Removing The Sheen From Buddhism

[Husky]

5/n



Moving on, it seems even the Charvakas are turned into a spin-off of the Shramanic religion (I never heard that one before.... While the Epicureans of GR space are ascetic and fit a very general meaning of terms like shramana or yati at least - down to being not just frugal and vegetarians but IIRC avoiding promiscuity and even going towards abstinence/celibacy. But the Charvaka ideology... is ascetic/shramana? Maybe I just missed the reasoning behind the argument?)

Though Shramana traditions are associated with ascetism, some shramana traditions were, in fact, peculiar as materialists, in the sense they preached a worldly existence and carried denunciation of brahmanical orthodoxy to the extreme.[14][13] The Shramana traditions included a range of beliefs, such as the Cārvākas, who on one end of the spectrum lived a luxurious life, to the Jainas, who on the other hand, developed a theory of extreme self-mortification. Some Shramanas were openly critical of the sacrificial traditions of the brahmins and the concepts of Karma, claiming them to be simply a swindle --[22]

<blablabla>

No I see. It makes sense that they would bring in the Charvakas too: it's all about amalgamating all the anti-Vedic and non-Vedic groups and inserting their swipes against Vedic religion (besides making Vedic religion alien to the subcontinent and themselves the natives), which is, as always, most easily affected by making Brahmanas the butt of it.



Similarly/predictably, the ref section quotes again on how the Vedam is supposedly swindle, taking a swipe at Brahmanas in order to sever the Hindoo laity from their Vedic religion:

22 Buddhist Society (London, England) (2000). The Middle way, Volumes 75-76. The Society. p. 205: "..some of them said quite openly the sacrificial tradition of which the Brahmins had a monopoly was simply a swindle.".

But of course the missionary competition would try to blacken their opponents. They have to somehow make the Hindoo laity displeased with their ancestral religion - and alienate them from it - in order to convince them that Buddhism is Da Way.



But while the Vedas *work* - and even the anti-Hindu indologicals (trying to wrest it from Hindus while extincting the Hindus) have jealously and grudgingly admitted as much, considering even the drool with which they eagerly encourage and attend rare yagnyas by self-invitation [for copying I mean documentation purposes], whereas alien dabblers admit the same in an appropriating "the Vedas are actually ours/Oryanism -> *of course* they work" manner -

Again: while the Hindus' Vedas certainly work, Buddhism is known for appropriating and disrespecting Other people's Gods and pretending these have something to do with Buddhism (even backwards in time!). They're even caught lying all too often about other religions, which together with attempts at subversion/appropriation is merely in order to steal the laity of Other religions (as is the case with all missionary religions). E.g. the whole "Shinto Gods are bodhisattvas" type swindle.





That the whole purpose of aggregating the various non-Vedic and anti-Vedic Indian movements into a single "Shramanism" umbrella is for negating the Vedic religion becomes more apparent as you go on - in addition, the following also claims the conception/conceptualising of "Karma" as being "Shramanic" (note capital S again) onlee:

While authority of vedas, belief in a creator, path of ritualism and social system of heredity ranks, made up the cornerstones of brahminal schools, the path of asceticism was the main characteristic of all the heterodox schools collectively called the Shramanas.[9]



It was in Shramana traditions that concepts of Karma and Samsara became central themes of debate.[13], and it has been suggested that this may have been introduced into the mainstream by Kshatriyas.[23] In Jainism, Karma is based on materialist element philosophy, where Karma is the fruit of one's action conceived as material particles which stick to a soul and keep it away from natural omniscience.[13] The Buddha conceived Karma as a chain of causality leading to attachment of the material world and hence to rebirth.[13] The Ajivikas of Makkhali Ghosa were a third successful movement during this time. They were fatalists and elevated Karma as inescapable fate, where a person's life goes through a chain of consequences and rebirths until it reaches its end.[13] Some famous philosophers of that time, such as Pakkudha Kaccayana and Purana Kashyapa, denied the existence of Karma. It was indeed the creative Shramana generations of the 500 to 400 BCE, in whom Karma doctrine became the centre of attention, who set far-reaching consequences for lifestyle and thought among Indians.[13]



In later periods, the Jains migrated towards the West and South of India and established themselves as prosperous communities in the Chalukya and Rashtrakuta courts. The Digambaras in the South could not preach against social ranks at the cost of their survival. It was suicidal for them to follow the brahmanical law-books. Therefore in the 8th century, Jinasena produced Jain law books in the guise of Puranas glorifying Jain Thirthankaras and declaring Varnas were not of Brahmanical origin but was promulgated by the first of the twenty-four Tirthankaras, Vrsabha, at the beginning of the present kalpa. Vrashabha prescribed Jain rites for birth, marriage, death and instituted a class of Jain-brahmans.[9][24]

Of course they would need to blame the persistence of castes in Jainism on the "brahmanical Vedic religion". But it certainly undermines the point Sandhya Jain once tried to make with it - by referring to what would likely be the same rather late Jain works: that Jainism had supposedly invented the Varnas including eventually/lastly the Brahmanas (which was indirectly but obviously an argument for Jainism "predating the Vedas", since the Vedic seers/Rishis are generally by definition Brahmanas and some among them were born-Brahmanas too).



This interesting bit from later on the page seems relevant to the quoteblock immediately above:

The Venerable ascetic Mahavira belonged to the Kasyapa gotra.

If nothing else, the very word "gotra" certainly implies something about the organisation of Jain societal structure (think deeply now).

But is this "Kasyapa" Gotra in any way supposed to be the same as the Vedic Brahmana Kashyapa Gotra? Or is it just a coincidentally similarly-named Jaina Gotra? If the former: wouldn't it be a *particularly* troublesome thing for others that the only Tirthankara who's generally recognised by actual history books as having historically existed* turns out to be of Vedic even Brahminical ancestry? However, I'm sure the claimants for Shramanism would have noticed such a flaw in their argument before, which by implication would mean that therefore the mentioned Jaina Gotra - though seemingly of a similar name - is not related to the Hindu i.e. Vedic one.



* Obviously am not here considering the Jaina theology of several Tirthankaras, which Hindus are not required to believe in. The matter is similar to how history only recognises Gautama Buddha as historical among the now-several Buddhas claimed for Buddhism. It is for this reason that Buddhism continues to be dated to the Buddha, same as how history traces Jainism to Mahavira. When Koenraad Elst and retinue insist that Hindus "be rational/reasonable/bla" <=> "accept that the Vedas are man-made and not eternal" [except that they *work*/it proves itself, which is I think why Hindus consider/adhere to the descriptions], why in the world would Hindus - who are not even subject to Jain and Buddhist theology, in order to be expected to bend here - buy into the "eternal Buddhism and Jainism" notions which are moreover known to have been eventually invented?