This series of spam is about Buddhism starting to claim that their cloned copy is the original Ramayanam. Jains did the same too, already discussed in an earlier post in this thread. It's directly related to the 2 posts above, which have been x-posted, but which relate directly to the subject of this set of posts.
Post 1/?
Introduction / the problem
Buddhists poached the material for their Jatakas (stories purporting to be the past lives of the Buddha/Shakyamuni, posthumously accredited to him) from pre-existing Hindu=Vedic religion. Quite like Jainism, Buddhism didn't just plagiarise from the ancestral heathenism of the region [which is Hindu=Vedic religion] in order to inculturate, but further mangled what they plagiarised too. That is, many of the Buddhist/Jain plagiarists often had a half-baked knowledge of the original Hindu materials AND they used this mangled knowledge as an outer 'framing' device to insert their Buddhist/Jain viewpoints into, before they then tried to pass it all off as original work and even as Buddhist/Jain theology-'history'. Thus was born the Buddhist/Jain Bad Copies. Some time later, Buddhism/Jainism - obviously embarrassed by their obvious plagiarism, and desperate to cover it up (which would necessarily require yet more lying/swindling on their part) - would declare that their Bad Copies were "the original" versions and that it was Hindus who had copied the Hindu origins from the (admittedly) inferior and late Buddhist/Jain clones, *backwards in time*.
The TamilAndVedas blog pasted in an earlier post of this thread also has mention of how the Jatakas were totally copied from pre-existing materials, and listed Hindoos' Ramayanam, Mahabharatam and Puranas as being among the original sources from which Buddhism pillaged from and Bauddhicised. Initially I assumed the reference to the Ramayanam and MBH was about how Buddhism badly copied and then Bauddhified the Vedic Shibi, turning him suddenly into a previous incarnation of Buddha and thereby christening :good word: all things Shibi as a Budhdism. That much I'd worked out for myself. However, I had no idea that Buddhism had attempted more with their Jatakas where the Ramayanam etc was concerned.
Then I remembered that Elst had somewhere threatened/implied that Buddhism has a claim on Rama, merely because a Jataka had declared -late- that Rama was suddenly a previous incarnation of Buddha. On the surface it seems harmless. So modern Hindus will doubtless be deeply touched that Buddhism had inculturated on Rama (the way Hindus are deeply touched -no?- that christianism has inculturated on a billion sacred Hindoo things now). Except for the little fact that surely can't escape even the new-ageist of modern Hindus: that, as per the Buddhist spiel, Rama had to reincarnate (many times) before he was born as Buddha before he could reach Buddhist nirvana [to realise the unVedic "anAtman" inversion of Buddhism] is not complimentary to Rama. (Unless you're a Bauddhified 'Hindu', in which case it may make perfect sense.)
So, it wasn't just Shibi who - as per the Buddhist inculturation project - wasn't perfect enough, but Sri Rama too, so that they both needed to reincarnate as Buddha before either could attain Buddhist nirvana. Something which the Vedic Hindoo Gods and persons needed as badly as the Shinto Gods, who were similarly 'lavished' with the same Buddhist attention.
Interested to find out more about how bad the Buddhist clone of Rama could possibly be - should have left well alone, when will I learn - I got more than I was prepared for.
1. Before getting to the actual Jataka and the hysterical conclusions by some Buddhist who's apparently been approved to lecture on the dhamma at a Buddhist site, this next page - forced to admit that the Buddhist Jataka plagiarised pre-existing tradition - implies that said pre-existing Ramayana was merely "folklore", i.e. 'all-Indian Kultur' that got ingested by Buddhism. You know, the same methodology that christianism uses: first declare everything that is Hindu to be generally Indian/'all-Indian', before inculturating on it and declaring that it is suddenly 'equally-christian' (before eventually declaring that it was "originally" christian and plagiarised by Hindus):
buddhism-guide.com/buddhism/jatakas.htm
Shibi and Rama badly cloned by Buddhism - like the Sagara and Bharata and Krishna badly cloned by Jainism - are NOT "folklore". They are Vedic religion/religio-history.
And the Buddhist/Jain clones are inculturation, i.e. opportunistic attempts at evangelising Hindus and retaining converts.
