Buddhism - Socio Political Contributions

[member_24042]

nagesh,

here is the proof about why Christianity was exterminated in Japan

Of course, this attitude changed when Spanish Sailors were marooned in Japan en route to the Philippines (early-1600s). Instead of graciously thanking Toyotomi for understanding their plight and choosing to assist them, the Spanish captain demanded aid. He then pointed to a map of Latin America and told Toyotomi that he could do this (colonize) to Japan as well. It was at this point that Toyotomi not only evicted the rude Spaniards, but also banned Catholicism from Japan. As he and his successor Tokugawa Ieyasu controlled all of Japan, this effectively made Japan barred to Catholicism.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_the_J ... Christians

[member_24042]

TS ji, you have't yet explained why, as a Kumaoni "Australoid" you chose to subscribe to the "Caucasoid" apartheid system of the "Arya Ashtanga Marga" of the racist Lord Buddha. OR alternatively, why "Arya" used by The Buddha is "noble", but used by the Upanishads or Vedas is about a "Caucasoid" race of some mysterious origin.

You're previous "explanation" that the Buddha used "Arya" only to woo the Indo-apartheid regime sounded ridiculous. Please check with your mentors and let me know if they can dig deeper and come up with harder crocks of Marxist turd as explanation.

Actually, if we accept Tony's explanation about Arya being a reference to Caucasoids, both Nagarjuna and Ashwaghosha will become first rate racists. Ashwaghosha is all in raptures about the virtues of the Aryans in Saundarananda. He has not spoken a word about the virtues of the Australoids. Nagarjuna also addresses most of his (spiritual) predecessors with the label `Arya'. Did he not know how much of a swastika wielding, sieg-heiling jack booted Nazi it made him?

2500 years ago during the time of Buddha Shakyamuni and Asvaghosha they were having to deal with Brahmin (Indo-Aryan) superiority complex (Asvaghosha wrote Vajrasuchi to refute their theory of caste system). About 1000 years later, the medieval saints like Kabir, Ravidas etc were again tackling with same superiority complex of the Indo-Aryans (Brahmins). Hell, even 1000 years later, the likes of Dr. Ambedkar, social revolutionaries etc had to tackle with the same superiority complex. I wonder why the Hindus want to brush this facet under the carpet and pretend that it has no significance whatsoever. If they (Indo-Aryans) have maintained the superiority of their race for more than 3 millennia, a huge time frame, then there is indeed substance in categorizing Indians according to their racial origins.

[Agnimitra]

If they (Indo-Aryans) have maintained the superiority of their race for more than 3 millennia, a huge time frame, then there is indeed substance in categorizing Indians according to their racial origins.

But is it racial origins?? It isn't. You refuse to answer the fundamental question of what 'Arya' means. You refuse to answer why even the Buddha proudly used it for his path.

I take some lessons on the Vedas from two qualified Brahmins. Both of them are black complexioned (as black as it gets) and one of them has very 'Australoid' features. One of my closest friends is TamBrahm, and his facial features look like a deity in a South Indian temple - including the black color. You will find other Brahmins with slightly mongoloid features, such as in Orissa or beyond, where they have one line of ancestry going back to the Indonesian archipelago. Similarly for other parts of the country.

Those castes that became Brahmin were quite mixed - often more so than the other castes. This was for 2 reasons - (1) The castes that were Brahmin were the most mobile in India, often moving from one part to another for education, livelihood, etc. (2) Often Brahminization of castes involved intermarriage of a core Vedic with other shamanistic castes. Thus, the Brahminization process was like grafting of saplings and harvesting or splicing genetic and memetic characteristics.

Therefore, some Brahmin castes of South India may produce members who are lighter skinned than the local substrate. Similarly, some Brahmin castes in the northwest will be darker-skinned and less broad-shouldered than the Jat substrate. Etc.

You refuse to understand that the 'substrate' in different parts is different. And that the Brahminization of castes always involved exchange, fusion and geographical migrations. This also applies to kshatriyazation, but much less so to Vaishya and almost nil to the shudra substrate, which was usually tied to its provenance and much more clannish.

Instead of acknowledging facts on the ground, you are peddling colonial rubbish. Apart from your race theory - which is anti-India and very dangerous to our social and political integrity - I agree with some other observations as do most other members here. We do consider Buddhism to have some of the useful characteristics you are advertizing. Those characteristics have a limited usefulness, and these times certainly call for them.

[member_24042]

Agnimitraji,

the reason why I am emphasizing this point is because most of the Indian history textbooks portray Indo-Aryans as some kind of founders civilization in India, which is unfair to the original Austroasiatics. They are not even counted as being an ethnic group in Indian history texts. Standard school texts on Indian history preach that 70% of Indian population is Aryan, which is wrong and it should be corrected.

Pre-Aryan people were the first settlers and they were not uncivilized barbarians living in trees when the Indo-Aryans encountered them. They already knew how to extract Iron independently and had elaborate (casteless) matriarchal culture which was significantly different from the patriarchal Aryan culture.

Another misconception is that many North Indian higher caste Caucasian people nowadays tend to show their superiority over other "lower castes" by flaunting their Aryan origins. For example, Rajputs discriminate against the other people by claiming to be Aryans of Solar race (Suryavanshi) which is ludicrous considering that Rajpoots were created by Brahmins from the Royalty of the Huna (Caucasian) and Gond (Dravidian) tribes after a ceremony and they were given the title "Brahma-Kshatra" kings. They may be Caucasoid, but they are not Aryans. You do not realize the extent to which the lies of Aryans has gone into the veins of racist Indians.
Indo-Aryans, even when they became dominant in North-western India, were simply a minority people, and at that time most of the Indians were not Caucasians.

[Agnimitra]

TonySoprano ji,

Consider the following post I had made months ago in GDF:

The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is supposed to be one of the oldest. The somewhat controversial 6th adhyaya has the following strange formulas and earnest prayers: 6.4.14-16 -

स य इच्छेत् पुत्रो मे शुक्लो जायेत वेदमनुब्रुवीत सर्वमायुरीयादिति क्षीरौदनं पाचयित्वा सर्पिष्मन्तमश्नीयातामीश्वरौ जनयितवै । १४

14. In case one wishes, 'That a white son be born to me! that he be able to repeat a Veda! that he attain the full length of life!'--they two should have rice cooked with milk and should eat it prepared with ghee. They two are likely to beget [him].

अथ स य इच्छेत् पुत्रो मे कपिलः पिङ्गलो जाय्त द्वौ वेदावनुब्रुवीत सर्वमायुरीयादिति दध्योदनं पाचयित्वा सर्पिष्मन्तमश्नीयातामीश्वरौ जनयितवै । १५

15. Now, in case one wishes, 'That a tawny son with reddish-brown eyes be born to me! that he be able to recite two Vedas! that he attain the full length of life!'--they two should have rice cooked with sour milk and should eat it prepared with ghee. They two are likely to beget [him].

अथ य इच्छेत् पुत्रो मे श्यामो लोहिताक्षो जायेत त्रीन्वेदाननुब्रुवीत सर्वमायुरीयादित्युदौदनं पाचयित्वा सर्पिष्मन्तमश्नीयातामीश्वरौ जनयितवै । १६

16. Now, in case one wishes, 'That a dark son with red eyes be born to me! that he be able to repeat three Vedas! that he attain the full length of life!'--they two should have rice boiled with water and should eat it prepared with ghee. They two are likely to beget [him].

One explicit assertion of the AIT or AMT is that the migrators into India were fairer skinned while the subaltern natives were darker. The fairer migrants were supposed to have then created the Vedic philosophical-religious system long after they had made India their home along with a race-based "caste system" - incidentally just like the colonial Turko-Arab sultanates and their Europian "apartheid" style successors. If the Vedas were created by this fair elite, how does this Brihadaranyaka Upanishad associate increasing degrees of Vedic expertise with darker skin?

the reason why I am emphasizing this point is because most of the Indian history textbooks portray Indo-Aryans as some kind of founders civilization in India, which is unfair to the original Austroasiatics. They are not even counted as being an ethnic group in Indian history texts. Standard school texts on Indian history preach that 70% of Indian population is Aryan, which is wrong and it should be corrected.

Just search for the terms "TFTA" and "SDRE" on this forum. You will find that BRF members have as much contempt for this "Aryan-Dravidian" race-theory Pakiness as you do. You are preaching to the choir.

Don't you realize that these Indian "history" textbooks were written by the Brit colonials, and are now mainained by Marxist historians? It is they who give the term "Arya" a race connotation - not the Hindu texts.

Pre-Aryan people were the first settlers and they were not uncivilized barbarians living in trees when the Indo-Aryans encountered them. They already knew how to extract Iron independently and had elaborate (casteless) matriarchal culture which was significantly different from the patriarchal Aryan culture.

Exactly, we do not believe that darker-skinned Indians were "uncivilized". Even our definition of "civilization" is quite different from the Western or the Marxist economic view that we consider hypertrophic ("ugra-kaarmik").

Another misconception is that many North Indian higher caste Caucasian people nowadays tend to show their superiority over other "lower castes" by flaunting their Aryan origins. For example, Rajputs discriminate against the other people by claiming to be Aryans of Solar race (Suryavanshi) which is ludicrous considering that Rajpoots were created by Brahmins from the Royalty of the Huna (Caucasian) and Gond (Dravidian) tribes after a ceremony and they were given the title "Brahma-Kshatra" kings. They may be Caucasoid, but they are not Aryans. You do not realize the extent to which the lies of Aryans has gone into the veins of racist Indians.

True. This racist Pakiness is a product of a lot of social engineering mischief - perhaps first under the racist Islamist dispensation and their Indian collaborators that ruled large parts of India for upto 1000 years, and then the Brits and their Indian proteges.

throughout this process, the non-Indic ruler drew collaborators from the existing aristocracy ("high" castes) by making up some commonality that the wretched compradores lapped up . Simultaneously, the non-Indic ruler drew aggrieved converts from the existing have-nots ("lower" castes). Thus, via the process of drawing both compradores and converts, the non-Indic enemy has played both sides, one against the other, to their advantage.

The Brit colonials refused to allow Hindu texts to be interpreted in their own light. Instead, they superimposed their own semantics on them - and as ludicrous and inconsistent with the rest of the texts as it sounded, they justified their semantics by claiming that the ludicrous inconsistency was because Hinduism was this messy, meaningless raving of semi-civilized savages anyway!

What we are saying is that if you actually study Hindu sources as originals, you will get a much different picture - one that can be used to make sense of genetic studies today as well as historical theories that bury "Aryan Invasion" BS under a ton of bricks.

TS ji, please re-consider your blind acceptance of the colonial and Marxist narratives. They typically work by first pushing a few buttons to create a sense of grievance, rage and vengeance to divide society, and then they push their poisonous "theories" through the cracks.

