Removing The Sheen From Buddhism

[Husky]

Post 3/3



4. Going back to the Senguttuvan wacky page:

The Senguttuvan wacky page as at today has put the Raaja Cengottuvan back to Hindu, but has kept his brother Ilango Adigal as a "Jain" and has moreover introduced the famous christianism: the rewrite of Muziris from Kodungalloor (Cranganore) to Pattanam. (Neo-buddhists - christianism's new friends - are also working towards this, BTW. "Curious." As is their support for the St Thomas myth.)



Sometime [color="#0000FF"]between 24 May 2011 and 2 August 2011 (the date may be significant)[/color], the following change was made in Cenguttuvan's wacky page:



http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?titl...=430732202

Muziris (Cranganore)

<=>

[[Muziris]] ([[Pattanam]])

[color="#0000FF"]The above is a forgery of history by chistianism[/color], since it is for the purposes of christianism: it has identified that equating Muziris with Pattanam will be a useful prop for the St Thomas myth and therefore to claim the region and then entire country for the non-existent christ.

Parroting an earlier-posted article:



http://bharatabharati.wordpress.com/2011...ia-report/

Muziris: Dr. Nagaswamy nails false propaganda on St. Thomas – Media Reports

Thiruvananthapuram: The effort made by some interested quarters to link the Muziris excavations with the visit of St. Thomas Apostle has been criticised by eminent archaeologist and former director of the Tamil Nadu Archaeological Survey of India, R. Nagaswamy.



“When looking at the literature on the life of St. Thomas, it is not mentioned anywhere that he came to India. It is only a myth, which has now been connected with the excavations at Pattanam, near Kodungalloor,” the former visiting professor of Jawaharlal Nehru University told Express.



In fact, the ancient Muzirs port must have been located in Kodungalloor and not in Pattanam because all major ports in ancient times were situated at river mouths. And so it is safe to assume that Muziris was at Kodungalloor, where the river joins the sea.



He felt there was a hidden agenda by certain sections to propagate the idea that Muziris was connected to Pattanam, where St. Thomas is believed to have landed, and not with Kodungalloor.



Myth cannot be called history. Connecting myth with history could only create confusion and distort history, he said. “There is no substantial evidence to say that Pattanam is connected with Muziris. How was this conclusion reached? Those who claim to have found materials to connect Pattanam with Muziris have forgotten that these materials were also found in the eastern and the western costs of the country,” said Nagaswamy.

– Express Buzz & IBNLive, Thiruvananthapuram, [color="#0000FF"]August 7, 2011[/color]



ExpressBuzz , Paravoor, April 21, 2011:

Include St. Thomas Church in Muziris says Bishop Dr. Joseph Karikkassery



Paravoor: St Thomas Church in Maliankara which was constructed as a historical monument of the visit of St Thomas Apostle, one of the twelve disciples of Jesus Christ, who landed in Maliankara in AD 52, should be included in the Muzaris Heritage Project, urged Kottapuram Bishop Dr. Joseph Karikkassery.

[...]

There may be a relation between the date of the bishop's declaration above (April 21, 2011) and the change of Muziris from Cranganore to Pattanam in wacky since.



That this change from Muziris being Kodungalloor ("Cranganore") to Pattanam is being made by christianism is also retreaded in:

http://bharatabharati.wordpress.com/2011...pei6d-4yh/

St. Thomas: The making of an “Indian” apostle – Sandhya Jain



Well, since everything in Hindu history is up for grabs by everyone else, why not Muziris too: why can't christianism stake an *equal* claim? (No?)





5. But perhaps the most entertaining/telling insertion into wackypedia in relation to the Senguttuvan page is the following (the insertion is of course made without any supporting evidence, as is the case for all claims of this nature: it's part of the "miracle" of it) -



Wacky history diff between 7 Oct 2008 and 7 Nov 2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?titl...=250227841

'''Senguttuvan''' was a [[Chera dynasty|Chera]] king who ruled Ancient India during the early centuries of the Common Era. He is famous for the legends surrounding [[Kannagi]], the heroine of the [[Tamil language|Tamil]] epic ''[[Silapathikaram]]'' (Manimekalai, another epic about Kovalan's Buddhist daughter). According to legends, [[Ilango Adigal]], the author of ''Cilpatikaram'' was Senguttuvan's brother, but denounced the throne to become saint.

Chera king Senkuttuvan, was an Tamil emperor who ruled for 55 years dated to c. 110 - 165 CE ( Pathirruppaththu ). He was believed to be a Hindu.

