastery, which had a picture of Ganesha, [...]

1. Why don't you spare people the graphic language, yeah? E.g. if you *must* mention such a matter involving Hindus' Gods, then why don't you refer to it with the italian-origin term so that at least some of the visitors can still be free of the unwanted graphic nature of your vivid terminology.

2. You're making serious allegations here. As usual: either give documentation - references - or else you give no one any reason to accept your statements.



[quote name='G.Subramaniam' date='12 May 2010 - 09:40 AM' timestamp='1273636949' post='106336']I remember reading that in the later years, lots of sex scandals involving buddhist monks and buddhist nuns[/quote]Again: documentation? (Yes, there *is* documentation for this, from legit/unmotivated sources. But when you make many an unverifiable claim, I have to wonder: do you actually have any - esp. reliable - data to back you up?

Also, I doubt that this is something inherently *Buddhist*. Or that it is universal among Buddhist orders. So such data must be qualified.

The matter is very different from christianism.)



[quote name='G.Subramaniam' date='12 May 2010 - 09:40 AM' timestamp='1273636949' post='106336']left-hand practises[/quote]I doubt heathens need atheists/agnostics - who don't know religion (heathenism) or what it is to actually be one (heathen) - to lecture them on religion.

Besides those are *Hindu* practises of the North-East. Not originally Buddhist.

(So you are actually attacking "Hindoooism", just so you know.)



[quote name='G.Subramaniam' date='12 May 2010 - 09:40 AM' timestamp='1273636949' post='106336']Thats why I hate these swaminis who go celibate instead of breeding 5[/quote]Good grief. Not that again.



Others' celibacy is up to them. Hindu swamis' celibacy is up to Hindu swamis. They pursue their chosen path for reasons known to and understood by them.

People who don't understand the heathen reasoning of legitimate sannyasis, and who use fake 'swamis' as an opportunity to attack the sannyasi state for the sake of the socio-political/nationalist purpose of "demographically-targeted 'breeding'" really don't need to comment.



If you want heathens to counter-'breed', then it is for the sake of their heathenism that they must do it. Not for the sake of modern nationalisms and to satisfy modern nationalists who insult heathenism left and right and who expect heathens to abandon their heathenism in order to do so.

The eternal monotheistic tendency.





The Rishis of the Hindu religion married, yes. While sannyasis are celibate, as far as I know. Neither offends the Hindu laity.

[HareKrishna]

[quote name='G.Subramaniam' date='12 May 2010 - 09:40 AM' timestamp='1273636949' post='106336']

I remember reading that in the later years, a lot of left-hand practises had happened in buddhist monasteries and lots of sex scandals involving buddhist monks and buddhist nuns



Thats why I hate these swaminis who go celibate instead of breeding 5

[/quote]

Irrelevant,

None of above is a reason for shunning buddhism.

Other reasons are in play:

1-some buddhists see hinduism as inferior from doctrinal point of view,or because they read some "History of religions" books were hindus are presented as destroyers of buddhists in India.

2-other buddhists feel their national identity threatened by hindus ,especially in south-east Asia

3-other are simply feeling shame to be put on the same level whit hindus,because western-"modernism" ideology see hindus as primitive idolaters living in poverty,and the buddhists dont want to appear as non-fashionable,not being whit "the wave" .

[agnivayu]

[quote name='HareKrishna' date='13 May 2010 - 03:50 AM' timestamp='1273702332' post='106348']

Irrelevant,

None of above is a reason for shunning buddhism.

Other reasons are in play:

1-some buddhists see hinduism as inferior from doctrinal point of view,or because they read some "History of religions" books were hindus are presented as destroyers of buddhists in India.

2-other buddhists feel their national identity threatened by hindus ,especially in south-east Asia

3-other are simply feeling shame to be put on the same level whit hindus,because western-"modernism" ideology see hindus as primitive idolaters living in poverty,and the buddhists dont want to appear as non-fashionable,not being whit "the wave" .

[/quote]



Yes, there has been tremendous propaganda against Hinduism as inferior. The reason is simple, There are one billion Hindus living in a nation that's big enough to challenge the West unlike Buddhism which is splintered and divided with the most powerful Buddhist nation Japan with only 125 million people. Interesting that Western Buddhists ignore the Burakamin Buddhists castes of Japan or the Castes of Tibet.

The Western image of Indian Hindus as primitive is a huge strategic advantage of Hindus. When Hindu power is greater than the West, they won't expect it and will be standing with their pants down. We should play up the image of a weak, backward Hindu, let the West rest on their laurels. With a $30 Trillion Indian GDP, let's see what kind of human rights lectures come from the Western snobs (inheritors of the Christian casta and slave system)

Interesting that Pakistan which had a huge lead over India in 1947 today has a lower per capita GDP (in 10 years will be 1/3 the per capita GDP at present growth rates), 10 years less life expectancy,half the literacy rate. Ditto for Bangladesh. The White boys used to say Islam is superior to the Hindu caste system, where are they now? I have a national geographic article from 1952 to prove it.