[Shanmukh]

nagesh,

here is the proof about why Christianity was exterminated in Japan

Of course, this attitude changed when Spanish Sailors were marooned in Japan en route to the Philippines (early-1600s). Instead of graciously thanking Toyotomi for understanding their plight and choosing to assist them, the Spanish captain demanded aid. He then pointed to a map of Latin America and told Toyotomi that he could do this (colonize) to Japan as well. It was at this point that Toyotomi not only evicted the rude Spaniards, but also banned Catholicism from Japan. As he and his successor Tokugawa Ieyasu controlled all of Japan, this effectively made Japan barred to Catholicism.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_the_J ... Christians

Sigh - this little incident about the Spanish captain having ruined everything for the Portuguese and the Spanish comes only from one source. The Jesuit chronicles. The Franciscan chronicles do not mention any fight between the captain and the Shogun, the Japanese records of the time only say that the Japanese expelled the captain.

Let me give you a little hint about the dates involved, and you can make up your own mind how much the San Felipe incident (the ship confiscated by Hideyoshi) influenced the expulsion of the Portuguese and the Spanish. The ship, San Felipe, ran aground in 1596, and nothing came of it except the expulsion of the captain and the crew and the execution of a few Franciscan missionaries for espionage. In fact, the period from 1598 to 1614 saw the greatest expansion of Christianity in Japan, and in 1608, Nagasaki was termed New Rome by the Pope. The Portuguese were expelled in 1639, by the Tokugawa Shogunate.

The Japanese tolerated Christianity (and Oda Nobunaga gifted Nagasaki to the Portuguese) because they wanted gunpowder weapons. At this time, Japan was outward looking and in 1592, started a seven years war to conquer Korea. By 1639, the Japanese had become inward looking and were seeking to expel all foreign influence from their islands. They had no more use for the Portuguese and the Spaniards, or their gunpowder weapons. So - they expelled the Catholics (but still tolerated the Calvinist Dutch) and crushed the Japanese Christians.

[Shanmukh]

2500 years ago during the time of Buddha Shakyamuni and Asvaghosha they were having to deal with Brahmin (Indo-Aryan) superiority complex (Asvaghosha wrote Vajrasuchi to refute their theory of caste system). About 1000 years later, the medieval saints like Kabir, Ravidas etc were again tackling with same superiority complex of the Indo-Aryans (Brahmins). Hell, even 1000 years later, the likes of Dr. Ambedkar, social revolutionaries etc had to tackle with the same superiority complex. I wonder why the Hindus want to brush this facet under the carpet and pretend that it has no significance whatsoever. If they (Indo-Aryans) have maintained the superiority of their race for more than 3 millennia, a huge time frame, then there is indeed substance in categorizing Indians according to their racial origins.

Tony - I pointed out to you that Rama and Krishna are both DARK SKINNED. Would a bunch of racist Aryans want to make their greatest heroes dark skinned - particularly a colour that you claim they so obviously despised? In fact, I challenge you to find a single Hindu treatise before 1000 AD that applauds fair skin and despises dark skin.

Arya never meant a race. It simply meant `noble person'. That is the context in which the Buddha used it, that is the context in which all ancient Hindu and Buddhist texts use it. It does not mean a race, and never meant one.

[Shanmukh]

By the way, I have noticed that you have not replied to any of my questions from a long time. Would be grateful if you could provide the references I have sought.

Buddhism is powerless with the loss of a centralized state, however Hinduism promotes feudalism and decentralization so large centralized states are anathema to Hinduism. This feudal system coupled with Brahminism proved fatal for India it was quickly overrun by the Turks.

Tony - it took the Muslims more than 800 years to go from the conquest of Sindh to the destruction of Vijayanagar (at which point, most of India was conquered). In fact, even at this point, Assam remained unconquered. (It is the irony of ages that brave resilient Assam that withstood the mighty Mughals might end up being sold into slavery by the Kangress). And less than a century after the fall of Vijayanagar, Shivaji Maharaj was overthrowing the Bijapur sultanate and the Mughals in parts of India. Can any religion that lacks vitality take such body blows and still retain its resilience? Anyway, how did you decide that the Turks quickly overran India? In fact, the Buddhist central Asia lasted less than a century against the Arabs. In 652, the Persian empire was overrun, and by 750, all of Buddhist Central Asian states, including today's Sinkiang were overrun. Only Tibet remained,and it was more a function of geography than anything else.

Similarly, in south east Asia, many Buddhist city states fell to the Muslims without even a battle. The Buddhists converted pre-emptively in the remnant Sri Vijayan states (Pattani and Samudra Pasai come to mind here) for trade privileges. Why did they do that, if Buddhism had achieved a strong centralised state, with a powerful sense of self identity?

[member_24042]

Nagesh,

Such revolts against imperialism and imperialistic religions are to be seen in context. Sepoy Rebellion comes to mind, even though atrocities happened, it was for the greater good. Lord Buddha himself in a previous life was a sea captain that mercifully killed a bandit on board so he could save the lives of the innocent passengers. Again, I am not condoning killing innocent people, nor am I condemning the Japanese overthrow of imperialism (and its associated religion), rather I regret when innocent blood is spilled and really wish the cycle of violence stops.

[member_24042]

Some things to ponder that Agnimitraji said in his previous post. BTW isn't Agnimitra the son of Pushyamitra Sunga who persecuted Buddhists to no end? In all fairness though I think Agnimitra rebuilt the Sanchi stupa that his father burned down.

[Shanmukh]

Nagesh,

Such revolts against imperialism and imperialistic religions are to be seen in context. Sepoy Rebellion comes to mind, even though atrocities happened, it was for the greater good. Lord Buddha himself in a previous life was a sea captain that mercifully killed a bandit on board so he could save the lives of the innocent passengers. Again, I am not condoning killing innocent people, nor am I condemning the Japanese overthrow of imperialism (and its associated religion), rather I regret when innocent blood is spilled and really wish the cycle of violence stops.

Doubtless - I am just asking you to consider two things
1) There is no racial theory in ancient Hindu texts. In fact, dark skin is celebrated.
2) Hinduism (in its different guises) and Buddhism have both got their advantages, and disadvantages. They were both created in the distant past, when conditions (social, economic, and political) were very different from what they are today. Consequently, both need to be re-interpreted with the times, and make corresponding changes to thrive today. Both of them, having many similarities (not least, their tolerance) can complement each other. They need not fight. They can co-exist.

[member_24042]

Nagesh,

Such revolts against imperialism and imperialistic religions are to be seen in context. Sepoy Rebellion comes to mind, even though atrocities happened, it was for the greater good. Lord Buddha himself in a previous life was a sea captain that mercifully killed a bandit on board so he could save the lives of the innocent passengers. Again, I am not condoning killing innocent people, nor am I condemning the Japanese overthrow of imperialism (and its associated religion), rather I regret when innocent blood is spilled and really wish the cycle of violence stops.

Doubtless - I am just asking you to consider two things
1) There is no racial theory in ancient Hindu texts. In fact, dark skin is celebrated.
2) Hinduism (in its different guises) and Buddhism have both got their advantages, and disadvantages. They were both created in the distant past, when conditions (social, economic, and political) were very different from what they are today. Consequently, both need to be re-interpreted with the times, and make corresponding changes to thrive today. Both of them, having many similarities (not least, their tolerance) can complement each other. They need not fight. They can co-exist.

I hope by "re-interpretating" Buddhism for modern times, you don't mean the abolishment of the Sangha? Lots of idiot westerners since they are materialists at heart (and also sex addicts) are now rubbishing the Sangha and saying one can live as a householder and attain Nirvana. That is NOT what Shakyamuni taught. Also some pretentious losers say that Buddhism is not a religion and that belief in karma, reincarnation, devas, lower realms is all Asian superstition and not essential to Buddhism. My point being in this post is to show that by updating our traditions we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak.

[Atri]

I hope by "re-interpretating" Buddhism for modern times, you don't mean the abolishment of the Sangha? Lots of idiot westerners since they are materialists at heart (and also sex addicts) are now rubbishing the Sangha and saying one can live as a householder and attain Nirvana. That is NOT what Shakyamuni taught. Also some pretentious losers say that Buddhism is not a religion and that belief in karma, reincarnation, devas, lower realms is all Asian superstition and not essential to Buddhism. My point being in this post is to show that by updating our traditions we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak.

Are you sure, you are Indian? I mean not ethnically (you seem to be fixated on race) but born and brought up? I have only seen few rabid Ambedkaraites talk like this, and even they are not deracinated to this extent.

concept of dharma, the siddhanta of karma is bedrock of Indian civilization. in all indic paths. What kind of dark sorcery your mind has been subjected to, I shudder to imagine...

The emboldened statement from your post is essential part of indic narrative. What makes me suspicious is why you are in self-doubt about these concepts? Since time of vedas, karma, punarjanma etc has been dictating the world-view of almost all Indians (except Charvakas, perhaps). Not just Buddha-mat, ALL..

There is no word for "religion" in Indian narrative. So when people say Budddha's path is an ideology, an opinion-set they are correct. The word for Buddhism in sanskrit or other indic prakrit languages is "Bauddha-mat (बौद्धमत)" just as same word is used for vaishnava, shaiva, jaina, sikh (gurumat) etc.. You can call any thing by any name, but in Indic languages, basically sanskrit, the words are very carefully attributed. Today in all south indian languages, they still use the word "Mat" to denote concept of "religion". conversion, in indic narrative, is mataantara (change of opinion).

Please find the roots, tony ji.. the narrative taught to us in curriculum and by marxist historians is not the "indic narrative". it is misinterpretation of indic concepts of arya, dharma, karma, sanskriti, rashtra etc. read buddhist literature in indian language, not english and then read aastika literature in same indian language (preferably your mother tongue, if it is any indian language). you will understand that what siddhartha meant when he propounded "arya-satya" is same as what aastika rishis meant when they asked "krinvanto vishvam aaryam apaghanto araavna"... absolutely no difference.

there is nothing like indo-aryan race, it is figment of imagination of certain 19th century indologists which continues to infest minds of modern marxists. yes, there were indians who belonged to "vedik" path of worship and other who belonged to avaidik path of worship. there wasn't and isn't any "eternal war" between these two (similar to haves and have nots), as the forces hell-bent on breaking India constantly speak of.

