• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Intrafaith Dialog - Hinduism, Buddhism And Jainism
#1
<b>Paul wrote:</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A stick to beat the Jholwalas with...it was the Islamist invasion and not Sankara that led to Buddhism's decline.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/7752_16...04100180006.htm

<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.

He fought hard, against great odds, to secure for the Buddhists, spread across Asia, control over the main Buddhist shrines in India like Bodh Gaya.

He helped restore these shrines to their past glory, and founded the Maha Bodhi Society to sustain his mission.

While this was a great achievement, he would have been immeasurably happier if Buddhism was restored in India, its birth place.

That would not only be in the interest of Buddhism, but in the interest of India itself, for its social, intellectual, political and economic progress, he argued.

Dharmapala deeply lamented that Buddhism had vanished from its land of birth, where it was a principal religion for many centuries, spawning a great civilisation.

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.

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

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.

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

Dharmapala set out his thoughts on this very lucidly, in a lecture he delivered at the Albert Hall in Calcutta on October 25, 1891.

Giving his view of Buddhism in contrast to all other religions, Dharmapala said that the Buddha had preached to Indians, "a realistic doctrine" and not an abstract principle.

He promulgated a religion "free from all super human agencies and devoid of all anthropomorphic conceptions."

Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human form or human attributes to God or the Gods.

The Buddha had acquired the stored wisdom of ages. After studying them and the limits of asceticism for six long years, he "discovered the law of Truth for the attainment of beatitude by liberating the human being from his own acts."

The Truth was revealed to five ascetic Brahmins at the Deer Park in Rishipatana near Benaras (Varanasi) more than 2,500 years ago.

"The day on which this grand discovery was made, opened a new era in the history of men and thought," Dharmapala noted.

"The doctrine of supreme purification and intelligence, the panacea which was revealed to the world has given relief to hundreds of millions of human beings, converted many of them into sages and saints, and has given a thorough moral tone to the religions of the world," Dharmapala asserted.

Buddhist rule was India's golden age

Arguing for a return to Buddhism, he recalled that Buddhism had moulded the destiny of the Indian nation in its "brightest, palmiest and most glorious days."

"The best historians and the most impartial writers of India have admitted that at no time was India more in her glory than when the Buddhist system was prevailing."

Quoting Hunter he said that it was to Buddhist impulses that Indian architecture owed its development.

It was in Buddhist institutions that the science of medicine flourished. Public hospitals came up for the first time during Buddhist rule.

In his History of the Civilisation of Ancient India RC Dutt said: "It was in the Buddhist age that the most brilliant results were achieved in astronomy. <b>For six centuries after 1200 AD the history of the Hindus is blank."</b>

<b>Dharmapala attributed the decline of Buddhism and Buddhist rule to Muslim invasions from the North West.

"The darkest days of India were during the Mohomedan period, and the religion of enlightenment (Buddhism) was nowhere to be found," he said.

And describing the decline, he said that with the loss of Buddhism, "a reign of inanition (emptiness) set in."

"Bigotry, intolerance, persecution, worked heavily during this period," he said.</b>

But British rule, which supplanted Muslim rule, brought about a tangible difference, he noted.

"The past one hundred years had been a kind of filing off the rust which had accumulated during the dark period. We see now a spirit of tolerance setting in."

"Education is spreading and with it, expansion of intellect. With the progress of thought, man aspires to independence to grapple with the mighty problems to which theology gives no consistent and satisfactory answer," Dharmapala observed.

This augured well for the wide acceptance of an advanced and progressive philosophy like Buddhism, he proposed.

Evolution of thought

Dharmapala said that Buddhism represented the high point of thought in an evolutionary process.

"Looking back, we find that in the unprogressive and undeveloped state of mind of man, he always looks for extraneous help."

"The powers of nature are so grand and awe inspiring that in his poverty of intellect to solve them, he apotheosises and commences adoring them."

"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.

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

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

In his Hibbert Memorial Lectures on the Upanishads, Max Muller had said: "The object of the Upanishads was to show the utter uselessness, nay the mischievousness of all ritual performances; to condemn every sacrificial act which has for its motive a desire or hope of reward; to deny, if not the existence, at least the exceptional and exalted character of the Devas; and to teach that there is no hope of salvation and deliverance except by the individual self recognising the true and universal self."

Dharmapala said that the Bhagawat Gita was but a development of the Upanishads. Further, he saw links between the ideas expressed in the Gita and Buddhism.

"It is almost generally admitted that the Bhagawat Gita contains a Philosophy more comprehensive and compact than the Philosophy of the Upanishads."