[shamu]

Following was posted by abhishekcc in BRF

My first reaction on reading Sukhothai's post was TF, why is he talking about religion in an economic thread? But he deserves a fitting reply after abusing Hinduism.



I consider Buddhism as an ill formed, incomplete religion. Look at the four cardinal truths of Buddhism:

1. There is suffering

2. The root of suffering is attachment

3. It is possible to end suffering

4. The eight fold path is the way to end suffering.



1. The first cardinal truth is the biggest lie, and the foundation of the manipulation in the other 'truths'.

There is both suffering AND pleasure in the world. When Siddhartha Gautam (SG) mentions only suffering, he is PREYING on the sorrows and disappointments that all human beings face in their lives.By failing to mention pleasure, he is not being honest with his audience.



2. The second truth is somewhat honest, but it is a half truth at best. Attachment is not only the basis of paiin, but also pleasure and success. Attachment is the reason we fight for our families, our country, our friends and our values.

The correct thing to say is that attachment with sensory perception is the cause of suffering AND pleasure, both failure AND success.

Why this small distinction is necessary will become clear in the next point.



3. The third truth is again misleading in its intention. It is effectively trying to seduce into believing that suffering of sensory variety is going to end. It does not tell people that even pleasure will end. SG is lying again. He should have made clear that detachment from sensory allusions make both pain and pleasure immeasurably small and irrelevant.



4. The last cardinal 'truth' leads to the singh, dhamma, and buddha - IOW Sangham Sharanam Gachchami, etc, etc.

But here also, he pulled a fast one on the world. He first asked people to stop worshipping all the gods, etc, etc. Then he asserted that the path to salvation is by surrendering to him. WTF. All he wanted to do was remove other gods and become god himself. THis is ridiculous.





---------------------

Buddhism does not practice non-violence. It practices violence of a very refined AND hypocritical variety. They claim not to hurt anyone and practice karuna towards all. But why do they do the Kalchakra poojan every 6 years? It is meant for the destruction of Islam. Kalchakra poojan has PERVERTED the practice of Shree vidya, the most creative vidya is now being used for destruction. All the pain and suffering you see in the entire planet today is a result of that creative energy getting perverted. The creative energy that sustains life on this planet is being abused by a bunch of parasitic monks who do nothing and still can afford the best of clothes, vehicles, homes (and women).



And even when Buddhists pray for the destruction of Islam, they are such hypocrites that they will not pick up arms themselves. They expect others (Hindus) to die for them.

This one is posted by Purush:

Sukhothai wrote:

Why did the Chinese not follow Hinduism but follow Buddhism.

The obvious answer is that they're civilizationally too dumb to understand the intricacies and the depth of the philosophy of Hinduism. They have been conditioned for much of their civilizational existence to unconditionally following orders. They need an easy to follow, nicely compiled bullet point list of religious Dos and Don'ts. There is no scope in their civilization for independent thought or philosophy (That's so very clear even in modern day china..look at how enthusiastically the cultural revolution was executed lol). Buddhism as well as the Abrahamic religions do that gig very well. No wonder the Western religions are expanding like crazy in China and Korea.



And thanks for adding Chipanda to the 'Buddhist list'...I was unsure whether it really fits in...but you seem to think so, and their history of brutality and violence reinforces my point that they have a Borg mentality with an innate propensity for organized violence.



BTW, what's wrong with painting all those violent fruitcakes in the East as 'Buddhists'. If you can label the Maoist twats as 'disgruntled' Hindus, I can do the same for the Khmer Rouge, JVP, CPC and other assorted weirdos and link them to Buddhism.



And Buddhism itself is fragmented ...ever heard of the Hinayana and Mahayana schools? All religions are fragmented..protestant/mormon/sunni/shia/catholic/blah blah. Probably the only exception is the Baha'i faith.



Take this to some other thread if you don't want to get lathicharged by the admins.

I am not wasting anymore time on responding to your bullpakistan....nothing we haven't seen or heard before here.

This one is posted by derkonig

Buddha is *not* an avatar of Vishnu. Shri Vishnu advocated the importance of duty or dharma, Buddha was someone who ran away from his troubles. He deserted his wife & infant child & is therefore not looked upon too well in Hinduism and is not worthy of emulation.

Secondly, I would like to know from the PRC drone who seems to be so very convinced about the glory of buddhism, why has it disappeared from china? Why is the common chinese spiritually bankrupt? Why has the chinese society returned back to its feral state where the ethnic han preys upon other hans and they together prey upon the ethnic minorities like the Tibetans?



Fact is that the chinese were barbarians before buddhism came to their land. They could the not come up with any indigenous religion/spiritual system (confucianism is a steaming pile of dung & hence does not count) and had to wait for buddhism to civilize them, now that buddhism has been crushed in china, the chinese are again back to being the barbarians that they truly are.

[Bharatvarsh2]

The last post is incorrect.



By any common definition the chIna-s had their own independent civilization before bauddha-s influenced them. A bunch of barbarians could have never come up with all the literature and scientific achievements (though clearly exaggerated in the West thanks to the socialist Joseph Needham) that they came up with. Whether one considers Confucianism & Taoism bunk is clearly an individual preference but "spiritual" systems they sure are.