[harbans]

Good post Atri Ji! I too posted the same things a number of times. The word religion used by Westerners is an attempt to freeze and 'exclusify' terms. Almost every maths within Buddhism itself was promulgated by yes Brahmins themselves, the entire Tibetan, Chinese canons. Even as individuals attained enlightenment, whether through Bhatkti, Karma, Gyana some formed their own paths. Many of those who formed them happened to be Brahmins but it was not exclusive to them. I think most on BRF at least those who participate in these threads are well aware Arya=Noble and does not have a race connotation as enunciated by Westerners and Tony Soprano. And every learned man in India from not now but ages back will vouch Arya means noble and not some racial connotation. The history was modulated because Europeans were completely goddamn sure of some innate superiority in the White gene as compared to the colored one and they thus developed sub conscious and at times conscious bias to twist and frame history and events in such a way to support those biases. Once it became unsustainable either through increasing discrepancies, scientific evidence there was evidently a consolidation of Institutional control over changing the narrative completely.

[Lilo]

Also some pretentious losers say that Buddhism is not a religion and that belief in karma, reincarnation, devas, lower realms is all Asian superstition and not essential to Buddhism

Atri ji,
I think you misunderstood what Soprano ji is saying. However it does seem that TS ji has been exposed to lot of western muckracking on Indic belief systems.

[member_24042]

I hope by "re-interpretating" Buddhism for modern times, you don't mean the abolishment of the Sangha? Lots of idiot westerners since they are materialists at heart (and also sex addicts) are now rubbishing the Sangha and saying one can live as a householder and attain Nirvana. That is NOT what Shakyamuni taught. Also some pretentious losers say that Buddhism is not a religion and that belief in karma, reincarnation, devas, lower realms is all Asian superstition and not essential to Buddhism. My point being in this post is to show that by updating our traditions we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak.

Are you sure, you are Indian? I mean not ethnically (you seem to be fixated on race) but born and brought up? I have only seen few rabid Ambedkaraites talk like this, and even they are not deracinated to this extent.

concept of dharma, the siddhanta of karma is bedrock of Indian civilization. in all indic paths. What kind of dark sorcery your mind has been subjected to, I shudder to imagine...

The emboldened statement from your post is essential part of indic narrative. What makes me suspicious is why you are in self-doubt about these concepts? Since time of vedas, karma, punarjanma etc has been dictating the world-view of almost all Indians (except Charvakas, perhaps). Not just Buddha-mat, ALL..

There is no word for "religion" in Indian narrative. So when people say Budddha's path is an ideology, an opinion-set they are correct. The word for Buddhism in sanskrit or other indic prakrit languages is "Bauddha-mat (बौद्धमत)" just as same word is used for vaishnava, shaiva, jaina, sikh (gurumat) etc.. You can call any thing by any name, but in Indic languages, basically sanskrit, the words are very carefully attributed. Today in all south indian languages, they still use the word "Mat" to denote concept of "religion". conversion, in indic narrative, is mataantara (change of opinion).

Please find the roots, tony ji.. the narrative taught to us in curriculum and by marxist historians is not the "indic narrative". it is misinterpretation of indic concepts of arya, dharma, karma, sanskriti, rashtra etc. read buddhist literature in indian language, not english and then read aastika literature in same indian language (preferably your mother tongue, if it is any indian language). you will understand that what siddhartha meant when he propounded "arya-satya" is same as what aastika rishis meant when they asked "krinvanto vishvam aaryam apaghanto araavna"... absolutely no difference.

there is nothing like indo-aryan race, it is figment of imagination of certain 19th century indologists which continues to infest minds of modern marxists. yes, there were indians who belonged to "vedik" path of worship and other who belonged to avaidik path of worship. there wasn't and isn't any "eternal war" between these two (similar to haves and have nots), as the forces hell-bent on breaking India constantly speak of.

What are you talking about? Do you even know what I just wrote? I was condemning these western loosers who dilute Buddha Dhamma. Kamma, reincarnation, anatta, interconnectivity, and dependent arising are fundamentals of Buddhism. The Sangha is one of the Triratnas (from which Christians got concept of Trinity and Hindus got Trimurti) and is to be venerated. Currently I am in America and Buddhism is going the way of Yoga. In this, talks by the Hindu writer Rajiv Malhotra have been useful.

[member_24042]

In short:

Nibbana (Nirvana): not possible unless you cease desires ie possible for a celibate bhikku only

Kamma/renicarnation: no compromising on this position when Westerners spew there bile about "secular Buddhism"

Buddhism: not an "atheistic" belief system, but a true religion, plus more (religion is but a subset of true Dhamma)

PS: one thing that irritates me is when a bunch of whites who are not bhikkus call their congregation as "Sangha"..this is similar to them doing a few stretches and asanas and calling it Yoga.

[Shanmukh]

I hope by "re-interpretating" Buddhism for modern times, you don't mean the abolishment of the Sangha? Lots of idiot westerners since they are materialists at heart (and also sex addicts) are now rubbishing the Sangha and saying one can live as a householder and attain Nirvana. That is NOT what Shakyamuni taught. Also some pretentious losers say that Buddhism is not a religion and that belief in karma, reincarnation, devas, lower realms is all Asian superstition and not essential to Buddhism. My point being in this post is to show that by updating our traditions we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak.

Tony - if we throw out all you are saying that westerners are suggesting, there will be nothing left of Buddhism, except for a few non-exclusive moral principles. I suspect, it is precisely to get to that point, where they can control the direction and teachings of Buddhism that westerners are trying to claim that the Indic concepts are unnecessary. Once they have got to that point, it would be easy for them to subsume Buddhism, claiming that it is just a variant of Christianity.

When you get to the source material, you will see that they all came from the same meta-culture, with each school of thought (both within Buddhism and without) emphasising certain points that (they felt) were present and relevant. The Buddha presented his path as a road to salvation, stripped certain aspects of the meta-culture and emphasised others, and came up with a coherent doctrine. That was all.

We do not have the historical baggage of exterminating each other just because we did not all follow the same path - this is true not only in India, but also in South East Asia (and from what we can see from historical records, even Central Asia, China and Persia), where the various Indic schools of thought have lived next to each other mostly harmoniously. The occasional tensions and violence have to be seen in perspective. The crusaders and the jihadists are the curse of the Abrahamic religions (and when you read their exclusivity, you will understand why it came about).

I will give you just one thing to think about. How many of the pre-Islamic astika Indic schools of thought do you see today? How many followers of the following schools do you know?
1) Tarka
2) Sankhya
3) Vaisheshika
4) Charvaka (not an astika school, but still a very relevant school of thought).
5) Mimamsa

Does it mean that these were also all extirpated by force?

[Lilo]

TS ji
If you mean by "way of the yoga" - to be the commodification of yoga as practiced in yoga parlors across the world bereft of its underlying philosophy ( its pith) - you are right . But if you think the ancient practice and ideology behind yoga to be something essentially disjoint to Buddhuism you are mistaken.

But what has "Hindu" scholar Rajeev Malhotra got to do with this phenomenon - you should fault people who developed and maintain trademarked brands like Bikram yoga etc for this.

BTW can you be more precise in what you write.

[member_24042]

Tony - if we throw out all you are saying that westerners are suggesting, there will be nothing left of Buddhism, except for a few non-exclusive moral principles. I suspect, it is precisely to get to that point, where they can control the direction and teachings of Buddhism that westerners are trying to claim that the Indic concepts are unnecessary. Once they have got to that point, it would be easy for them to subsume Buddhism, claiming that it is just a variant of Christianity.

Precisely and I am against this dilution of the Dhamma by sex addicted, materialistic whites.

[member_24042]

TS ji
If you mean by "way of the yoga" - to be the commodification of yoga as practiced in yoga parlors across the world bereft of its underlying philosophy (is its pith) - you are right . But if you think the ancient practice and ideology behind yoga to be something essentially disjoint to Buddhuism you are mistaken.

But what has "Hindu" scholar Rajeev Malhotra got to do with this phenomenon - you should fault people who developed and maintain trademarked brands like Bikram yoga etc for this.

BTW can you be more precise in what you write.

Yes I was talking about how Yoga has been commodified, diluted, and mapped onto a western framework. Rajiv Malhotra has elucidated this well. Why do you Hindus always think I have some perverse hatred towards you? That means I hate my whole family, most of my nation, etc. Seriously ready my posts carefully before making such accusations.

[member_22872]

Tony ji, I think your hatred is only for brahmins among Hindus because they are 'aryans' who crushed Buddhism. Rest all are dalits...so what you are saying would be just another variation of EJs.

[Agnimitra]

Some things to ponder that Agnimitraji said in his previous post. BTW isn't Agnimitra the son of Pushyamitra Sunga who persecuted Buddhists to no end? In all fairness though I think Agnimitra rebuilt the Sanchi stupa that his father burned down.

Agnimitra simply means a Friend of Agni, or a Friend by Agni, or it could mean the Sun of Agni, etc. But you're right, that historical Agnimitra Shunga was quite fair and balanced towards those of Bauddha-mata and other Astika matas.

I hope in the light of my previous post (citing original ancient Upanishadic source) and the posts of other members here, you will reconsider your blind regurgitation of Brit and Marxist race theories that have been suffocating the Indic civilization's self-expression for far too long.

We cherish our Buddhist heritage, and we also believe certain significant Buddhist memes are urgently needed and deserve to be harvested in present time and going forward.

The call of the hour is for pan-Dharmic unity - that means all philosophies, religions and ideologies that subscribe to the basic perennial Dharma and its processes. So, all Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Jain, and even other New Age spinoffs such as Scientology and whatnot...must work together in order to re-create the Dharmic civilization. Therefore, if you wish to split hairs and analyze, do so with the intention of seeing how best to splice together useful memes rather than create internecine animosity.

Buddhist-Hindu or Sikh-Hindu divorce and separation is exactly what the common enemies of Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, etc. want - because these enemies recognize that these sects are fundamentally a part of their mother Dharmic civilization, and so they want to separate them to diminish the threat they feel. See this post from the Islamism thread:

"Religion of piece"'s message to Hindus & Buddhists

[url=httpXXXX://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/08/muslim-cleric-in-australia-oh-allah-count-the-buddhists-and-the-hindus-one-by-one-oh-allah-count-the.html]Muslim cleric in Australia: "Oh Allah, count the Buddhists and the Hindus one by one. Oh Allah, count them and kill them to the very last one."[/url]

Following are excerpts from an address by Sheik Sharif Hussein of the Islamic Da'wa Center of South Australia (IDCSA) in Adelaide, which was posted on the Internet on July 3, 2013.
.
.
.
Oh Allah, count the Buddhists and the Hindus one by one. Oh Allah, count them and kill them to the very last one

[harbans]

The Sangha is one of the Triratnas (from which Christians got concept of Trinity and Hindus got Trimurti) and is to be venerated.

That means Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu are younger than the Buddha?

[Lilo]

TS ji
If you mean by "way of the yoga" - to be the commodification of yoga as practiced in yoga parlors across the world bereft of its underlying philosophy (is its pith) - you are right . But if you think the ancient practice and ideology behind yoga to be something essentially disjoint to Buddhuism you are mistaken.