"Now it will appear strange to those who take Buddhism as a system of materialism to be pointed out the remarkable identity of doctrines in the Buddhist Books and the Gita," he said.

Dharmapala went a step further and said that Buddhism went deeper into the mysteries of life than either the Gita or the Upanishads.

To underscore this point, Dharmapala quoted a well-known contemporary authority on comparative religions, Justice Telang of the Bombay High Court, to say that Buddhism had concepts, which had appeared in "less thorough-going manifestations" in the Upanishads and the Gita.

"The Upanishads, with the Gita and the Precepts of the Buddha, appear to be the successive embodiments of the spiritual thought of the age," Telang had said.

Buddhism is not nastika

Dharmapala corrected the widespread impression that Buddhism had no God and that it was materialistic.

It was Prof HH Wilson who first propagated the notion that Buddhism was materialistic.

And he might have done this because his Sanskrit teachers had confused the Charvakas, the sensual materialists in the Gita, with the Buddhists.

Dharmapala pointed out that the Charavakas were not Buddhists.

"If there ever was a teacher who systematically combated the views of materialists it was the Buddha," he asserted.

"Even today, Brahmin scholars have put down in the most careless way that Buddhism is a nastika system. They may as well condemn the Upanishads and the Gita, wherein the uselessness of ritual performances is demonstrated," Dharmapala quipped.

"Buddhism is the highest -- expression of philosophical thought. The highest spirituals conceptions have been found therein," he asserted.

And in support, he quoted Max Muller again, who said that the moral code of Buddhism was "one of the most perfect the world has ever known."

According to Prof Kunte, "The Buddhist Yoga Philosophy is more transcendental than the yoga system of Patanjali. In its comprehensiveness in ethics, transcendental metaphysics and yoga, no system can compare with the Buddhistic one, because it is the highest aspect or rather the climax of Aryan philosophy."

Prof Rhys Davids had called the Buddha an agnostic. Others had said that his was a pessimistic doctrine, only because he had said that existence was a misery.

But Dharmapala argued that the Buddha was never an agnostic. As far as pessimism went, he said that there was no place for pessimism in the Buddhist system, which rested on "realistic idealism".

Nirvana too had been wrongly interpreted as "annihilation". But Dharmapala, following Max Muller, asked: "Where is the pessimism of the Nirvanee swimming in the sea of calmness and delight exemplified in the life of the Buddha and the Arahants?"

The Buddha asked his followers, the Bhikkhus, to avoid the extremes and stick to the Middle Path, a very practical and yet noble way to live and be happy in this world, Dharmapala pointed out.

The Buddha had said that there are two extremes: (1) sensuality (2) asceticism. The former was low, ignoble, sensual, unworthy and unprofitable for the attainment of spiritual happiness; and the latter was painful, unworthy and unprofitable.

There was the Middle Path discovered by the Buddha, a path which would lead to peace of mind, higher wisdom and full enlightenment, "Nirvana".

Dharmapala said that these ideas would be acceptable as the society progressed in terms of education and intellect.

"With the progress of education and development of intellect, the barriers raised by priestcraft and selfishness, between man and man, will be removed; and man breathing pure air of love, will see that it is far better that a spirit of brotherhood should be fostered for the elevation of humanity.

Then and then alone Buddhism will be appreciated," he said.

Challenges theory that Sankara drove Buddhism out of India

Dharmapala challenged the popular theory that Adi Sankara (8th century AD) drove Buddhism out of India with his Advaita philosophy and relentless India-wide debating campaign.

Quoting Prof HH Wilson, Dharmapala said that Adi Sankara did not engage in any particular controversy with Buddhists. He had no quarrel with the Buddhists.

Wilson had said: " The most prominent objects of his opposition are the Mimansakas, as represented by Madana Misra, with whom he holds a long and acrimonious discussion, and the Nyayakas and Sankhyas; and the vulgar sects of Vaishnavas and Saivas; he is especially hostile to the latter and particularly to the Kapalikas, a class of Saiva worshippers, who again are his most active enemies, and on occasion assail his existence."

Dharmapala also exploded the myth that Adi Sankara headed a movement to persecute the Buddhists.

Quoting from Orissa Antiquities by Dr RL Mitter he said: " The belief is pretty common that a general persecution headed by Sankaracharya was the main cause of its (Buddhism's) disappearance, and that a long and protracted war was carried on to effect that object.

<b>There is nothing, however, in the records of the Buddhists and Hindus to support it."

Dharmapala said that during the lifetime of Adi Sankara in the 8th and 9th centuries AD, and till the 11th.century, Buddhism was flourishing in North-West India, Kashmir, Magadha and other parts of India.</b>

Blamed Muslims

<b>Dharmapala pointed that if any force destroyed Buddhism in India, it was the Muslim invader from West Asia, who pillaged and plundered Buddhist and Hindu temples and persecuted Brahmins and massacred Buddhist monks.