The average Hindu lives in a world of delusion where he is content to praise himself for "tolerance" (excuse for cowardice) and does not study his shatru-s. Thus the common myth that bauddha mata made the chIna-s compatible with our civilization while the modern rudhira-dhvaja take over drove a wedge between us, this is far from the truth to anyone who knows the chIna philosophy of "legalism" (smarter version of Islam as G. Sub put it) which has always been the undercurent between the various sheens adopted by the chIna rulers from bauddha mata to confuciainism to communism.



While the Hindu has long forgotten dharma and rAjanIti and tells himself myths of upcoming chIna collapse or bhArata being ahead of chIna economically, the chIna-s view us as a nuisance to their long cherished svapna-s of world conquest and the mleccha-s as their primary vairin-s. They see the mussalmans as temporary allies to contain both the mleccha-s and bhArata and consider nepAla and the entire North-East to be ripe for the plucking where they can dump their excess males to Hanize the whole place as they currently are doing in Xinjiang and Tibet.



While all this is happening the secular Indian sena is given outdated equipment and is in no position to face a chIna invasion, we will be humiliated once again just like in 1962 if they decide to strike.



In the last 1000 or so years the chIna territory has expanded by leaps and bounds (Tibet alone makes up 1/3rd of chIna) while the Hindu has already lost gAndhAra, pakistan, eastern vanga and is in the process of losing kAshmIra, keraLa, kAmarUpa, WB.

[agnivayu]

Posted Yesterday, 06:51 PM

HareKrishna, on 24 May 2010 - 05:32 PM, said:

like here?

http://www.essortmen...andbud_rtqs.htm





Between Hinduism and Buddhism, I believe that Buddhism is more positive religion. The myths and history of Hinduism create a field of immensely greater interest than that of Buddhism. The culture of Hinduism also seems more captivating, although this is only by virtue of its distinct difference with Western class systems. Despite the draw Hinduism holds upon outsiders, Buddhism remains the more advanced religion. Whereas Hinduism represses others through caste, Buddhism projects ultimate acceptance. Both religions maintain an emphasis upon the community and a rejection of selfishness that is refreshingly different from Western religions. Although both of these religions instill respect and a genuine concern for others, Hinduism does so in a forced, repressive manner while Buddhism is more liberal.





Colonial Propaganda. Buddhism as a "improvement" on Hinduism is an old colonial trick. Why would Buddhism be praised by the West and not Hinduism? The answer is actually very easy, there are a lot more Hindus than Buddhists and they live concentraed in one large country making potential Hindu power very potent. The Westerners always praise the "small" groups, Sikhs, Buddhists etc.. The reason is they like to have the little fish biting at the big fish, thus the Whitey can then stroll in the rule over all of them.



Tibetan Monasteries had slaves, was that part of Buddhism's enlightenment? Japanese even today have the Burakamin untouchable caste. Why don't these great social reformers in Buddhism take up the cause of the Burakamin caste? Not to mention the Xenophobic attitude of most Japanese towards other Asians (manifested during World War 2).

The Dalai Lama fled and had to take refuge in Hindu India. If it weren't for Hindu generosity, Tibetan Buddhism would be extinct. Does any Western Buddhist have the balls to state that. Let's see the superstitious Hindu seems to working in large numbers as Engineers and Scientists. The inferior Hindu is now designing the world's latest computer chips. Let's see if the White man is accurate in their assessment about us. Let's see if Whitey still has a big mouth with a Indian GDP of $40 Trillion. Previously, according to them, Islam was more enlightened and tolerant of others than Hinduism and thus Pakistan was supposed to move far ahead of India by now. How did that work out O' great colonial master?





Don't tell me Buddhism is enlightened, I have seen the Monks physically fighting each other in South Korea and in Sri Lanka, nothing about them struck me as enlightened.

[agnivayu]

Posted 22 May 2010 - 09:33 AM

Swamy G, on 02 May 2010 - 10:36 PM, said:

Time and time again, we extend our hands,out to the World, to only be chopped up off. Like the lizard's tail, our hands grow and yet again out reach towards humanity in a never ending cycle of creation and destruction of our efforts.

http://www.nzherald....10642345&pnum=0





Good lesson. Constant pandering and trying to appease others is interpreted as a sign of weakness. The comments by the Sikh guy especially sounds like a Khalistani or someone full of hate. What do these guys want, a landlocked small country bordering Pakistan? They won't be Sikh very long like that, probably will be occupied by Pakistan. Forget about the Taoist, if they are interested in talking to Hindus, they can make the first gesture.

A lot of this has to do with the fact that the identity of "Hindu" carries a lot of baggage due to the vicious and continuous propaganda by the West, so people like to disassociate with that (example: Deepak Chopra). Bottom line is none of the other so called "Dharmic" religions have ever really wanted to help us. We outnumber them greatly (hence the Western targeted attack on Hinduism for the last 200 years), so in reality in the long run they will need our help rather than the other way around. It's better to focus our energy in uniting all Hindus, many of whom have developed self hatred due to brainwashing by colonial propaganda.