Post 1/?
Introduction / the problem
Buddhists poached the material for their Jatakas (stories purporting to be the past lives of the Buddha/Shakyamuni, posthumously accredited to him) from pre-existing Hindu=Vedic religion. Quite like Jainism, Buddhism didn't just plagiarise from the ancestral heathenism of the region [which is Hindu=Vedic religion] in order to inculturate, but further mangled what they plagiarised too. That is, many of the Buddhist/Jain plagiarists often had a half-baked knowledge of the original Hindu materials AND they used this mangled knowledge as an outer 'framing' device to insert their Buddhist/Jain viewpoints into, before they then tried to pass it all off as original work and even as Buddhist/Jain theology-'history'. Thus was born the Buddhist/Jain Bad Copies. Some time later, Buddhism/Jainism - obviously embarrassed by their obvious plagiarism, and desperate to cover it up (which would necessarily require yet more lying/swindling on their part) - would declare that their Bad Copies were "the original" versions and that it was Hindus who had copied the Hindu origins from the (admittedly) inferior and late Buddhist/Jain clones, *backwards in time*.
The TamilAndVedas blog pasted in an earlier post of this thread also has mention of how the Jatakas were totally copied from pre-existing materials, and listed Hindoos' Ramayanam, Mahabharatam and Puranas as being among the original sources from which Buddhism pillaged from and Bauddhicised. Initially I assumed the reference to the Ramayanam and MBH was about how Buddhism badly copied and then Bauddhified the Vedic Shibi, turning him suddenly into a previous incarnation of Buddha and thereby christening :good word: all things Shibi as a Budhdism. That much I'd worked out for myself. However, I had no idea that Buddhism had attempted more with their Jatakas where the Ramayanam etc was concerned.
Then I remembered that Elst had somewhere threatened/implied that Buddhism has a claim on Rama, merely because a Jataka had declared -late- that Rama was suddenly a previous incarnation of Buddha. On the surface it seems harmless. So modern Hindus will doubtless be deeply touched that Buddhism had inculturated on Rama (the way Hindus are deeply touched -no?- that christianism has inculturated on a billion sacred Hindoo things now). Except for the little fact that surely can't escape even the new-ageist of modern Hindus: that, as per the Buddhist spiel, Rama had to reincarnate (many times) before he was born as Buddha before he could reach Buddhist nirvana [to realise the unVedic "anAtman" inversion of Buddhism] is not complimentary to Rama. (Unless you're a Bauddhified 'Hindu', in which case it may make perfect sense.)
So, it wasn't just Shibi who - as per the Buddhist inculturation project - wasn't perfect enough, but Sri Rama too, so that they both needed to reincarnate as Buddha before either could attain Buddhist nirvana. Something which the Vedic Hindoo Gods and persons needed as badly as the Shinto Gods, who were similarly 'lavished' with the same Buddhist attention.
Interested to find out more about how bad the Buddhist clone of Rama could possibly be - should have left well alone, when will I learn - I got more than I was prepared for.
1. Before getting to the actual Jataka and the hysterical conclusions by some Buddhist who's apparently been approved to lecture on the dhamma at a Buddhist site, this next page - forced to admit that the Buddhist Jataka plagiarised pre-existing tradition - implies that said pre-existing Ramayana was merely "folklore", i.e. 'all-Indian Kultur' that got ingested by Buddhism. You know, the same methodology that christianism uses: first declare everything that is Hindu to be generally Indian/'all-Indian', before inculturating on it and declaring that it is suddenly 'equally-christian' (before eventually declaring that it was "originally" christian and plagiarised by Hindus):
buddhism-guide.com/buddhism/jatakas.htm
Quote:Most of the Jatakas are folklores that have been provided with a Buddhist touch. The Jatakas also have a version of the Ramayana which is called the Dasratha Jatakas, which portray Rama and Sita as brother and sister, instead of husband and wife.
Shibi and Rama badly cloned by Buddhism - like the Sagara and Bharata and Krishna badly cloned by Jainism - are NOT "folklore". They are Vedic religion/religio-history.
And the Buddhist/Jain clones are inculturation, i.e. opportunistic attempts at evangelising Hindus and retaining converts.