"The last massacre took place in 1202 AC at Odentapuri where two thousand Buddhist monks were put to death by Bakhtiyar Khilji. After that event Buddhism disappeared from the land of its birth."

"Though efforts were made one or two centuries later to plant colonies of Buddhist Bhikshus at the central shrine of Buddha Gaya, all of them failed.You will, therefore, see that it was the iconoclastic Mohomedan that destroyed Buddhism in India," Dharmapala said.

In his view, "the civilisation that India enjoyed before Mohamedan conquest was suited to her nature."

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

The Sri Lankan revivalist concluded his oration with a quote from The Hindu of June 16, 1891: "If there is anything in the intellectual and moral legacies of our ancient forefathers, of which we can feel proud, it is that sublime, pure and simple conception of a religious and moral system which the world owes to Buddha."

"Educated Indians need not hesitate in helping Buddhism to find a commanding and permanent footing once more in their midst, and to live in invigorating and mutually purifying amity with Hinduism itself."

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<b>Pullekeshi Wrote:</b>


<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
"Educated Indians need not hesitate in helping Buddhism to find a commanding and permanent footing once more in their midst, and to live in invigorating and mutually purifying amity with Hinduism itself."
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

There is increased interest in the west now to find <b>Buddhist Economics</b> – see the works of Schumacher for example. Without going into deep theology, let me share an example:

My friend from Sri Lanka said, "t<i>o the Buddha idol the Buddhist there light candles or incense sticks, to the minor “Hindu” deities go all the coconuts, sweets and offerings.</i>"

That example shows why Buddhism, by itself, cannot support a vibrant, economic culture – irrespective of its great contributions to humanity in theology. Hindusim has far too many brands and value propositions to ignore. Further, Hinduism thrives on desire and greed - in a good way, similar to Capitalism. Buddhism’s market positioning on the other hand was simple – Hinduism is ritualistic - buy Buddhism we are pragmatic we will help you deal with this imperfect life. We will never ask you to sacrifice a buffalo, a goat, twenty bags of rice, feed 100 Brahmins, etc. We are cost effective and pragmatic. Philosophically, we are a stone throws away from what is in the Upanishads and we have effective methods to help end your suffering. It was simply a better product – all true. But, it neither did it take into account the structure that held Bharat together, nor did it address the political and economic nature of a nation-state. Simply put, it was great for the individual salvation, but one could question its effectiveness in sustaining society, if not a nation-state.

Power sharing between the various castes acted as a buffer to absorb the shocks dealt to society in Bharat since time immemorial. However, what started as a rift between the Kshatriyas and the Brahmins went much further. The Kshtriyas choose to use “theological” battles between the Brahmins and Buddhists to their own advantage. They got their freedom from the Brahmins, but were now left with a broken system. The Buddhists claimed desire to be the root cause of all evil, but without desire life and society does not work!

Watch Coppola’s movie “Legend of Suriyothai” for example – while the movie never says it out loud, if you pay attention to the characters, you can see the war is really between the Brahmins and the Buddhists in Thailand. The Kshatriyas chose one side or the other. Obviously, the Buddhists win – similarly in the North/North-West of Bharat. However, once the Caste system was damaged in this way – the equality (buffer) between the different stakeholders (castes) was broken. One can argue that this was on going process before Alexander’s invasion. In any case, society in Bharat was vulnerable to external threats. This happened because of the damage done to the system. We repeat it again now - Educated Indians denounce their religion and their caste. The day we made caste rigid and unchangeable we lost! However, the day we deny its existence, we cease to exist. Never in the history of Bharat, has her polity been so fragile and fragmented.

Islam walked into this fractured society with impunity – the North-West and the North fall with little or no effort. The rest as we say is history…<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


<b>Paul replied:</b>

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->However, what started as a rift between the Kshatriyas and the Brahmins went much further. The Kshtriyas choose to use “theological” battles between the Brahmins and Buddhists to their own advantage. They got their freedom from the Brahmins, but were now left with a broken system. The Buddhists claimed desire to be the root cause of all evil, but without desire life and society does not work!

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

FWIW....NCERT books say that the Merchant class was miffed with the heavy expense and attention required of the ritualistic process and saw the Bouddhic way as the way out.

As per one of the older PK Balchandran writings in HT, Hindu deities are also worshipped avidly in Sri Lanka. According to him the Buddha only offers salvation and not much of enything else, wheras there is a Hindu deity to worship for pretty much everything under the sun.