I have seen this with Buddhists etc also, never act too eager in wanting their support. While they may be light years better than Abrahamic religions, many of them are also driven by ethnic nationalism which clouds their thinking. Western Buddhists are a great example, you won't get any support from hardly any of them, they will probably mock Hindus or give a stern patronizing lecture on human rights as though they are superior.

[sai_k]

Buddhism, I read evades answering about "Creation", while Hinduism has ton of answers and stories, even satisfying String theory, M theory, Big Bang etc.

[Guest]

I cross post this here to show one more evidence of the sheen of Buddhism: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-gol...28533.html



Read the comments section. The article per se does not talk much about Buddhism. But the few times it is mentioned brings out the Buddhist sympathizers in droves.

[acharya]

Quote

Sukhothai wrote:

Why did the Chinese not follow Hinduism but follow Buddhism.

This was answered recently by Dr Subramaniam Swamy.



THe original Buddhism in in India is Theravada -

Theravada (Pāli: थेरवाद theravāda, Sanskrit: स्थविरवाद sthaviravāda); literally, "the Teaching of the Elders" or "the Ancient Teaching", is the oldest surviving Buddhist school. It was founded in India. It is relatively conservative, and generally closest to early Buddhism,[1] and for many centuries has been the predominant religion of Sri Lanka (about 70% of the population[2]) and most of continental Southeast Asia (Cambodia, Laos, Burma, Thailand). Theravada is also practiced by minorities in parts of southwest China (by the Shan and Tai ethnic groups), Vietnam (by the Khmer Krom), Bangladesh (by the ethnic groups of Baruas, Chakma, and Magh), Malaysia and Indonesia, while recently gaining popularity in Singapore and the Western World. Today Theravada Buddhists number over 100 million worldwide, and in recent decades Theravada has begun to take root in the West and in the Buddhist revival in India.[3]





China adopted the Mahayana Buddhism which is more similar to Hinduism. In practice Mahayana is very similar to Hinduism practice and hence Chinese from the historic times did not see any difference between the Hinduism and the Buddhism they were introduced to. [size="5"]So if somebody start talking about difference between Hinduism and Buddhism and talks one is superior to other then he is faking it and does not know the Indian traditions and Dharma.

Colonial view point wants to make such comparison and highlight differences. Western view point are also to absorb what they want from these traditions and claim it is superior. Fractal recursivity makes the Indians to see the western view point and start talking and believing like them[/size]



Mahāyāna Buddhism originated in India.

The Mahāyāna tradition is the larger of the two major traditions of Buddhism existing today. According to the teachings of Mahāyāna traditions, "Mahāyāna" also refers to the path of aspiring to liberate all beings to Nirvāṇa, also called "Bodhisattvayāna", or the "Bodhisattva Vehicle."[1][2]

In the course of its history, Mahāyāna Buddhism spread from India to various other Asian countries such as China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and Mongolia. Major traditions of Mahāyāna Buddhism today include Zen (Chán), Pure Land, Tiantai, Nichiren, and Esoteric Buddhism (Shingon, Tibetan Buddhism).

The Chinese monk Yijing who visited India in the 7th century CE, distinguishes Mahāyāna from Hīnayāna as follows:[15]

Both adopt one and the same Vinaya, and they have in common the prohibitions of the five offences, and also the practice of the Four Noble Truths. Those who venerate the bodhisattvas and read the Mahayana sūtras are called the Mahāyānists, while those who do not perform these are called the Hīnayānists.

[acharya]

http://www.allempires.com/article/index....f_buddhism



Buddhism, as it is practiced today, has three principal branches viz. Theravada (the school of the elders), Mahayana (the greater Vehicle) and Vajrayana (the diamond vehicle).Of the three the Mahayana school of Buddhism is spread over a wider geographical area. It covers the vast populace of Tibet, China, Mongolia, Nepal, Vietnam, Korea, and Japan. It is also more diverse in its content as it encompasses a variety of Buddhist schools. It is more emotional, warmer, and more personal in devotion, more ornate in art, literature and ritual. It also has a record of striving to invent or include doctrines agreeable to the masses of the region. It is even seen as being closer to Hinduism as far as the rituals and practices are concerned.



It is in this context that, recently, someone on the Forum asked me a question concerning the proximity of Mahayana Buddhism to Hinduism.



E. Mahayana - Hinduism



10. Now, before coming to issue of Hindu influence we can digress a bit. While discussing the similarities among various Indian languages Prof. Emeneau, a well-known American scholar, in his classic paper, “India as a Linguistic Area”, came up with the concept of linguistic area for explaining the underlying Indian-ness of apparently divergent cultural and linguistic patterns. The resemblances between two or more languages (whether typological or in vocabulary), he said, can be due to genetic relation (descent from a common ancestor language), or due to borrowing at some time in the past between languages. He also said, essentially different but geographically and physically proximate languages often exhibit shared linguistic features.