But what has "Hindu" scholar Rajeev Malhotra got to do with this phenomenon - you should fault people who developed and maintain trademarked brands like Bikram yoga etc for this.

BTW can you be more precise in what you write.

Yes I was talking about how Yoga has been commodified, diluted, and mapped onto a western framework. Rajiv Malhotra has elucidated this well. Why do you Hindus always think I have some perverse hatred towards you? That means I hate my whole family, most of my nation, etc. Seriously ready my posts carefully before making such accusations.

TS ji,

Haha
But sorry for my misunderstanding .. Yet why do you call us - "you" Hindus", "you" Brahmins (I am not of Brahmin "Caste" though) etc ?

When ever you refer so aren't you essentially "othering" us - its not that any Hindu organization is actively working to convert Buddhism and Buddhists to their faith or denying its place in the collective indic conciousness . In fact you never see such proselytization based on half truths or deception in any indic mat as is the wont of Abrahamic ones.

In fact Hinduism is suffering along with all other indic panths due to predatory ideologies based in the West and ME.
Yet you don't find us often projecting our seige feeling onto other indic panths (which when happens only contributes to "othering" them).

[member_22872]

That means Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu are younger than the Buddha?

In fact that's exactly what he is saying, BG is a copy of Buddhist philosophy, from the writer he quoted, BG seems to have been composed in 3AD.

I have a friend, he has taken the cause of dalits. He argues with me in the same fashion. BG is a copy of Buddhism, Ravana was a benevolent king whom aryan Rama killed, so on and so forth.

[Atri]

I think I have perfectly understood what TS is saying, Lilo ji..

The whole edifice of treating Indian "paths" or "moksha-margas" as religions is deracination. TS has stated quite cogently that according to buddhist opinion-set that nIrvana is possible only after one takes Sannyasa ashrama.

Buddhist path is a "moksha-marga" (yes, I understand nirvana is different from moksha on ideological level). I am talking in terms of the 4-fold Varna+ashrama+purushartha model of indian society.

This model is indigenous model of India. Like many Moksha-margas (or adhyatmik paths, to be more PC), Buddhist marga is limited to people belonging to sannyas ashrama (they call it Bhikhkhu). There are no buddhist "dharma-shastras (as in jurisprudence civil law, criminal law etc)", nor there is buddhist "arthashastras (economics, political science etc)", nor there is buddhist "kaama-shaastra (like kamasutra, natyashaastra and other treatises pertaining to non-adhyatmik subtle personal pursuits of INDIVIDUAL). There is a reason for this - Because it is not job of buddha to come up with shaastras pertaining to other three purusharthas.

Furthermore, unlike ashwalaayana and apastambha grihya-sutras and other traditions, the text pertaining to adhyatmik journey of "grihastha-Brahmachari-vaanaprastha" section of society is also missing in Buddhist world-view again simply because Buddha was speaking specifically of Sannyasta people's adhyatmik journey.

Same is case with Jaina path. While it is not the same about many astika paths (samkhya-yoga-vedanta etc since they speak of all ashramas, not just sannyasa), they too are only moksha-margas, just like buddhist school.

All these have the ideological memes originated in India. Most of the memes present in aastika and naastika traditions are rooted in vedas. Heck the very language in which the concepts are spoken out is inherently a vedik language.

What I took objection at was stating that an "adhyatmika path for sannyasi section" of society was replaced by "indo-aryan race" and all the assorted talk about australiod and mongoliod and what not. One has to be clear which domain OR purushastha one is talking about. If one is talking about moksha-purushartha and opinions of seers about this domain of human life, the discussion about race and AIT should not find place. Words like "arya" mean same in all indic languages - hence they mean same in all adhyatmik OR judicial OR aarthik traditions - whenever they are used.

AIT has been rejected thoroughly. coupling adhyatmik traditions with racial history is what brits+marxists did. this is what I have taken objection to.

I had expressed my surprise at this person who showed cogent understanding of an indic adhyatmik-sannyasi school of thought mixing up with AIT.

The four-fold varna+ashram+purushartha vyavastha of India based on concepts of dharma+karma+punarjanma+multiplicity of valid opinions espousing truth, everything has its place. This entire super-structure is what we call Dharmik OR Hindu (post islamic invasions) civilization.

Vaidik path OR Shrauta tradition is only a part of this superstructure, just as buddhist or shramanik traditions. One cannot expect a moksha+marga for sannyasi to speak up on jurisprudence or taxation or theatrics. Same applies to people as well.

It is not the criticism of aastika paths from TS that irked me. It is criticism of aastika paths from western frame-of-reference (which is inevitably coupled with racial AIT) that irked me. To be more precise, approaching aastika traditions from western interpretation of nastika traditions irked me. I have had bhagya to be also having received deeksha from a jain sadhu who was totally illiterate in western semantics (learnt basic stuff in his mother tongue and then learnt jaina traditions from his well-versed guru). Have indulged in debates with him for long hours about approach at various concept like dharma, karma, deva, janma, jagat etc. It was easier to understand the nastika criticism of astika traditions from him because everything was to be point and from indic frame of reference. He was not confused about what is meaning of "arya", for example - it was perfectly clear and was same what astikas believe. he did not squabble with me about not calling jaina path as "religion" because he knew as I knew, it is an adhyatmik opinion-set (mat). SImilarly when he talked about vedantamat, saankhyamat, mimansa mat, it was not an issue for me as well.

Hence I urged TS to find roots and look at astika traditions from indic frame of reference. that frame very much exists. Only group which suppresses this naastika-indic frame of reference is macaulay's children and marxists.

[member_22872]

Atri ji, very nicely put, thank you.

[Lilo]

Thankyou Atri ji as always for your elucidation of subtleties .

[Atri]

Subsequently, all the terms like "buddhist kings" or "buddhist empire" are misnomers. Calling Ashoka's empire as buddhist empire is as non-indic as calling Gupta empire as "vaishnava empire". The personal adhyatmik path of ashoka was Buddha's path, thats it. He was coronated according to shrauta vaidik traditions and was following his raajdharma in accordance with the arthashastra of Chanakya. the dharma-shastras incumbent in his population were various (manu, yajnavalkya, apastambha, bhrigu, ashwalayan and countless other jaati-specific codes of conduct prevalent of various indian jaatis).

Calling Pushyamitra as brahminical emperor is similarly foolish. Apart from the fact that there is no evidence of him massacring buddhists, all he most probably did was stopped all the sarkari subsidies which buddhists were receiving during maurya era and diverted them to aastika people). I hardly understand how this amounts to persecution. Pushyamitra too was continuing the aarthika policy in accordance to chanakya perhaps. he personally belonged to astika adhyatmik path.

this is how we look at our lives and past. The religion of ashoka was snot "buddhism", just as the religion of pushyamitra was not "brahminism (whatever unicorn that is)". What is correct from indic frame of reference is their adhyatmik preference were bauddhamat and aastikamat respectively. There was no "religious war" going on. There were intellectual debates and arguments going on between learned men of various adhyatmik paths. At the most, there were heated debates perhaps with some contemporary "maa-behen ki gaalis" exchanged (I say "perhaps", because I do not know any sanskrit cuss word, probably because there isn't any word as harsh and dirty as Maadarchod in any indic language - this is Persian and arabic inheritance) but that's it. These intellectuals did not carry out genocides on each other. This is how western interpretation of astika and nastika ideologies view India - because their history is full of such instances and they cannot imagine how any other way can exist.

The classic marxist eternal war between haves and have-nots is similar to classic eternal war between believers and non-believers in abrahmic traditions.
Universal workers revolution is simlar to qayamat OR apocalypse and judegment day.
christendom or darul-islam is similar to rule of proletariat
Evangelism and Dawaa is similar to Export of revolution
disbelief in territorial boundaries is similar as well..

When in India, they could not find any such groups. So create eternal war between dravidians and aryans, brahmins and non-brahmins, north indians and south indians, astikas and nastikas, vaishnavas and shaivas, hindus and buddhists. I do not say that these couples were always at peace, NO. What I am saying is that the paradigm of their internal struggle or even "war (if any)" was not the abrahmo-marxist paradigm stated in paragraph above. It was limited to that time, space and component of varna-ashrama-purushartha quartet. The Adhyatmik war of sannyasis or intellectuals did not spill over into economic war or total war. wars between two kings were limited to enlisted kshatriyas and mercenaries (not extended to a farmer tilling his land some distance away from battlefield).

this is what makes Indic frame of reference different and dharmik and hence worth preserving. compartmentalization of differences and sorting those out in those respective compartments, without allowing the conflict to spill out as far as possible.

[Shanmukh]

Subsequently, all the terms like "buddhist kings" or "buddhist empire" are misnomers. Calling Ashoka's empire as buddhist empire is as non-indic as calling Gupta empire as "vaishnava empire". The personal adhyatmik path of ashoka was Buddha's path, thats it. He was coronated according to shrauta vaidik traditions and was following his raajdharma in accordance with the arthashastra of Chanakya. the dharma-shastras incumbent in his population were various (manu, yajnavalkya, apastambha, bhrigu, ashwalayan and countless other jaati-specific codes of conduct prevalent of various indian jaatis).

Calling Pushyamitra as brahminical emperor is similarly foolish. Apart from the fact that there is no evidence of him massacring buddhists, all he most probably did was stopped all the sarkari subsidies which buddhists were receiving during maurya era and diverted them to aastika people). I hardly understand how this amounts to persecution. Pushyamitra too was continuing the aarthika policy in accordance to chanakya perhaps. he personally belonged to astika adhyatmik path.

this is how we look at our lives and past. The religion of ashoka was snot "buddhism", just as the religion of pushyamitra was not "brahminism (whatever unicorn that is)". What is correct from indic frame of reference is their adhyatmik preference were bauddhamat and aastikamat respectively. There was no "religious war" going on. There were intellectual debates and arguments going on between learned men of various adhyatmik paths. At the most, there were heated debates perhaps with some contemporary "maa-behen ki gaalis" exchanged (I say "perhaps", because I do not know any sanskrit cuss word, probably because there isn't any word as harsh and dirty as Maadarchod in any indic language - this is Persian and arabic inheritance) but that's it. These intellectuals did not carry out genocides on each other. This is how western interpretation of astika and nastika ideologies view India - because their history is full of such instances and they cannot imagine how any other way can exist.

The classic marxist eternal war between haves and have-nots is similar to classic eternal war between believers and non-believers in abrahmic traditions.
Universal workers revolution is simlar to qayamat OR apocalypse and judegment day.
christendom or darul-islam is similar to rule of proletariat
Evangelism and Dawaa is similar to Export of revolution
disbelief in territorial boundaries is similar as well..