The Hindu/Buddhist divide is a recent invention of the Udit Rajs and other politicos. It is a false calumny heaped on Sankara that he was responsible for eradicating Busddhism from India. <b> If the Shankaracharyas and Jeers of South India have any sense they should hold a grand congregation and initiate dialogue with the Hinayana(Sri Lanka) school of thought and cut the ground on which these enemies of India are stand.</b> This will heal one of the oldest fractures of ancient India and make India one of the strongest nations in the future.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I would like to know the minimum positions of the three faiths and see how the differences can be reduced. I would like to then figure out how it can lead to a broader agreement outside India- Sri Lanka and further beyond.
The broad goal is forge a deep and wide Indic centered faith alliance.
  Reply
#2
Here is a link about Anagarika Dharmapala

Looks like he was a contemporary of Swami Vivekananda.
  Reply
#3
<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Sep 26 2006, 05:20 PM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Sep 26 2006, 05:20 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Looks like he was a contemporary of Swami Vivekananda.
[right][snapback]58018[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<span style='color:blue'>Yes. Not only was Anagarika Dharmapala a contemporary of Swami Vivekananda, both of them were together in Chicago's World Parliament of Religions in 1893. Both of these leaders - Vivekananda, Dharmapala along with another very important leader to mention - Coomaraswami, had shaken the congress by taking a united position of Hinduism-Buddhism-Sikhism-Jainism that they took in the conference.

Vivekananda, in response to someones provocation in a Q/A session, had even replied saying that, "Unlike Jews who killed Jesus, we Hindus worship Gautam Buddha as God incarnated."

</span>
  Reply
#4
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Vivekananda, in response to someones provocation in a Q/A session, had even replied saying that, "Unlike Jews who killed Jesus, we Hindus worship Gautam Buddha as God incarnated."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Vivekananda was evidently mistaken here because Jesus (if he existed in the first place) was not killed by Jews as later day xtian propaganda makes him out to be.
  Reply
#5
Seems like the same stupid western propaganda, Buddhism was somehow an improvement over Hinduism's caste system. Japan, the world's most powerful Buddhist nation has a stratified society about 108 times worse than India's.
I like all Eastern religions, but this propaganda just makes me puke. Islam was supposedly a tolerant religion. The religion that had the 2nd largest slave trade in the world after the west, and even today where Black's are killed by Arab's in Sudan and elsewhere. In Pakistan they kill minority ethnicities like Baluch, and Karachi is virtually a caste and ethnic war zone.

Caste in reality is just the various ethnicities and tribes of India, how can anyone eliminate the basic tribal nature of humanity ? Hinduism does say that to acheive enlightenment, one cannot be materialistic and tribalistic. But, in the real world where the vast majority of people are not at that spiritual level, there will be tribalism, whether in a mild form like the clans (western propaganda translation: castes) of India or in harsher forms like violent ethnic clases in the Balkans or Shia/Sunni killings in Iraq or ethnic caste wars in Pakistan.







<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Sep 27 2006, 05:22 AM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Sep 27 2006, 05:22 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Vivekananda, in response to someones provocation in a Q/A session, had even replied saying that, "Unlike Jews who killed Jesus, we Hindus worship Gautam Buddha as God incarnated."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Vivekananda was evidently mistaken here because Jesus (if he existed in the first place) was not killed by Jews as later day xtian propaganda makes him out to be.
[right][snapback]58027[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Reply
#6
<span style='color:purple'>Great coincidence! Or is it?

Eactly on today's date, 113 years ago, Swami Vivekanand had delivered the below speech:</span>

<img src='http://davedeluca.com/i/Parliament/tn_FullParliament1893Crop_1.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Buddhism: The Fulfilment of Hinduism</span>
At The World's Parliament of Religions
Chicago, 26th September 1893

I am not a Buddhist, as you have heard, and yet I am. If China, or Japan, or Ceylon follow the teachings of the Great Master, India worships him as God incarnate on earth. You have just now heard that I am going to criticize Buddhism, but by that I wish you to understand only this. Far be it from me to criticize him whom I worship as God incarnate on earth. But our views about Buddha are that he was not understood properly by his disciples. The relation be- tween Hinduism (by Hinduism, I mean the religion of the Vedas) and what is called Buddhism at the present day, is nearly the same as between Judaism and Christianity. Jesus Christ was a Jew, and Shakya Muni was a Hindu. The Jews rejected Jesus Christ, nay, crucified him, and the Hindus have accepted Shakya Muni as God and worship him. But the real difference that we Hindus want to show between modern Buddhism and what we should understand as the teachings of Lord Buddha, lies principally in this: Shakya Muni came to preach nothing new. He also, like Jesus, came to fulfill and not to destroy. Only, in the case of Jesus, it was the old people, the Jews, who did not understand him, while in the case of Buddha, it was his own followers who did not realize the importance of his teachings, As the Jew did not understand the fulfillment of the Old Testament, so the Buddhist did not understand the fulfillment of the truths of the Hindu religion. <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Again, I repeat, Shakya Muni came not to destroy, but he was the fulfillment, the logical conclusion, the logical development of the religion of the Hindus.</span>

The religion of the Hindus is divided into two parts, the ceremonial and the spiritual; the spiritual portion is specially studied by the monks.