We can perhaps extend this view to cover various religions that took birth or that took root in India. Amanda Coomaraswamy , the great scholar, once said “The more superficially one studies Buddhism, the more it seems to differ from Brahmanism in which it originated; the more profound our study, the more difficult it becomes to distinguish Buddhism from Brahmanism, or to say in what respects, if any, Buddhism is really unorthodox.”. The Buddha did not fight the religion of India of his time .He had a benevolent view towards it and its scholars. He however objected to the ritualistic aspect of that religion. Buddhist Rahula Walpole wrote,” the Buddha was trying to shed the true meaning of the Vedas. Buddha is a knower of the Veda (vedajña) or of the Vedanta (vedântajña) [(Sa.myutta, i. 168) and (Sutta Nipâta, 463].” Hindus scholars have also accepted the Buddha and Buddhism as a fulfillment of Sanatana Dharma.



11. Hinduism and Buddhism influenced each other in many ways. The Buddhist notion of non-injury and compassion toward all living beings took deep roots in the Indian ethos, while Mahayana Buddhism took cue from the traditional Indian methods of devotional worship. Buddhism influenced the growth and development of Indian art and architecture and contributed richly to the practice of breathing and meditation in attaining mindfulness and higher states of consciousness. The Hindu tantra influenced the origin and evolution of Vajrayana Buddhism that flowered in Tibet. The systems of Buddhism and Hinduism are not either contradictory to one another or completely self contained.



12. We may say that in the first few centuries following the nirvana of the Buddha, Buddhism was an integral and significant part of that complex religious character of the Indian subcontinent, which the outsiders called as Hinduism. However over a period thereafter Buddhism crossed the boundaries of the Indian subcontinent and went on to play a much greater role in the whole of Asia. In the process, it developed a very complex sectarian, theological and geographical diversity and a tradition of its own to become one of the most significant and influential religions of the world. Many people who are not familiar with the history of the Indian subcontinent fail to understand the deep connection that existed between Hinduism and Buddhism in the earlier days and the significant ways in which they enriched each other.



F. Conclusion



13. Thus, the birth of Mahayana was not as a reaction to Hinduism .It was a concept that emerged out of churning of ideas within the Buddhist community. Perhaps it was the need of the time. The Mahayana did not deviate from the doctrines enunciated by the historical Buddha .The various forms that Mahayana assumed in different geographical and cultural contexts were a part of the dynamics of its growth. The Mahayana in any country has to be viewed against the broad canvas of that region’s cultural and religious uniqueness. This is true in the Indian context too. Further, the systems of Buddhism and Hinduism are not either contradictory to one another or completely self contained.



14. What happened to Buddhism in India after eighth century and Muslim invasion is another story.

[Guest]

Why did the European powers see Buddhism different from Hinduism? The Indic traditions had different maargams and gurus. Buddhist traditions use the karma, reincarnation, moksha, samsara, dukha ityadi too - all these are common to Indic traditions. Buddha rejected some traditions/practices and accepted/followed several other Indic traditions.



So what did the Europeans see so different?

[shamu]

To create divisions within Indic traditions.

[Guest]

For some reason, I reject that easy answer; and do not think that is the right answer as well. Divisions and disagreements existed between Indic traditions always.

[Pandyan]

Just like flogging the dead horse that is Max Mueller, Hindus never lose an opportunity to blame the British. It may be that these are both distinct traditions by themselves, without the insidious and deceptive British creating divisions among them. As far as I am concerned, Buddhism is threat to survival of Hinduism and its good that it got wiped out like it did in North West by sullaism.

[Husky]

1/2



Throughout this post, I'm going to horribly misuse, twist and reword HH's earlier statement which BV posted - and I am probably paraphrasing his words here - that Bauddha Dharma 'subverted the ancestral Dharma' (or something). He probably meant something deep with the original unadulterated statement, but I simply mean to use this handy phrase in the sense that Bauddha Dharma hijacked local indigenous religions - where it did not succeed in completely eradicating these religions - for legitimising Buddhism.





Something Hindus and other Indians eagerly forget is that Buddhism is a missionary religion and all that that implies and has meant. It didn't spread easy as melted butter over Asia.



First, Buddhism tried to persecute local religions to extinction - for example, even later, it consciously and systematically attempted this in Tibet and succeeded (a decent book on the subject is better, but www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=40,5769,0,0,1,0 hints at a little on the Bon case, even though it also brushes over the difficulties and the extent of what has been lost).

But elsewhere, after the initial attempts to suppress the local religions in its favour had failed (e.g. E Asia), Buddhism had to compromise into becoming Mahayana Buddhism forms in order to gain laity: subverting local religions by making the local Gods into "upholders of Bauddha Dharma" and by insinuating Buddhist identity and/or superiority into local religions' narratives concerning the native religion's Gods.



The only way Buddhism could get any hold on the local religion's laity is by having Gods. Buddhism acquired the necessary Gods from local religions. And frequently, Buddhism used Hindu religion (Gods and rituals) - both pre-existing established Hindu religion such as in Thailand, Cambodia, Siberia and E Asia, as well as elements of Hindu religion that Buddhism, when it later arrived, would import on top of that from India - to pave its path to smooth conversion. That's because these Asian populations were used to their own Gods, which made them open to Hindu Gods when Hindus went to SE and E Asia. From experience, Buddhism knew it spreads well atop a Hindu base and so automatically used it everywhere it succeeded.