When in India, they could not find any such groups. So create eternal war between dravidians and aryans, brahmins and non-brahmins, north indians and south indians, astikas and nastikas, vaishnavas and shaivas, hindus and buddhists. I do not say that these couples were always at peace, NO. What I am saying is that the paradigm of their internal struggle or even "war (if any)" was not the abrahmo-marxist paradigm stated in paragraph above. It was limited to that time, space and component of varna-ashrama-purushartha quartet.

+1 Atri-ji. And even in the exceptional cases where you find violence, if you look at the underlying causes, you will find one of the two always true.
1) Court intrigues. Philosophers were not immune to this. They intrigued against each other. In those cases where you find one philosopher exiled (Can someone point to a prominent Indian philosopher being executed? Off hand I cannot think of any), it was because his rivals intrigued against him with the king successfully.
2) When moksha margas got involved in politics - In this case, the iron law of politics would come to the fore, and anyone (even moksha margas) playing politics in opposition to the ruler would be crushed.

Tony - I entreat you to go through each stated case of violence against Buddhism carefully. You will find a lot of loopholes in the theories by the Marxists, and they are spinning those overarching theories for a reason. That reason is to divorce Hindus from Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists (in India, at least). They want to break us up, so they can break us all at leisure.

[RamaY]

[harbans]

Nice post Atri ji! Have been saying this for long. We were not Hindu kingdoms, neither was Ashoka a Buddhist kingdom. We were a Dharmic Sthal that allowed the propagation of maths as and when. Mostly the differences and spread were through debates and discussions between the intellectuals, the fights between kingdoms was Kshatriyas without affecting those that tilled the lands. The evolving nature for development was kept open. But it never strayed from Dharma. Those that went against it were fought and defeated an example we have in MB/ Ramayana or the action of the Sikh gurus. While the math heads were pretty solid on their theology the followers were fluid and free even to form their own math. In India this happened so often. Prathme Narjito Vidya; Dwitye Narjito Dhanam; Triiye Narjito Punyam; Chaturthe Kim Karishyavah? One cannot have a complete Moksh Margi society unless one does the necessary towards Vidya, Dhanam and Punyam.

[harbans]

(Can someone point to a prominent Indian philosopher being executed? Off hand I cannot think of any),

There were no executions in MB/ Ramayana. Chinese travelers in the 4th century again wrote no executions took place in the lands where they traveled. So executions were not the norm for sure in Dharmic India. Exile was the norm for severe crimes.

[harbans]

Even wrt the societies we live today, in the community center we have one day kirtana's, yesterday we had a function till very late Janmashtami, then we had a Zen Buddhist lecturer invited, a Vaishnava Saint came sometime back and so on now that i am recollecting. People from all walks and not necessarily adherents to Zen, Vaishnava, Bhakti moulds attended. While those who delivered their lectures may have chosen their moorings, those that were in the various stages of Artha, Vidya, Punyam etc, attended freely possibly many of these different strands of Dharmic thought. TS and those with excluvist thinking remind me of standing outside the centre and asking what is your math. If you are no, then do no attend. They are shifting the debate and crating contention where it does not exist amongst those that still have their calling to choose. That calling is natural and must not be hurried..Lord Krishna in BG mentions that in this context towards the end of the BG while he exhorts folks to go about their tasks of Vidya, Punyam, Protecting etc. THe Western framework tries to fix people unnaturally without any calling from within and as a result of outward maneuvering. This is not a natural way and will lead to abnormal people and conflict. The many major conflicts we see are as a result of that untoward and forced freezing of those that go about their natural Dharma.

While my society and those inherent in it don't have a problem attending to the various different Dharmic guru's, they do have the time to think and choose what will be their calling. The same happened in Ancient India, Kirtana's used to pass by the village, Gyana Yogi's held their sway at times, the Jain mendicant and guru too passed by with great respect shown and the same happened to the Buddhist monk. BUt all in the village realized some fundamental aspects common..and they maintained thier course before evolving to the final choosing of their choice sometime. The Western system unsympathetic and unbelieving of the reincarnation and Karmic concept fixated on earlier choosing of chosen path before natural Vidya, punyam and Kama. Then after the forced choosing tried to manipulate Vidya, Punyam and Kama to that. That is not a natural way. BG underlines that macro perspective to life. This does not negate Gyana, Bhakti or any marg.

[Agnimitra]

Useful for comparison of theory of 'karma' and 'predestination by birth' between ancient Vedic original and Buddhist and post-Buddhist 'Hinduism' -

X-post from Sanskrit nukkad:

An inspiring passage from the Aitareya Brahmana 7.15 (verses 1-5), which provides an ancient Indic understanding of the following:

1. Meanings of the "4 yugas" (satya, treta, dwapara, kali)
2. Thought vs. Action - and both their relation to "karma"
3. Relation of body and soul - role of thriving, fruitful body and bodily efforts in sadhana
4. Destiny (bhaagya) - and how it can be changed based on individual's mode of consciousness
5. Non-clutching to any 'organized communal truth', but to keep wandering in search (a famous verse supposedly also quoted often by The Buddha to his disciples)

For actual verses:
1. Sanskrit text of Aitareya Brahmana
2. An English translation attempt of Aitareya Brahmana

अथ हैक्ष्वाकं वरुणो जग्राह, तस्य होदरं जज्ञे ।
तद् उ ह रोहितः शुश्राव, सो sरण्याद् ग्रामं एयाय ।
तं इन्द्रः पुरुषरूपेण पर्येत्योवाच -

नाना श्रान्ताय श्रीरस्तीति रोहित शुश्रुम ।
पापो नृषद्वरो जन इन्द्र इच्चरतः सखा ॥

"Then Varuna seized Aikshvaaka; his belly swelled up.
This Rohita heard; he went from the wild (wilderness) to the village (social/communal organization).
To him Indra came in human form and said -

'Manifold is the prosperity of him who is weary (after great effort)', so we have heard O Rohita;
Evil is he who stays put among men, Indra is the comrade of the wanderer (one who travels with some purpose)."

चरैवेति चरैवेति वै मा ब्राह्मणो sवोचद्,
इति ह द्वितीयं संवत्सरं अरण्ये चचार ।
सो sरण्याद् ग्रामं एयाय, तं इन्द्रः पुरुषरूपेण पर्येत्योवाच -

पुष्पिण्यौ चरतो जङ्घे भूष्णुरात्मा फलग्रहिः ।
शेते sस्य सर्वे पाप्मानः श्रमेण प्रपथे हताश् ॥

"Do thou wander. (Thinking) 'This Brahman has bidden me 'wander',
He wandered for a second year in the wild.
He came from the wild to the village. To him came Indra in human form and said -

'Flower-like the thighs (or shanks/heels) of the wanderer, his body grows/thrives and is fruitful;
All his sins go into remission (lie low), slain by the toil of his journeying.'"

चरैवेति चरैवेति वै मा ब्राह्मणो sवोचद्,
इति ह तृतीयं संवत्सरं अरण्ये चचार ।
सो sरण्याद् ग्रामं एयाय, तं इन्द्रः पुरुषरूपेण पर्येत्योवाच -

आस्ते भग आसीनस्योर्ध्वस् तिष्ठति तिष्ठतः ।
शेते निपद्यमानस्य चराति चरतो भगश् ॥

"Do thou wander. (Thinking) 'This Brahman has bidden me 'wander',
He wandered for a third year in the wild.
He came from the wild to the village. To him came Indra in human form and said -

'The fortune of him who sits also sits, but that of him who stands stands erect;
That of him who reclines lies down, the fortune of him that moves shall move indeed.'"

चरैवेति चरैवेति वै मा ब्राह्मणो sवोचद्,
इति ह चतुर्थं संवत्सरं अरण्ये चचार ।
सो sरण्याद् ग्रामं एयाय, तं इन्द्रः पुरुषरूपेण पर्येत्योवाच -

कलिः शयानो भवति संजिहानस् तु द्वापरः ।
उत्तिष्ठंस् त्रेता भवति कृतं संपद्यते चरंश् ॥

"Do thou wander. (Thinking) 'This Brahman has bidden me 'wander',
He wandered for a fourth year in the wild.
He came from the wild to the village. To him came Indra in human form and said -

'Kali he becomes who lies down to sleep, Dwapara when he rises awake;
Treta when he stands erect, and Krta (Satya) when he gets moving.'"

चरैवेति चरैवेति वै मा ब्राह्मणो sवोचद्,
इति ह पञ्चमं संवत्सरं अरण्ये चचार ।
सो sरण्याद् ग्रामं एयाय, तं इन्द्रः पुरुषरूपेण पर्येत्योवाच -

चरन् वै मधु विन्दति चरन् स्वादुं उदुम्बरम् ।
सूर्यस्य पश्य श्रेमाणं यो न तन्द्रयते चरंश् ॥

"Do thou wander. (Thinking) 'This Brahman has bidden me 'wander',
He wandered for a fifth year in the wild.
He came from the wild to the village. To him came Indra in human form and said -

'Wandering one finds honey, wandering the sweet Udumbara fruit;
Consider the pre-eminence of the sun, who wearies never of wandering.'"

I found these verses quoted in this article: Agniveer: Understanding Self in Hinduism
The link also has an audio rendition. Here is their translation:

“One who does not put noble efforts tirelessly and relentlessly cannot achieve prosperity and glory. A lazy person who only thinks but does not do anything significant, gets destroyed due to this greatest sin. Ishwar helps only him who puts the best efforts. Hence keep walking, keep walking.

"A laborious person makes his body strong and his soul becomes deserving of greatest fruits of actions. Efforts destroy all road-blocks. Hence keep walking, keep walking.

"What is destiny? One who sits also makes his destiny seated. One who sleeps puts his destiny into slumber. One who walks forces his destiny also to move forth. Hence keep walking, keep walking.

"When one sleeps, it is Kaliyug. When one wakes up, it is Dwapar. When he stands, it is Treta and once he gets into action, he creates Satyug. Hence keep walking, keep walking.

"Only one who walks gets sweetness and bliss of honey. Only one who walks achieves sweet fruits of action. Look at sun, it never stops and keeps moving. Hence keep walking, keep walking.”

[johneeG]

Of course Shiva is no Brahmin, in fact the Saiva cult was hostile to brahminism initially as can be seen in the episode of Sati immolating herself at Prajapati Daksha's yagna.

Shiva Shiva!!!
Kya bhakwaas hai. Goddess Sathi/Parvathi Herself is called Aryaa. There is an Aryaa Shathkam addressed to the Goddess by Muka Kavi.