In that there is no caste. A man from the highest caste and a man from the lowest may become a monk in India and the two castes become equal. In the religion there is no caste; caste is simply a social institution, Shakya Muni himself was a monk, and it was his glory that he had the large-heartedness to bring out the truths how the hid- den Vedas and throw them broadcast all over the world. He was the first being in the world who brought missionarizing into practice - nay, he was the first to conceive the idea of proselytizing.

The great glory of the Master lay in his wonderful sympathy for everybody, especially for the ignorant and the poor. Saint of his disciples were Brahmins. When Buddha was teaching, Sanskrit was no more the spoken language in India. It was then only in the books of the learned. Some of the Buddha's Brahmin disciples wanted to translate his teachings into Sanskrit, but he distinctly told them, "I am for the poor, for the people: let me speak in the tongue of the people." And so to this day the great bulk of his teachings are in the vernacular of that day in India.

Whatever may be the position of philosophy, whatever may the position of metaphysics, so long as there is such a thing as death in the world, so long as there is such a thing as weakness in the human heart, so long as there is a cry going out of the heart of man in his very weakness, there shall be a faith in God.

On the philosophic side, the disciples of the Great Master dashed themselves against the eternal rocks of the Vedas and could not crush them, and on the other side they took away from the nation that eternal God to which everyone, man or woman, clings so fondly. And the result was that Buddhism had to die a natural death in India. At the present day there is not one who calls himself a Buddhist in India, the land of its birth.

But at the same time, Brahminism lost something - that reforming zeal, that wonderful sympathy and charity for everybody, that wonderful leaven which Buddhism had brought to the masses and which had rendered Indian society so great that a Greek historian who wrote about India of that time was led to say that no Hindu was known to tell untruth and no Hindu woman was known to be unchaste.

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Hinduism cannot live without Buddhism, nor Buddhism without Hinduism. Then realize what the separation has shown to us, that the Buddhists cannot stand without the brain and philosophy of the Brahmins, nor the Brahmin without the heart of the Buddhist. This separation between the Buddhists and the Brahmins is the cause of the downfall of India.</span> That is why India is populated by three hundred millions of beg- gars, and that is why India has been the slave of conquerors for the last thousand years. Let us then join the wonderful intellect of the Brahmin with the heart, the noble soul, the wonderful humanizing power of the Great Master.
  Reply
#7
I got this in the e-mail.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This is a worthy effort and rather timely.  The Indic faiths need to hang together or they will hang separately.

<b>Looking at historical patterns, there are two paradigms that come to mind: </b> The one that reconciled Jainism with Sanatana Dharma and the other that eliminated the rivalry within India between Sanatana Dharma and Buddhism.

The Jain approach was always more of a grassroots process and relied heavily on the family and business links between the trading classes.  This model has resulted in very close practical alignments between the two faiths in the North, while in TN it has essentially merged the two faiths together.

<b>I will argue that the Jaina model will not work with Buddhism.</b>

<b>Reconciliation with the Buddhists has to come from SL, Burma and Thailand, because these nations(being Theravada) have the strongest tendency to use Hinduism as a frame of reference.</b>  Tibetan Vajrayana, while signifying Buddhism to Westerners, is a Buddhist variation of Tantra and is not a true doctrinal peer of Theravada.  <b>East Asian(Chinese, Japanese, Korean) Hinayana really has its centre of gravity in Confucianism.</b>  Indo-Chinese(Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam) Buddhism, though nominally Theravada, is somewhat peripheral and will take the lead from SL, Burma and Thailand.

So in the process of forming a united front with Buddhism, the Dalai Lama will present obvious psyops value but little more.  <b>To get real effects, we will have to meet Theravada head on.</b>

Within Theravada, Burma should be the easiest to crack and may help the process get momentum.  This is because the rivalry with Sanatana Dharma, as manifested by practicing Hindus in Burmese territory, is no longer an issue…has not been since the 1960s.