This is quite in contrast to how Hindu religion had established itself in parts of Asia earlier, which was possible because Hindu Dharmic tradition could be incorporated easily into the local religion: Hindu Gods easily added to the local religion's pantheon (e.g. Shinto in Japan, also Tibet, Thailand - even some Hindu elements in Daoism), the way GrecoRoman Gods and hence even their associated tradition easily added to Middle-Eastern pantheons such as among Arabians. To this day, at least some full Shintos keep fully-Hindu Gods (i.e. not the Buddhist versions of Hindu Gods) alongside their own pantheon, even though they do not keep a Buddha or do anything Buddhist.



Hindu religion has lost much of Asia at the expense Buddhism: Buddhism took every part of Asia where Hindu religion had earlier been able to take root alongside local religions among the local population. Buddhism used Hindu Gods/religion to do so, just as Buddhism also used local Asian religions to achieve its conversions. Buddhism's success in southeastern and eastern Asia is entirely due to local religions and Hindu religion. E.g. Mahayana Buddhism in east Asia *is* largely hijacked Taoism and Shinto - and the local features of Buddhist culture there is actually Taoist and Shinto religio-culture (but today's Hindus still cheer Buddhism as "our greatest export"). Similarly, Buddhism in Tibet ended up importing Hindu elements (DMVs, associated rituals and related) from the NE of India, and once again masked the fundamentally Hindu identity of the Gods by giving them Buddhist identities.





There simply is no Mahayana Buddhism in the far east without their local (Taoist and Shinto) Gods. It is entirely due to the native religions of Taoism and Shinto that the character of Buddhism is the way it is in the far east. Even today, many among the lay Mahayana Buddhists of the far east worship mainly the Taoist Gods at home and in their ancestral temples. However, even if MB in China and Taiwan is permeated with Taoism, Taoism itself has sadly been deposed, replaced and marginalised. The understanding of its Gods has been subverted by forced association and assimilation with unrelated Buddhism. Hindus have been more fortunate than these others in that, unlike E Asia where the local religions used to be the vast majority once upon a time and was thereafter replaced by Buddhism, India is still majority Hindu, following the old religion of the Gods.



SE Asia was largely Hindu (Hindu Gods in their pantheon) before it ever became Buddhist. Thailand, Cambodia, parts of Hindu-then-Buddhist-then-islamist Indonesia, etc. The Gods in the Buddhism you see there is again from their previous religion: Hindu Dharma. In Sri Lanka, there are some 'Buddhist' laity whose primary worship is to Murugan/Kartikeya (frequently alongside his two consorts). Whether they do anything Buddhist or not I don't know. Obviously it is their ancestral Gods they continue to worship as per their ancestral religion, and in this way they remain attached to their old religion in all but identity-label. IIRC, SL's Theravada Buddhists reason their behaviour away with how such attachment to Gods will help with Buddhist meditation. (Even though the laity in question seem to regard these Gods as an end in themselves, rather than keeping nirvana firmly in mind.)



Before any declare that, on the strength of the above examples, it somehow magically 'proves' that "of course this means Buddhism (naturally) has Gods", they can point to a Buddhism with consistent Gods: one which has Gods in all places where Buddhism exists AND moreover has the same Gods. It does not. (Because it is not a Gods-based, Gods-centred religion.)

Where Buddhism exists AND has Gods, it has the (a) local, pre-Buddhist Gods of the region plus possibly (b.) either Hindu Gods from pre-Buddhist Hindu presence or from Hindu Gods imported by Buddhism to help with converting laity used to Gods.

Note that regardless of Buddhist superimpositions on top of Shinto and Taoist Gods etc as being "upholders of Bauddha Dharma", these Gods are NOT Buddhist and are unrelated to Buddhism (though they may be attached to any among Buddhist laity who continue to be devoted to them, for the sake of this devotion).





Indians tend to regard Buddhism as one of our best/greatest exports, but taking a step back, it wasn't great news all round. India - the originating locus of this missionising - is responsible for what was done to the native traditions of Tibet, Japan, China (and Korea too apparently) and large parts of SE Asia. The one 'upside' is that Hindus and Hindu Dharma are not at all responsible for any of it - since Hindus are not Buddhists.

Missionary religions are simply a nuisance. Further to the west, the GrecoRomans fortunately didn't take to Buddhism greatly (it was an alien religion in more ways than one) and stuck to their Gods like reliable, loyal, sensible people would. And so, one doesn't hear of Zeus and the other GR Gods being "bodhisattvas" - which of course they aren't and wouldn't ever be. The Persians more significantly commented on the push they felt from the east by Buddhism, round about the time when they found themselves beleaguered by christianism that emanated from the west. (I don't know their particular reasoning for feeling concerned by the onset of Buddhism, but it may have been incompatibility with their established religion, Mazda Yasna, and the fact that Buddhism was very missionary.)

[Husky]

2/2



Some selections from post #34:

The Buddhist notion of non-injury and compassion toward all living beings

If it isn't Jains claiming originating this, it's the Buddhists. They can fight it out among themselves, but neither have proved that these things didn't pre-exist in Hindu Dharma. HD simply didn't universally insist on it in *all* instances (but then, HD does not insist on things like militant pacifism - or conversion - either.)