Rukmini worshiped Aryaa Dhevi, so as to get married to Shri Krushna. And Rukmini eloped with Krushna from the temple of Aryaa Dhevi(i.e. Sathi/Parvathi Dhevi).

So, there were temples even in that age.
Aryaa refers to Goddess Sathi/Parvathi. So, no, Shaivism is not anti-'arya'.

And, Krushna itself means 'black'. There are 3 Krushnas in MB, all of them are dark: Shri Krushna, son of Dhevaki and Vasudheva; Krushna-Dwaipayana(i.e. Vedha Vyasa), son of Sathyavathi and Parashara; and Krushna(i.e. Dhraupadhi), daughter of Dhrupada.
Rukmini means 'Golden one'.

So, Rukmin is Golden hue while Krushna is dark. Their very names indicate that. Just like, Lakshmi and Vishnu.

Vedha Vyasa, the highest 'Brahmin', was very dark. He was born dark, so He was called Krushna. He was born on an island, so He was called Dhwaipayana. He edited the Vedhas, so He was called Vedha Vyasa. It was He who wrote all the Puranas and MB. And that person was dark. That in itself blasts all racist theories based on color of skin.

In MB, Paandu was fair(or rather pale). Being fair is not equated to being beautiful. On the other hand, being fair/pale may indicate some disease/mutation if we go by the indian literature. In telugu, there is a saying 'mokam thela padipoyindi' which means 'face has become pale/fair' which indicates some shock/sorrow/disease.

In indian literature of yore, golden or dark was considered beautiful. 'Fair'(as in the skintone of westerners) was not considered beautiful.

In Valmiki Ramayana, Shri Rama and Ravana both are dark. And, Rama is dark, while his brother Lakshamana is golden hue. It is believed that Bharatha was also dark while Shatrughna was golden hue. In my family also, I am dark, while my brother is fair. My mother is dark, while my father is fair. And the same was the case in my father's generation also. My father is fair, while his brothers are darker. Some are very dark. While others are moderate color.

In most families, womenfolk are fairer perhaps due to the exposure to sun, skin care and also the thicker skin of males. Apart from that in the recent generations, people seem to be, on an average, fair. That may be due to good precautions and healthy food during the pregnancy.

Basic point is that color has nothing to do with modern day caste(i.e. jaathi). And it is doubtful if the modern day caste(i.e. jaathi) has anything to do with Varnas.

BTW, Aryaa Dhevi(i.e. Parvathi/Sathi) was also Kaali(black) and Gauri(wheatish).
Her husband, Shiva is the fair one. Goddess Saraswathi is also fair one.

But, the same Saraswathi also has another form called Aruna(red) Saraswathi. She also takes the avatara of Shyamala Dhevi. Shyamala means black/green.

Skhandha/Subramanya/Karthikeya is also fair.

Among the avataras of Vishnu:
Nrusimha is fair.
Varaha is also fair. The present Kalpa is named after Him as Shwetha(white) Varaha Kalpa.
Don't know about Trivikrama(i.e Vamana/Upendhra).
Shri Rama and Shri Krushna are dark.
Vedha Vyasa is also dark.

Link to another related post

Link to one more related post

Ever heard about the mantra that goes :
"Shivaya vishnu rupaya, vishnu rupaya shivaye" meaning they are one and the same. There is no distinction among Ishwara to form "groups" one lower than the other. Ishwara has no Varna. Neither Shiva nor Vishnu. And I don't understand the relationship between brahminsim and Sati immolation.

Shivaya vishnu rupaya, Shiva rupaya vishnave
yatha shiva mayo vishnu, evam vishnu mayo shivah.

Shiva in Vishnu's form and Vishnu in Shiva's form. As Vishnu is filled(completely) with Shiva, Shiva is filled(completely) with Vishnu.

Following is a shloka from Shiva-ananda-lahari by Adhi Shankaracharya:

Banasthwam , vrishabhastwam Ardha vapusha baryatwam,
Gonithwam sakkhitha mridhangavahatha chetyadhiroopam dhadhow,
Twat pade nayanarpanam cha kruthavan twad deha bhago hari,
Poojyat poojyatharasya eva hi na chet ko vaa tadanyo adhika. 82

Oh Lord of Arya (11),
The lord Vishnu became your arrow (12) and bull (13),
Occupied half your body,
Became transformed to be your wife,
Occupying half your body
Became a boar to search for you,
Became your lady friend to serve the nectar,
Became the player of drum while you danced,
And offered his eye in worship at your feet,
He also took half the share of your body as Harihara,
And so he becomes eminently suitable for worship,
For who else is there greater than him.

Link

Here, Adhi Shankara is enumerating the various ways in which Shiva and Vishnu are related. One of the relations is Vishnu became the wife of Shiva and Ayyappa(Maha-Shashta) was born. There is another secret here. Vishnu is the male form of Goddess. Both Goddess and Vishu are one and the same.

Yesterday was Janmashtami, the birthday of Shri Krushna. But, it was also the birthday of Goddess. While, Krushna was born in Mathura, Goddess was born in Vraja. Krushna was taken to Vraja and Goddess was taken to Mathura. They are brother and sister. Or more precisely, two forms(one male and another female) but same entity.

Another point is that Vishnu occupies half of Shiva's body. But, Goddess also occupies half of Shiva's body. What does that mean? That means Goddess and Vishnu are same same. Notice that frequently, it is either the Goddess or Vishnu who take out the Adharmics.

Yadha Yadha hi dharmasya glanir bhavathi bharatha,
abhi-utthanam adharmasya thatha athamanam srujami aham
Paritranaya Sadhunaam Vinashaya Cha Dushkrutaam
Dharama-samsthapna-arthaya Sambhavami Yuge-Yuge.

The above promise is generally fulfilled by both Goddess and Vishnu. Generally, any one is making too much disturbance is taken care by Indhra(of Swarga). But, when He is unable to do so, then He goes to higher authorities. And Goddess(Lakshmi, Saraswathi or Parvathi) or Vishnu do the needful.

Brahma or Shiva rarely fight. There are only few instances when Lord Shiva Himself goes to fight. For example, Thripuras. Shiva went to fight with Thripuras. At that time, Vishnu transformed into Shiva's arrow, while Brahma became His charioteer.

--------
The word 'Dhravida' is not found in either Vedhas or Valmiki Ramayana. Dhravida is mentioned in MB as just another clan along with several other clans including Keralas, Andhras, ...etc. Andhras are mentioned in MB and Valmiki Ramayana.

'Dasyu' means robbers or thieves.

--------

Krishna was Invented to Rival Buddha

Ulta chor kotwal ko daaten?

Everyone has been stealing/borrowing from Hinduism, yet they turn around and call names to Hinduism. Thats funny.

Actually, what has been happening is that Hinduism is the tree with several branches, some of the branches break away and want to become a separate tree by themselves. In trying to do so, they copy Hinduism and then claim that Hinduism copied from them. Just look at churches with dhwajasthambas in south India, and you will understand how this phenomenon starts. Church even has a name for it: inculturation.

Buddha's bio copies motifs heavily from MB, ramayana(bio of Rama) and Bhagavatham(bio of Krushna). All the figures(like Indhra, Kubera, Vyasa, ...etc) are copied by Buddhism from Hindu literature. And deliberately created as spoofs.

So many people seem to fall in the trap of thinking that Hinduism tried to swallow Buddhism by making Buddha part of Hindu pantheon. That is complete BS. I think the more probable thing is that Buddhists took a character from Hindu epics and invested it with a bogus bio by copying the motifs from Hindu literature. The same thing happened with Christ figure. A character from jewish literature is taken and is invested with a bogus bio by copying the motifs from Buddhist literature.

Buddhists had tried to distort many Hindu scriptures by creating imitations. This can be seen in jataka tales. One example is where Rama's relation with Seetha amma is presented as incest in jataka tales. All of this is done to fool the masses. Very similar to EJ missionaries who try to fool the masses by spewing all kinds of nonsense to convert the people.

Following is the past-life story of Vidhura in MB in Adhi Parva:

SECTION 107

(Sambhava Parva continued)
"Janamejaya said, 'What did the god of justice do for which he was cursed? And who was the Brahma-rushi from whose curse the god had to be born in the womb of a Shudhra?'
"Vaisampayana said, 'There was a Brahmana known by the name of Mandavya. He was conversant with all duties and was devoted to Dharma, Sathya and Tapas. The great ascetic used to sit at the entrance of his hermitage at the foot of a tree, with his arms upraised in the observance of the vow of silence. And as he sat there for years together, one day there came into his asylum a number of robbers laden with spoil. And, O bull in Bharatha's family (lineage), those robbers were then being pursued by a superior body as guardians of the peace. The thieves, on entering that asylum, hid their booty there, and in fear concealed themselves thereabout before the guards came. But scarcely had they thus concealed themselves when the constables in pursuit came to the spot. The latter, observing the Rushi sitting under the tree, questioned him, O king, saying, 'O best of Dhvijas, which way have the thieves taken? Point it out to us so that we may follow it without loss of time.' Thus questioned by the guardians of peace the ascetic, O king, said not a word, good or otherwise, in reply. The officers of the king, however, on searching that asylum soon discovered the thieves concealed thereabout together with the plunder. Upon this, their suspicion fell upon the Muni, and accordingly they seized him with the thieves and brought him before the king. The king sentenced him to be executed along with his supposed associates. And the officers, acting in ignorance, carried out the sentence by impaling the celebrated Rushi. And having impaled him, they went to the king with the booty they had recovered. But the virtuous Rushi, though impaled and kept without food, remained in that state for a long time without dying. And the Rushi by his ascetic power not only preserved his life but summoned other Rushi to the scene. And they came there in the night in the forms of birds, and beholding him engaged in ascetic meditation though fixed on that stake, became plunged into grief. And telling that best of Dhvijas, who they were, they asked him saying, 'O knowledgable one, we desire to know what has been your sin for which you have thus been made to suffer the tortures of impalement!'"

SECTION 108

(Sambhava Parva continued)
"Vaisampayana said, 'Thus asked, the tiger among Munis then answered those Rushis of ascetic wealth, 'Whom shall I blame for this? In fact, none else (than my own self) has offended against me!' After this, O monarch, the officers of justice, seeing him alive, informed the king of it. The latter hearing what they said, consulted with his advisers, and came to the place and began to pacify the Rushi fixed on the stake. And the king said, 'O you best of Rushis, I have offended against you in ignorance. I beseech you to pardon me for the same. It behoves you not to be angry with me.' Thus addressed by the king, the Muni was pacified. And beholding him free from wrath, the king took him up with the stake and endeavoured to extract it from his body. But not succeeding therein, he cut it off at the point just outside the body. The Muni, with a portion of the stake within his body, walked about, and in that state practised the austerest of penances and conquered numberless regions unattainable by others. And for the circumstances of a part of the stake being within his body, he came to be known in the three worlds by the name of Ani-Mandavya (Mandavya with the stake within). And one day that Vipra acquainted with the highest truth of religion went to the abode of the god of justice. And beholding the god there seated on his throne, the Rushi reproached him and said, 'What, pray, is that sinful act committed by me unconsciously, for which I am bearing this punishment? O, tell me soon, and behold the power of my asceticism.'