Thailand should be similarly painless.  The Thai Kings have shown the way by essentially acting as proto-neo-Hindus for the last 3 centuries.

<b>
SL is the toughest nut to crack.  The Sinhala Bhikkus see themselves as being caught in a pincer between Sinhala and Tamil Christianity on the one hand and Tamil Hinduism on the other. </b> The more perceptive of them see Christianity using Hinduism to do its dirty work in SL.  <b>They will not be amenable to any meaningful overtures until they see the pressure ease on the ground.  Anti-Conversion laws of the Gujarat kind will not help as the Bhikkus are of the mind to “reclaim” much of the Sinhala coastal population from Christianity.  Whether people in New Delhi want to see things this way or not, to the Bhikkus, India is Hinduism.  Till they perceive India/ Hinduism helping them in their struggle, they will not accept the hand of cooperation. </b> Now, this does not mean that I recommend India abandon the Tamil Hindus, notwithstanding their cryto-Christian terrorist elite.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I am partially quoting for the mail has more suggestions.

So what do we know of Threvada Buddhism of Sri Lanka?
  Reply
#8
Shri Lanka is indeed a difficult situation. But we must always remember that both the parties in the struggle have a link to the main land of bhArata. The fact must be noticed that the bauddhas monks of theravada school in Lanka are rather aggressive. This has helped them to hold their own against the Christian assault, but has also created a tendency for animosity against the tamils who are mainly Hindus with connections to the siddhAnta tantras of the Urdhva srotas of the shaiva path. India needs to intervene actively, not militarily, but diplomatically, by trying to highlight the importance of the common ground termed dharma shared by the nAstikas and AstIkas. It should also be driven home to the Lankans, both Hindu and bauddha, that under the rubric of dharma that we share there can be no room for violence of the genocidal kind that is being followed there. Unfortunately the predominantly Kangress govts that have misruled bhArata in the past 1/2 century have had no moorings or understanding of dharma to play this diplomatic role. Lanka shares both cultural and to a notable degree racial/ethnic common ground with bhArata. In the bigger picture throughout Asia the other nations that share cultural commonality with us, do not have this degree of racial/ethnic identity with the exception of Bali. However, as the ethnic factor has not been a major hurdle in the past, the cultural common ground should be stressed, while allowing for their local quirks. I am not clear what the author above means about Mahayana, but it is clear that modern Mahayana bauddha political states are not currently major players in the power equation.
  Reply
#9
H^2, Thanks for the reply. How can one carry forward the dialog when the GOI is not interested or is ideologically bound from pursuing the dialog? Is there scope for citizens to participate? To me another hurdle is that the SL Tamil cause is hijacked by TN politicians on linguistic grounds. And this is used to pressure the central govt.

One move that should be taken up regardless of the dialog is that SL Tamils issues should be taken up at all India level and moved out of TN politics. What I mean is that GOI should take up the SL Tamils cause on Human Rights grounds and not any mushy PIO or linguistic grounds. It is the linguistic linkage which raises the red flag with the SL elites.
  Reply
#10
I have the audio speech of Swami Vivekananda made in 1893 in Chicago in a file.
If anybody wants it send an email


Or url this

http://www.uploading.com/files/S6LI5YGG/Vi...Speech.zip.html
  Reply
#11
Here is Wiki take on Threvada Buddhism: Theravada Buddhism


Another link: Misconception about Buddhism


How did Hinduism displace Buddhism?
  Reply
#12
That Dharmapala guy was quite a shady character, here are some of his writings:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->12 Brahmanism is only for the three twice-born castes. The Brahmins were proud of their mantras. The Brahmin rishis were great in their selfishness. They had spiritual power even to frighten the gods; they cursed the later when they were angry. It said that the rishis Durbhasa and Bhrigu cursed both Vishnu and Shiva. The rishi Gautama cursed Indra. The Brahmin rishis organised the caste system vesting all power in the Brahmins. They organised animal sacrifices. They drank wine, ate beef and took women from the other three castes. It was their privilege. They made laws prohibiting the three castes from taking Brahmin women. They laid down the rule that the issue of a Brahmin women by a non-Brahmin husband is to be recognised as a Chandala......

13. The Bhikkhu Sangha became a universal brotherhood, and the refuge of the high and the low. All Asia heard the law of compassion, the religion of wisdom was preached to all, and the Dhamma of Karuna and Pragna was accepted by men and Gods. Jehovah, Allah, Vishnu, Shiva, Kali, Durga, Jesus were names not yet heard in the civilised world. The European races with the exception of Romans and Greeks were then in a state of Barbaric paganism. The ancestors of the British were then living naked in the forest. The Nordic races were still savages........