The systems of Buddhism and Hinduism are not either contradictory to one another or completely self contained.

Hindu religion is quite self-contained. That Buddhism is or isn't self-contained is up to Buddhists to decide. However, the fact that Buddhism has been severely dependent on local Asian religions for what are, in practice, fundamental components, does suggest to me that Buddhism is *not* complete and self-contained, as is admitted above. Certainly, its origin and rituals and practices are entirely dependent on local Asian religions. Even its art and architecture frequently are.

Buddhist Rahula Walpole wrote,” the Buddha was trying to shed the true meaning of the Vedas. Buddha is a knower of the Veda (vedajña) or of the Vedanta (vedântajña) [(Sa.myutta, i. 168) and (Sutta Nipâta, 463].”

And what would Buddhists - like this Rahula - know about the Vedas? (And did the Buddha know the Vedam? <- With which I don't mean flipping through pages in books. Because even I can do that.)

Plus, despite earlier (brahmana) Hindu converts to Buddhism - just in one part of India I think - continuing to use IIRC the Shree Sooktam after conversion and trying to introduce it into Buddhism, the Vedas - and other Hindu shastras and religious rituals - are specifically NOT Buddhist. I don't care who may say otherwise, they would simply be wrong.

Hindus scholars have also accepted the Buddha and Buddhism as a fulfillment of Sanatana Dharma.

The presumption. Sadly, not an uncommon one.



But what - which 'Hindu' scholars? If such actually exist, can they please convert to Buddhism already and stop misusing the label Hindu. And stop speaking for Hindu Dharma altogether.

Reminds me of the kind of 'Hindu' vocalist whose words I came across in recent months and who declared that (paraphrasing, as it's from memory): 'Buddhism condensed the best of Hinduism. Except it was a pity that Mahayana Buddhism then developed and incorporated so much of Hindu superstition again'. (Seems in line with the mindset of some Indian nationalist quoted by Elst on the Bharatvani site: the nationalist was asked whether Jains were Hindus and declared instantly that "Jains were the best (type of) Hindus". Or something. Is this suppposed to be clever? Is no one else offended? Why are Hindus such shove-overs? But, No. *Hindus* are the best type of Hindus. Jains are the best type of Jains. Parallel statements for Buddhists, Sikhs, enz.)

Why do all these modern Indians want to enforce some 'unity' (the kind of 'unity' that is contingent on conformity) and, moreover, seek to achieve it by sacrificing the Hindu identity of Hindus and Hindus' religion? You don't see other Indic traditions doing this. They like to preserve their uniqueness and value their religions. Good for them. Why can't Hindus? Why are they forever to be represented by self-appointed ignorants and self-loathing people ashamed of their ancestral religion. Who knows.



However, these 'Hindu' scholars could not be speaking for any traditional Hindus. Hindus are not ashamed of their religion.



Anyway:

a) First of all, Buddhism and its nihilism attempted to subvert Hindu religion. Fortunately for Hindus, Buddhism just ended up becoming its own religion instead of hijacking all Hindudom in entirety.



b.) Buddha/Buddhism is NOT the fulfillment of Sanatana Dharma. (Neither is Jainism, nor is Sikhism, etc.) Hindu religion is not dead. Nor does it find fulfilment in other religions or other Gods or other non-God views. It is its own fulfilment: the Hindu Dharmic tradition is a complete religion in itself. I've had enough of Replacement Theology that each missionary religion practices in its own way.



Buddha is not the "seal of the prophets" in the Dharmic context. <- That's a convenient ruse to hijack Hindus/Hindu religion with. Such a ruse continues to be used by Indian Buddhisms - such as that in SL - to call for the conversion of India.



I'm sure people here can't be ignorant of the following older case:

[color="#0000FF"]www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=43,2636,0,0,1,0[/color]

Lankan leader sought India’s return to Buddhism

by PK Balachandran, The Hindustan Times, May 1, 2006



Colombo, Sri Lanka -- Anagarika Dharmapala, the famous Sri Lankan Buddhist leader who spearheaded a successful movement to revive Buddhism and Buddhist culture in his island country in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, had also urged the Hindus of India to return to Buddhism.

(Pass. And what is this "Return" to Buddhism? Again, what presumption. Its demographic success was never as great as some claim - also seen from the fact that islamism was able to mostly extinct Buddhists in India whereas large swathes of Hindus still remained.

Any success Buddhism had in the past was largely due to royal patronage, and furthermore obtained only after hijacking native religions. To this day, Buddhist laity in Asia are retained by that earlier hijack of their ancestral religions. <- Hardly a success that Buddhist tenets themselves won for Bauddha Dharma. Any use of "return" would imply a directional movement *into* people's ancestral religions.)

[...]



Dharmapala also argued that India would be united into a "compact whole" only if the polity was based on Buddhism.

(And only jeebus brings peace. Yes, heard it all before.)

[...]



He wondered how powerful Buddhism would be in the world, and how wonderful relations between India and Sri Lanka would be, if only India, with its teeming millions, were to go back to Buddhism.