"The god of justice, thus questioned, replied, 'O you of ascetic wealth, a little insect was once pierced by you on a blade of grass. You bear now the consequence of the act. O Rushi, as a gift, however small, multiplies in respect of its religious merits, so a sinful act multiplies in respect of the woe it brings in its train.' On hearing this, Ani-Mandavya asked, 'O tell me truly when this act was committed by me. Told in reply by the god of justice that he had committed it, when a child, the Rushi said, 'That shall not be a sin which may be done by a child up to the twelfth year of his age from birth. The scriptures shall not recognise it as sinful. The punishment you have inflicted on me for such a venial offence has been disproportionate in severity. The killing of a Brahmana involves a sin that is heavier than the killing of any other living being. You shall, therefore, O god of justice, have to be born among men even in the Shudhra order. And from this day I establish this limit in respect of the consequence of acts that an act shall not be sinful when committed by one below the age of fourteen. But when committed by one above that age, it shall be regarded as sin.'

"Vaisampayana continued, 'Cursed for this fault by that illustrious Rushi, the god of justice had his birth as Vidhura in the Shudhra womb. And Vidhura was well-versed in the doctrines of Dharma and also Nithi and Artha. And he was entirely free from covetousness and wrath. Possessed of great foresight and undisturbed tranquillity of mind, Vidhura was ever devoted to the welfare of the Kurus.'"

Italicized lines are not found in Sanskrit version(which is found online). Also the sanskrith online version says that it is the fourteenth year not twelfth year.

Now, the same story is repeated in the Buddhist version as the past life of Buddha:

(F. 43 3 b ) Maheshvarasena of Varanasi had many descendants, who reigned in Kushinagara and also in Potala; one of these was King Karnika, who had two sons, Gauthama and Bharadvaja (f. 43 5 a ) ; the former was a virtuous man, whereas the latter was wicked. Gauthama, though the elder, begged his father to allow him to become a recluse, for he dreaded the responsibility of a sovereign ruler. Having obtained the necessary consent, he became the disciple of a rushi called Krushnavarna. After a while, King Karnika died, and Bharadvaja became king (f. 436 a ).

Following his master’s advice, Gauthama built a hut within the precincts of Potala, and there he dwelt. It happened once that a courtesan of Potala called Bhadra was killed by her crafty lover near the recluse’s hut 1 (f. 437 a ), into which the murderer threw his bloody sword.
The people of the town finding the murdered woman and the sword in the hermit’s hut, thought him the murderer, and he was condemned to death. He was marched through the city with a wreath of karavira (sic) flowers around his neck and dressed in rags; then they took him outside the southern gate and impaled him (f. 437").


ORIGIN OF THE IKSHVAKU FAMILY.

While yet alive, his master, the rushi Krushnavarna saw him, and questioned him as to his guilt. " If I am innocent," Gauthama replied, " may you from black become golden-coloured ! " and straightway the rushi became golden-coloured, and was from that time known as Kanakavarna. Gauthama also told the rushi that he was greatly worried at the thought that the throne of Potala would become vacant, for his brother had no children (f. 438 b ) ; so the rushi caused a great rain to fall on Gauthama, and a mighty wind to arise which soothed his pains and revived his senses, and two drops of semen mingled with blood fell from him.

After a little while these two drops became eggs, and the heat of the rising sun caused them to open, and from out them came two children, who went into a sugar-cane plantation near by. The heat of the sun went on increasing, so that the rushi Gauthama dried up and died.

Now the rushi Kanakavarna perceived that these children must be Gauthama’s, so he took them home with him and provided for them. Having been born as the sun arose, and having been brought forth by its rays, they were called " of the sun family " or Suryavansa.

They were, moreover, called Gauthama, being the children of Gauthama, and as they were " born from his loins," they were, in the third place, called Angirasas (Yan-lag skyes). Having been found in a " sugar-cane plantation," they were called Ikshvaku (f. 439).

Bharadvaja died without issue, and the ministers consulted the rushi to know if Gauthama had left children (f. 439 b ). He told them the strange story, and they took the children and made the elder one king. He died, however, without issue, and the younger became king under the name of Ikshvaku. One hundred of his descendants reigned in Potala, the last of which was Ikshvaku Virudhaka (f. 440).

He had four sons, Ulkamukha, Ivarakarna, Hastinayaka, and Nupura. He married, however, a second time, on condition that if his wife bore a son, he should be king.

After a while she had a son whose name was Rajyananda 1 (f. 44 i b ).

When this last child had grown up, King Virudhaka, on the representation of his wife’s father, was obliged to declare his youngest son his successor and to exile his four other sons.

The princes set out, accompanied by their sisters and a great many people. They traveled toward the Himalaya mountains, and coming to the hermitage of the rushi Kapila, on the bank of the Bhagirathi, they built huts of leaves, and fed on the produce of their hunting (f. 443).

Following the rushi’s advice, they took as their wives sisters who were not of the same mother as themselves, and in this way they had many children. 1

The rushi showed them where to build a town, and he marked it out with golden sand mixed with water, and they built it according to his directions (f. 444). The rushi Kapila having given the soil (vastii) of the place, they called the town "the soil of Kapila" or Kapilavastu.

When they had become very numerous, a deva pointed out another spot, on which they built a town, which they called " shown by a deva " or Devadaha. 2

They made a law in a general assembly of the clan that they should only marry one wife, and that she must be of their own clan (f. 444 b ).

Link

The above is the Buddhist version. The etymologies given by these Buddhists are all misleading, infact it seems to be a deliberately mischievous attempt to play foul with Hindu scriptures.

The Krushnavarna mentioned in the above excerpt has another reading. I read in another version that his name was Krushna-Dwaipayana. Basically, the Buddhist version claims that Krushna-Dwaipayana was the teacher of Buddha in his previous life. And that Krushna-Dwaipayana was made into a Kanaka-Dwaipayana by the Buddha according to the buddhist version. What more, Kanaka-Dwaipayana brought up the children of the Buddha(in his previous life). Buddha was called Gauthama in his previous life according to the above version. So, he came to be known later in the next life as Gauthama Buddha!(Hardly makes any sense to me).

This is a joke on Hindu icon Vyasa. Vyasa is being made fun of.

Also notice the satire on Ikshvaku and Angiras that is being pulled by this buddhist works.

The following is the Hindu version of Ikshvaku's lineage from Valmiki Ramayana in Bala Kaanda Sarga 70:

अव्यक्त प्रभवो ब्रह्मा शाश्वतो नित्य अव्ययः || १-७०-१९
तस्मात् मरीचिः संजज्ञे मरीचेः कश्यपः सुतः |
विवस्वान् कश्यपात् जज्ञे मनुर् वैवस्वतः स्मृतः || १-७०-२०

"The Unprovable emanated the timeless, changeless and perishless Brahma, and from that Being, namely Brahma, Mariichi is begotten, and Kaashyapa is the son of Mariichi, and the Sun is begotten from Kaashyapa, and Manu is said to be the son of the Sun... [1-70-19b, 20]

मनुः प्रजापतिः पूर्वम् इक्ष्वाकुः च मनोः सुतः |
तम् इक्ष्वाकुम् अयोध्यायाम् राजानम् विद्धि पूर्वकम् || १-७०-२१

"Manu is the earliest Prajaapati and Ikshvaaku is the son of Manu, and that Ikshvaaku is the first king of Ayodhya... know thus... [1-70-21]

Link


According to Hinduism, Ikshvaku was the son of Manu. Which Manu? Vaivaswatha Manu. Vaivasvatha Manu was the son of Sun. And therefore, it was called Suryavansha. Shri Rama was born in that lineage. The buddhist version is simply a spoof on the Hindu version. Actually, it seems to me that they are deliberately trying to insult Hinduism by giving silly etymologies to terms important for Hindus.

Kapila is the avatara of Vishnu according to Hinduism. It was Kapila Maharshi who taught Sankhya. Buddhism is playing with his too by saying that incest(between brother and sister) was sanctioned by him.

Buddha is being punished, in his previous life, for a crime that he did not commit. The motif is copied from the MB.

There is a sanskrith play based on the above buddhist version mixed with another Bhasa's play. That means there is a play of Bhasa. It was remixed with this buddhist version of the story and a new play was created. It is called Mricchakatika(little clay cart, eng translation).

That play was made into a movie by the left-liberal Karnad named utsav. He introduced crass insinuations about Vatsayana and Kamasuthra into the movie.

Now, the same motif(based on play and buddhist version) is remixed in NT in so-called crucification of Jesus. BTW, Jesus is a corruption of Yashas. Yashas was one of the first converts to Buddhism according to the Buddhist literature. He was an agra-kulika-putra according to Buddhist literature.

The word 'agra-kulika-putra' is not found in ancient Hindu literature, as far as I know. The word 'Kula' is used to mean a school/family in Valmiki Ramayana and MB. But, in Buddhist literature, there is a curious new word called 'agra-kulika-putra'. So, there were some kulas which were considered agra-kulas. The word agra-kula comes from buddhist literature. Here, Kula gets conflated with Jaathi. The word agra-kula is still used in AP.

The word 'agra-kulika-putra' is found in NT as 'ho tou tektonos huios'(Greek). It is the description of family of Jesus. It means son of ‘tekton’. ‘Tekton’ can refer to any artist. It can also mean a chief of a guild. ‘Agra-kulika’ is being translated as ‘tekton’ in NT.

The following is the NT version:
Mark 15

17 They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. 18 And they began to call out to him, “Hail, king of the Jews!” 19 Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. 20 And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him.

The Soldiers Mock Jesus

16 The soldiers led Jesus away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium) and called together the whole company of soldiers. 17 They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. 18 And they began to call out to him, “Hail, king of the Jews!” 19 Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. 20 And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him.
The Crucifixion of Jesus

21 A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross. 22 They brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means “the place of the skull”). 23 Then they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it. 24 And they crucified him. Dividing up his clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get.

25 It was nine in the morning when they crucified him. 26 The written notice of the charge against him read: the king of the jews.

27 They crucified two rebels with him, one on his right and one on his left. [28] [a] 29 Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, 30 come down from the cross and save yourself!” 31 In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! 32 Let this Messiah, this king of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.
The Death of Jesus

33 At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. 34 And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).