14. The destructive hordes of Islam had then not been born. Buddhism was then flourishing in Gandahar, Afghanistan, Kabul Valley and Turkistan. Two centuries later a new factor came into existence in India which helped to destroy the individuality of the Buddha Dharma. Kumarila began to preach his new doctrine which weakened the power of the Bhikkus. His successor was the Malabar Brahmin Sankara. Driven out from his native land, young Sankara came to Jubbulpore and was admitted to a monastery where he learnt Buddhism. Having studied the Upanishads, he gave a new interpretation to the latter. He poured new wine into old bottles....................

15. Islam, Brahmanical ritualism and Christianity are the three forces that are at work today in India. Brahmans through sheer selfishness rejected the noble Aryan Dharma from its native soil and India fell. Brahmanism is only for the high caste. Islam and Christianity are both destructive.......

http://www.tamilnation.org/tamileelam/fund...alism/index.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know if the quotes are accurate but I read other books in the library where he bangs on abt the Tamil pagans.
  Reply
#13
That was a crazy time BharatVarsha. Nobody was spared from these kinds of thought processes. Dharampal talks about this loss of self-confidence. Related to this thread Balagangadhara talks about the process of manufacturing Buddhism in his book.
  Reply
#14
Has anybody read this book ?

http://www.amazon.com/British-Discovery-Bu...d/dp/0521355036
  Reply
#15
Interesting article

http://leidykla.eu/fileadmin/Acta_Orienata...s_Beinorius.pdf
  Reply
#16
<b>Resist ploy to divide in the name of Hindu, Jain and Buddhist</b>

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->“All religions born in India have the same roots, message and mission. They are one.”

With the message that if ‘will-power of saints’ and ‘executive-power of politicians’ come together the face of the country will change, noted Jain saint Acharya Vijay Ratnasunder Surishwar Maharaj is observing chaturmas in Delhi. So far he has authored more than 200 books. <b>Shri Surishwar Maharaj is against the attempts to divide Hindu society in the name of Jain and Buddhist.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Reply
#17
Are there any well read Sril Lankans in the Bay area who might be able to interact with us on this subject?

  Reply
#18
Bauddha Bhikshu assembled in Nagpur for annual Bauddha Parivartan Divas celebration.
<img src='http://img.jagran.com/jagranimage/pimages/2octk2306.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
  Reply
#19
Looks like Jains were being split away again from the Hindus.


From Pioneer, 2 Oct., 2006
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> Sallekhana and suicide

Sandhya Jain

Jains who have compromised their spiritual honour by demanding minority status must explain why 'fellow minorities' did not support 'Jain personal law' when two women recently undertook 'sallekhana', one of whom is alive at the time of writing this piece. Regular readers are aware I place Jains within the Indic fold, as Jains cannot explain their civilisational ethos or history in non-Hindu categories. Jains are a spiritual eminence within the Hindu tradition; they can be equated with the Himalayan peaks but can hardly be detached from the mountain range itself.

I am convinced the current media bias against the Jain custom of proactively embracing death is driven by vested interests seeking to fragment Hindu society by motivating various groups to break away; while simultaneously unleashing motivated propaganda against time-honoured practices in order to annihilate all Indic traditions from this land. Contrary to popular belief, although sallekhana (also called santara) continues in contemporary Jain society, the graceful departure from life is an old Indic tradition.

Greeks accompanying Alexander to India noted with stunned admiration the Hindu custom of surrendering the living body to fire. Childless women accompanied dead husbands on the final journey (sati), and sages bowed out at the first intimations of mortality. Onesicritus has immortalised Kalanos, the philosopher who followed Alexander to Europe before ending his life at Sousiana. Then around 73 years old, Kalanos fell prey to a painful disease and decided to take leave from life "as one who had received the full measure of happiness alike from nature and from fortune". As the entire army assembled to witness this unprecedented event, Kalanos calmly ascended the great pyre prepared for him and wordlessly met the flames. Some Greeks thought it madness, others vanity, but many, including the king, admired his valour and contempt of death.

In the medieval era, Hindu women again took recourse to release by fire to save their honour from molestation by Islamic armies (jauhar). This period also saw widowed women with children opting for sati, which must legitimately be perceived as a social response to the stress of protecting single women in a tumultuous era. <b>The contemporary attempt to redefine socio-historical tragedies as suicide or murder must be firmly discouraged, or even prosecuted, for viciously maligning ancient religions and hurting religious sentiments. The NGO-friendly UPA chairperson, Ms Sonia Gandhi, would do well to advise these professional Hindu-baiters to desist from meddling in the intimate spiritual affairs of India's native communities.