(Maybe Hindus don't want "wonderful relations" with SL on these terms... Islamics also promise great relations between India and the islamic world, such as with Pukestan, by Hindus' conversion to islamism. Don't know about others, but am going to have to pass again on *both* invites.)



Dharmapala was by no means an enemy of Hinduism. He did not desire the annihilation of Hinduism.

(No, he just wants Hindu religion to disappear by Hindus becoming Buddhists. Comes down to the same thing.)



He recognised the basic differences between the two systems of beliefs and practices, and yet he saw a basic commonality, which made co-existence possible and desirable.

(Where "co-existence" is defined as all of India's Hindus becoming Buddhists instead.)



To him, Hinduism and Buddhism were part of a continuum, with Buddhism being a higher stage of development in a long series.

(Not really. Hindu Dharma stands on its own. Hindu Dharma was already perfectly developed and can be found at its highest stages in Vedic and other ancient *Hindu* Shastraic literature.)

And more of the usual when he comments on Hindu religion - where have people seen this before:

"Hence we find polytheism (worship of many Gods) in the early days."



Rituals, sacrifices, the development of a priesthood and hierarchies appeared during the effort to appease the Gods as seen as in the forces of nature. Worship also began to be directed towards worldly gains.

(Boo to the rituals and sacrifices again, and to the Gods. And he trivialises what the Gods mean, as only those ignorant of them can.

Later, the same Dharmapala will then claim that Buddhism is miraculously not nastika. Yes it is.)



When the intellect grew, new ideas came into existence, as seen in the celebrated Upanishads, Dharmapala pointed out.

(Never mind that the Vedas too are very much "celebrated" among Hindus.)



On the Upanishads, he could do no better than quote the well-known German Indologist, Max Muller.

So then he resorts to quoting mueller's Translator's Opinion - of all lame ducks (<- see, it's obviously not just the Indoos that keep bringing up that dead horse) - to selectively "find" that the Gita and Upanishads Boo at the rituals of the Vedas. I read the Gita, and from memory it never booed at the Vedic rituals but rather said (I really ought to confirm this) that 'mere austerities and rituals will not allow one to know Bhagavan'. Which is not the same thing.

[color="#0000FF"][INSERTED: It's not "know" Bhagavan, but "see" the Vishwaroopam: end of Gita's chapter on the Vishvaroopam says that Bhagavan's Vishvaroopam form can't be seen by mere austerities,... etc. Better to read it. But he does not repudiate the Vedas or its sacrifices. After all, in a later chapter of the same Gita, Krishna not only declares himself to BE the Vedas and its Knower, as well as the Vedanta, he eventually also revisits Dharma: that the sacrifices prescribed by the shaastras must be performed, and with the right/specified offerings etc and I think also the right purpose in mind. He then goes on to explain what kind of sacrifices are unsattvic (those not recognised by [Hindu] Dharma i.e. against [Hindu] Dharma, and those done with the wrong purpose, etc).][/color]

I've not read much of the Upanishads and whatever I did read was in translation and in my teens - in Ancient Times, in other words - but based on that large limitation, I can't remember coming across anything there hissing at Vedic yagnyas. Besides, among Hindus (the Astikas), the Vedas are their own authority and hold their own, their position upheld by the Gods themselves. The Vedas don't rely on other sacred Hindu scriptures to confirm their validity.



Then Dharmapala essentially declares that Gita is superior to the Upanishads, and finds that Buddhism's "philosophy" - which he finds 'remarkably similar' to Gita (very debatable) - to be superior to that of Gita. Of course he does. Besides, if he didn't make these declarations on how the grass is supposedly greener on his side, he could hardly be telling Hindus to "Convert Already" now could he.



There's a lot more self-congratulation at the link, but it's too tiring to wade through.



Like I said, while Anagarika Dharmapala does condescend to say Let's Be Friends and that Hindu and Buddhist religions are not inimical (and later in the article admits Buddhism was snuffed out in India by islamism), he also declares Buddhism to be the 'natural evolutionary result' of Hindoooo religion. Maybe there's a reason the Taoists and Shintos don't like Buddhists' assertion of "we're your religion's evolutionary end-product" either....



What is it with all these missionary religions that they have this horrid habit of regarding Hindu India as ripe for harvest/conversion - like we're some empty space waiting for someone to stick an Ownership Flag on. As if Hindus don't have a complete religion already.

Hindus do. They're perfectly happy with their religion, their Gods.

The 19th century saw a revival of interest in Buddhism in South India. The Buddhist revival movement in North India and South India began almost around the same time. The revival movement had its impact on scholarly work as well as socio political movements in South India.

The sponsorship for conversions to Buddhism in India - both in northern and southern regions - is on-going, if you look in SL news entries at places like IIRC Lankaweb. (And it's not all of the benign, Dharmic sort either: not infrequently, it sounds neo-Buddhist in its anti-Hinduness even without the neo tag. Rather a worry. Or it should be. Makes Dharmapala's overtures - dismissive of Hindu religion though they are - seem positively flattering.)





ADDED: insertion in blue somewhere above.