<=>

'''Senguttuvan''' was a [[Chera dynasty|Chera]] king who ruled Ancient India during the early centuries of the Common Era. He is famous for the legends surrounding [[Kannagi]], the heroine of the [[Tamil language|Tamil]] epic ''[[Silapathikaram]]'' (Manimekalai, another epic about Kovalan's Buddhist daughter). According to legends, [[Ilango Adigal]], the author of ''Cilpatikaram'' was Senguttuvan's brother, but denounced the throne to become saint. (which is obviously untrue since Ilango Adigal lived in 8th Century CE)

Chera king Senkuttuvan, was an Tamil emperor who ruled for 55 years dated to c. 110 - 165 CE ( Pathirruppaththu ). He was believed to be a Hindu.

a ) The blue bits give the previous Tamizh dating of Cenguttuvan (and hence Ilango Adigal and Cilappadikaaram): 2nd century CE. Whereas Tiruvalluvar - and hence Tirukkural - was IIRC dated 2nd century BCE by the Tamizh Nadu govt. More recently they're all being shifted down. Tiruvalluvar needed to be brought into the christian era: else he can't be made a disciple of Santa Thomas, so he can't have been christian and so can't be claimed for christianism now. Which is why Tiruvallvar has more recently been edged down into CE.

b ) Cilappadikaaram and its author + brother have been shifted to the 5th century CE or thereabouts because of the imperative to identify one character mentioned therein with a SL king of the 5th century (Kayavaagu in Silappadikaaram is identified with one Gajabaahu of SL. SL Buddhist text Mahavamsa mentions a Gajabahu in the 5th century. Yet that SL work apparently says their Gajavahu never left SL, whereas Cilappadikaaram's Kayavaagu is I think specifically mentioned as visiting TN in Bharatam.)

c ) And as can be seen in red above: "certain interests" require Cilappadikaaram to be pushed into the 8th century. Else what to do about the distinctly Hindu religion described in the work - including even brahmanas and yagnyas? How can they be allowed to have existed in Kerala at a time christianism doesn't want them to have been there?





As "funny" as all the above may appear, it is actually something that should concern Hindus. The ancient presence of Hindu religion in Kerala and now even TN is being written out of the area. (And Ayyappa is a part of that project, BTW.) Christianism considers it a necessary step in the christianisation project of the region.

All the above history-rewriting on Cenguttuvan, Ilango Adigal and Cilappadikaaram is relevant because, mentored by christianism which wrote the script, neo-Buddhism - which is now hard at work in TN - can be seen alleging far more than "book burning".

Christians know full well that Hindus will dispute christian claims to Hindu religious works - such as the christolie that Tirukkural's Tiruvalluvar was a christian disciple of St Thomas or even that Tiruvachagam on Shiva is a "secular devotional" hence "equally christian" hence (eventually) "christian" work. Yet christians also know - the way the dummy Hindus never know themselves - that Hindus will silently, even readily, donate all Hindu things away if these are first claimed for Buddhism and Jainism. Hence christianism finds neo-buddhisms to be of great use in laying the groundwork for their latest attempts to claim TN by claiming its history. The two groups (or are they actually one group, the way maoists and christians are one in Orissa, with one just being a cover for the other) are working together to launch their claims - soon to be turned into "history" like other things have been - that:



- "Shramanas" (which reference neo-buddhists appear to use exclusively for Buddhists and Jains) were the original inhabitants of the south of Bharatam, starting with TN - TN being the focal point of current neo-buddhist activities. (In fact, neo-buddhists claim that christians too qualify as original inhabitants of the south of Bharatam. "Surprise!" <- and that reveals the puppeteer behind neo-buddhism, even if not all neo-buddhists are aware of being puppeted.) And the claim that Hindu religion is specifically not an original religion of the southern parts of the subcontinent, let alone the earlier religion.



- that the 2 "Shramana" groups were unified / got along swell and were persecuted by brahmanas (no recognition of the existence of Hindu religion and Hindu laity, of course: that would be admission that it was very much native religion).





Ironically, this is a particularly bad move by neo-Buddhists and their christian puppeteers. Their silly arguments have been dismissed since decades by *actual* Buddhists.

[color="#0000FF"]It really is too bad for neo-'buddhists' that *actual* Buddhists of SL (titled Buddhist monks, no less), briefly covering the history of Buddhism in the south including esp. TN, refer to documented evidence:[/color]



- that Buddhism came *last* to the south: Buddhism arrived at a point when Hindus (of whom only Brahmanas are identified, but Hindu works of the region show that the laity was Hindu), Ajeevikas (earlier class of Shramanas*) and Jains were already there.

- that the other religions had it in for Buddhism, but that Buddhists in southern regions ran off to SL after being badly defeated in debate by *Jainism*, and that thereafter, the other Indic religions in TN had only the weak and already-disappearing remnants of Buddhism to compete with. To get to the point: the SL Buddhist claim is that Jainism dealt Buddhism in TN the fatal blow. (Not that Buddhism hadn't been trying the same in reverse: Buddhists had been constantly trying to "refute" Jainism too.)





* The term Shramanas is here used in specific (non-generic) sense.