This media-NGO spotlight on Jains has intensified over the past few years as the political decision to grant the community minority status in certain states has facilitated conversions among the lower rungs. Community 'thekedars' have ignored the warning bells in the race to reap financial benefits from running minority institutions, successfully enticing some munis with the lure of a Pope/Maulana type of status among the faithful. It is, of course, a grand folly.</b>

The spiritual goal of exiting the endless cycle of rebirth is common to all Indic traditions. Hindu saints still practice samadhi (death in meditation), but what distinguishes Jains is that even the laity accept life's ebbing with unrivalled equanimity. In 1994, my father's eldest brother, though in good health, heeded an inner voice and departed peacefully after 10 days without food or water. Eleven years later, his wife developed stomach cancer. Asked if she wished to take sallekhana when her end became imminent, she said she was not up to it, and subsisted on milk and water for a few months before passing away.

Sallekhana (literally, thinning one's body and passions) is an ideal way of leaving the mortal coil, but cannot be invoked without an inner call, itself the fruition of a long karmic trajectory. Usually permission is taken from a senior monk to ensure that the concerned individual has the necessary level of spiritual attainment (accumulated over past lives), or is dying from old age or an incurable disease. Permission is denied to those with worldly responsibilities. Sallekhana is not suicide, which is a secret act committed by those driven by mortal anxiety or mental instability.

That is why sallekhana involves a public declaration to society. It is for those who have led an exemplary life, earned the right to die in peace, in full possession of their faculties, freely renouncing worldly ties, including those of attachment to the body. The individual allows life to ebb away, neither desiring to prolong it artificially, nor unduly anticipating his demise.

Enlightened Hindus would do well to view the attack upon the Jain tradition as an assault on themselves, as Jains and Hindus share common civilisational roots. Jain tradition holds that 22 Tirthankaras hailed from the Iksvaku dynasty of Lord Rama; two were from the Hari clan of Lord Krishna. Little wonder that the attack on the Jains has extended to Lord Rama, who surrendered his mortal frame to a river before returning to Vaikunth, but is now accused of committing suicide!

<b>What we are witnessing here is the promotion of Western (Christian) norms as the only legitimate way of thinking and living.</b> Hindus respect life and death and view them as a continuum without end, until the yuga ends or the soul succeeds in merging with the divine. Indeed, all ancient non-monotheistic traditions have had immense respect for death and a desire to give it meaning and honour. The Pharoahs protected their honour with asp bites; the Romans slit their stomachs wide open.

Christianity, however, demeans death by perpetuating life at all costs, as evidenced in the shameful episode of Terri Shiavo, a brain dead accident victim kept alive artificially for 15 years in America, till her husband succeeded in closing the chapter. This monstrous saga repulsed even devout Christians, who feel that lack of respect for death is the reverse side of disrespect for the dignity of life. Indeed, euthanasia is the Western world's attempt to overcome its ancient mania for eternal human life, evidenced in the mythologies of Fedora and Dracula.

In modern India, both Maharishi Ramana and Sri Aurobindo refused to use their spiritual powers to heal their bodies of cancer, pointing out that if they did so, the cost to humanity would be unbearable. This is the common heritage of Hindus and Jains; separatism is civilisational genocide<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Reply
#20
is there a thing called smart indology ? or once you are infected with this you automatically end up being dumb ?

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_181...00900040003.htm

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Though the controversial Freedom of Religion (amendment) Bill recently passed by Gujarat Assembly the government has clubbed Jains as a denomination of Hinduism, several ancient manuscripts and texts present at the Indology institute here describe the two as different religious entities.

"There is absolutely no doubt that both Hinduism and Jainism are different religions and at our institute we have several ancient manuscripts and scriptures,about 1,000-year-old, and can easily prove this," said Jitendra Shah,the director of the city-based L D Institute of Indology.

An ancient text, `sad-darshana-samucchaya' written about 1,200 years ago on Indian philosophies by a renowned scholar Hari Bhadra Suri clearly states this difference, Shah said.

Similarly, another text `syad-vada-manjari' written by Malli Sen Suri about 800 years ago, is a religious commentary and dwells in detail on these two religions, he said.

While explaining the difference between the two religions as mentioned in these ancient texts, Shah, a Jain scholar himself said "Hinduism and Jainism are poles apart when it comes to individual Gods, rituals, religious practices and the way of living practised by followers of these religions."

Talking about the differences in Gods, Shah said,"Three main Gods -- Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh -- form the base of Hinduism while among Jains there are 24 Trithankaras."

"In Jainism, there is no concept of re-incarnation of Gods, while in Hinduism, Gods are re-born in different forms to counter the evil on Earth," Shah said.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)