35 When some of those standing near heard this, they said, “Listen, he’s calling Elijah.”

36 Someone ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to take him down,” he said.

37 With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.

Link

Golgotha(place where Jesus was crucified) -> Kukutha(place where Gauthama was crucified)
Xulon (cross) -> Shulam (stake)
Crown of thorns -> wreath made of karaveera flowers
The greek word for 'crown of thorns' is 'Akantha'. 'Akantaka' in sanskruth means 'without thorns'. So, its clever pun which conveys 'thorns' in greek while 'thornless' in sanskruth.
morning became dark in Jesus story -> Gauthama was impaled in dark night and died when the sun rose and became hot.
Jerusalem -> Kushinagari

Simon of Cyrene, father of Rufus and Alexander is mentioned. Who is he? In another source, there is a mention of Simon the niger. He is called Niger because he is dark. That means Krushnavarna or Krushna Dwaipayana. Dwipa means Island. Krushna-Dwaipayana means Black-Islander. He is originally a Hindu character. He has been used by the Buddhists. Then a proxy is being introduced namely Simon of Cyrene or Simon the niger.

Rufus and Alexander are the proxies for the sons of Gauthama(who are called Ikshavakus in Buddhist version making a mockery of Hinduism).

In Buddhist version, Gauthama(Buddha in his previous life) has his blood and semen drop on earth and two eggs are formed by that. These egg-shells are 'kapalani'. So, the place Kukutha is described as a place of 'kapalani'(i.e. egg-shells formed by the semen of Gauthama). In NT version, the place is called Golgotha and described as place of skulls. Egg-shells become skulls. Because, in sanskruth, skulls are also called kapalani. It is a pun a sanskruth pun executed in Greek to fool the audience. It is like taqqiya. You say one thing but mean something else.

Another version of so-called Jesus crucification:
Luke 22:

Jesus Prays on the Mount of Olives

39 Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him. 40 On reaching the place, he said to them, “Pray that you will not fall into temptation.” 41 He withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, 42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” 43 An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. 44 And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.[c]

Link

That angel is Krushna-Dwaipayana or Krushnavarna or Simon of Cyrene or Simon the niger.

Jesus' sweat fell like drops of blood on the ground. This is the imitation of Gauthama's blood and semen falling on the ground and producing the eggs and children from those eggs. Those children are Rufus and Alexender in NT, while Ikshvakus in Buddhist literature.

One more version of the same tale:
John 19:

31 Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32 The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.

Link

This is a more direct imitation of the original Gauthama story. Gauthama is impaled by a stake in his anus(like Ani-Mandavya). Similarly, Jesus is poked by a spear. Blood and water(semen or sweat?) flow and fall on ground. In Buddhist version, Gauthama's blood and semen fall on ground and become egg-shells(i.e. kapalani which also means skulls).

In the Hindu version(MB), Ani-Mandavya goes to Hell to meet with Yama after his impalement. In the Buddhist version, Gauthama goes to Tushitha heaven after impalement. And then, Gauthama is reborn as Siddhartha(or Buddha). In X-ist version, Jesus is crucified, then he is dead(death means hell in Buddhism). Then, Jesus is 're-born' as Savior(i.e. Buddha).

Actually, it is a quite complex remix, but may be it should be reserved for other posts. For example, thieves accompanying the Jesus are Ananda and Subhadra who accompanied the dying Buddha. Chundas is Judas. Chundas offered bad food to Buddha while Judas betrayed Jesus. Basically Chundas/Judas is responsible for the death of Buddha/Judas. Amrapali is Mary Magdalene. Amrapali and Mary Magdalene are prostitutes. Sermon on mount is sermon near varanasi.

The Buddhist version is used to create several crypto versions to attract other audiences. This is not at all new. This happened in all the countries that Buddhism spread to. The same thing is being done in NT versions also. But, Buddhist versions themselves are an elaborate copies/spoofs/fakes/imitations of Hindu versions.

Buddha is remix of motifs from MB, ramayana and Bhagavatha. No, not just Shri Krushna, but other figures(like Ani-Mandavya, Asitha, Vyasa, Ikshvaku, Pandavas, ...etc) are also spoofed/copied/stolen by the Buddhist versions.

------

Pithr(Sanskrit-Father)->Pitha(Hindi-Father)->Padre(Italian/Spanish-Father)->Pater(Latin-Father)->Pedda(Telugu-Elder)->Pedar(Persian-Father)->Pere(French-Father)
Pater(Latin-Father)->Pedar(Persian-Father)->Father(English-Father)
Pater(Latin-Father)->Bater->Vater(German-Father)->Validi(Arabic->Father)

Arya(Sanskrit-Respected)->Ayya(Telugu-Father)->Appa(Tamil-Father)->Abba(Arabic/Korean-Father)
Appa(Tamil-Father)->Papa->Pai(Portuguese-Father)
Papa(Pappa)->Bappa(Marathi-Father)->Bapu->Baba(Chinese-Father)

Thatha(Sanskrit-Father)->Thatha(Telugu-Grand Father)->O Tats(Russian-Father)
Thatha(Telugu-Grand Father)->Dhadha(Hindi-Grand Father)->Dada(Father).

Amba(Sanskrit-Mother)->Amma(Telugu/Tamil-Mother)->Ammi(Arabic-Mother)->Mama(many langs- Mother)->Ma(Hindi-Mother)->Eom Ma(Korean-Mother)

Mathr(Sanskrit-Mother)-Matha(Hindi-Mother)->Madar(Persian-Mother)->Mother(English-Mother)

Sutha(Sanskrit-Son)->Zadha(Persian-Son).

Duhitha(Sanskrit-Daughter)->Daughter(English-Daughter)->Doxtar(Persian-Daughter).

Link to original post

Also,
suna(Sanskruth-son) -> son(english-son)
pilla(Thelugu-young one) -> pilla(Hindhi-puppy)->fille(french-son/daughter)

Arya is used in all languages(especially Indian languages) with or without corruption. Ayya(Thelugu), Appa(Tamil), Abba(Persian), Papa(Latin), Bapu(Gujrathi), Baba(Arabic), Bappa(Marathi), Pappa, Pai(Portuguese),...etc are all corruptions of Arya. Arya was used as honorific for elders(generally father). Its meaning is 'noble'.

If you were to talk in Sanskruth and want to call someone respectfully without using their name, what would you say?
Arya or Deva. These are used as honorifics in Sanskruth. All other languages being corruptions of Sanskruth, they also use the word Arya in various forms.

-------
Edit:
BTW, several abrahamic characters have their names ending in 'ayya'. For example,
Elijiah
Yehoshuah(Joshua)
Ovadiah
Achiah
Azaryah
Hoshea
Zephaniah
Uriah
Neriah
Sharyah
Machsiyah
Hagai
Zechariah
Mordechai

All the above names end in 'ayya' kind of sound. Is it possible that 'ayya' is a suffix to their original names and 'ayya' is a honorific which is a corruption of 'arya'? In Thelugu, 'ayya' is a honorific and corruption of 'arya'.

[member_24042]

double post

[member_24042]

One thing about Buddhism's contribution is its contribution in recording Indian history. As we know, the Indians especially the Hindus did not record history properly. Recording history is natural to all the civilizations of the world, but still the Indians never had the habit of recording history properly. But I believe that it was not the habit of recording history that the Indians had, but the intention of the Indo-Aryan Brahmins was to destroy original Indian history and spread myths in place of history. Thus, the existence of so many Puranas with all the mythology.

Buddhist history of India is almost completely obliterated. To an outsider it would seem that India had never been Buddhist. Most of the Indians, even today, believe that mythologies like Ramayana and Mahabharata was history.


The few instances of actual history recorded by Indians is found mostly in the inscriptions related to Buddhism - it could be inscriptions on Stupas by Ashoka or inscriptions on Buddhist caves detailing the name of kings and commoners who donated for the construction of those caves. Likewise, Buddhist texts abundantly recorded historical events, but, not surprisingly, they were obliterated by the Brahmins who themselves wrote falsified mythology in Puranas to hide true history.

For example, the legend of Kanheri caves common in recent times relates them to Pandavas and their reclusion into forests, or the "historical" legend of temple at Puri or Tirupati relate them to mythology of gods and goddesses, while hiding the real fact that those were related to Stupas where Buddha's relics were worshiped, and are still worshiped today.

The trend is continuing even today as the most militant Hindus are writing falsified myths of the origins of Taj Mahal (Tejo Mahalya), Babri Masjid in Ayodhya or Ram Setu - all of which has no real historical basis.

It were the Britishers who told Indians about the legendary history of Ashokas, it were the Britishers who discovered Khajuraho and researched its history. They solved the mystery of Indus Valley civilization.

When a new people invade over the natives, they not only try to impose their culture, but tend to replace the history of the natives by new myths about their own "history". That is why it is not surprising that the history of North Western India is even more puzzling after the invasion of Indo-Aryan Brahmins, Indo-Scythian Jats, Huna & Kushan Rajputs & Marwaris, Croat Gujjars, Mughals, Afghans and other invaders. The history of the original Australoid, brown skinned, natives, who hold despicable low caste positions in Indian society is more or less unknown.

For example the history of a "Hindu" community called "Valmiki" (which is a very recent designation), who are the only descendants of the natives in North western India after you exclude the Caucasian Scythian, Kushan, Turkic Jats, Rajputs, Gujjars, Brahmins etc. Of course, there are other "lower" castes who are the natives of the people who exclusively inhabited the North Western Indian region during the time of the Guptas and before. But the history of the Valmiki is interesting because they have originally more to do with Islam than with Hinduism.

[harbans]

TS: You're clearly trolling and baiting here. Everything in India has been as well preserved as possible. Even the Veda's the oldest possible document has been preserved immaculately. The wealth of knowledge in the Veda's, Upanishads and a massive plethora of Dharmic texts would not have been preserved but for the efforts of creating an entire living ecosphere where those memories and sounds could be preserved faithfully. Islamic invasions and other efforts to destroy the culture made many texts disappear from use. When Taxila and Nalanda burned and monks were executed and beheaded, where did the rest go? 50 miles down did they open another university? No they went into hiding but tried best to preserve whatever was left. You are coming across as a person who reads stuff, but knows little. You can quote hajjaar, but you have little matter inside you.

For that matter if you think History today is wow stuff..most of presently recorded history is bluff. Take Islams history..what you read in modern universities across the world on Islam is sanitized falsehood. Read Encyclopaedia Brittanica circa 1900 on Hinduism/ Sanatana Dharma and today..they are vastly different texts. Meanwhile the Sanatana Dharma that is preserved remains same as it has for millenia. Both your reading and understanding may be too narrow.

How many people have recorded Bahi's, family geneoloical history for millenia as well as HIndu's have? Not even today the Westerners have that kind of record system that Hindu's had for millenia.