Buddhism - Socio Political Contributions

[member_22872]

Tony ji, we debated the merits of history and Itihas. A_Gupta ji had posted long time back this article, this, I fished out mainly for you.
What do Indians Need: A History or the Past–S.N.Balagangadhara

[svinayak]

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.

He is repeating what the British, marxist have said about India and the colonial narrative coming again redux

Met S.N.Balagangadhara in 2007. It was eye opening and he is correcting the course of the nation in the right way. THe paradigm of the west , christian west has to be totally abandoned by Indian historians to move forward.
But he was ambivalent about replacing secularism with Hindutva. He is still searching for answer. I believe that there is a gap between one generation of Indians who were in contact with the western narrative and the new generation which is rooted in Indian culture/Indian history.

[Agnimitra]

TonySoprano ji,
In spite of my pointing out to you your folly in regurgitating Brit and Marxist race theory - which you acknowledged - you continue to use provocative propaganda. I believe this is trolling, and you do your own cause and this forum a disservice. Kindly reconsider.

[Atri]

Buddhism was defeated by Mimansa-Saamkhya-Yoga-Vaisheshika philosophies. The fundamental world-view of Mimansa-Saankhya is diametrically opposite to Buddha's opinion.

In Mimansa world, karma is everything. Doing one\s karma alone grants moksha. There is no Ishwara nor is he required. There is no need to escape from samsaara because whatever sukha-dukhkha tht one is experiencing is result fo one's own karma. And there is no escaping from that fruit, no matter if one worships one ishwara or millions.

This strong work-ethic based world-view of Mimansa (Kumarila Bhatta) is what eventually defeated Buddha's opinion set.

However, it seems Indians have grown immensely attached to nagarjuna's shunyavaada. Adi Shankara's Maya-vaada is quite similar to shunyavada of nagarjuna.

Even many buddhist concepts like Anatma (originally from Chhandogya but explained beautifully by Krishna to Uttara-Subhadra after death of Abhimanyu - one of the lesser known "geetas" of Krishna apart from the two famous ones addressed to Arjuna and later Uddhava) are vedik in origin. So are concepts of karma, janma, and whole repertoire of terms and ideas which Shri. Buddha developed in his own understanding and experience. There is one thread of ideological continuity from Upanishads to Buddha to Nagarjuna to Adi Shankara.

Its funny after Mimansakas defeated Buddhists, Vedanti Adi Shankara defeated Mimansakas (and sankhyas and yogis and vaisheshikas and naiyyayiks) to establish Vedanta in India which in many fundamental levels eerily similar to theravada of Buddhists. Hence Adi Shankara is ridiculed as Prachhanna Bauddha by many non-theist aastikas like mimansakas and sankhya-yogis. Indian society returned to its default mysticism loving setting from upanishads to Buddha to vedanta. The emphasis on sannyasa both in vedanta and buddha's path too is quite similar (only difference being vedanta does not say only sannyasis can achieve moksha)

The strong and harsh sankhya-yoga-mimansa always remained on sideline - especially since 500 BCE.

India today requires a "karmatha" mimansak-sankhyayogi population. This whole notion of self-pity which is present in Buddhism-Vedanta and in much greater sense in Christianity, is what has been detrimental to India's prospects in past 2000 years. Perhaps this is what kaliyuga meant. Krishna although deriving from same ideological pool did not indulge in self-pity (oh, sansara is duhkha and maya onlee) but motivated arjuna to do karma. this navel-gazing has increased a lot in Kaliyuga. I value original arya-samajis for this change. They brought back the much needed mimansaka streak in hindu repertoire.

[member_22872]

Atri garu,

In Mimansa world, karma is everything. Doing one\s karma alone grants moksha. There is no Ishwara nor is he required. There is no need to escape from samsaara because whatever sukha-dukhkha tht one is experiencing is result fo one's own karma. And there is no escaping from that fruit, no matter if one worships one ishwara or millions.

The above is also true of Buddhism- Chan/Zen/Dhyana(except ofcourse devoid of moksha). If you look at Bodhidharma's Anthology about his four entrances to the path. His thinking is very similar to the above he makes it clear that karma is everything and one should accept sukha-dukha with open hands and just bear the consequences as there is no escape and it is our own karma that bears fruit.

[Atri]

Atri garu,

In Mimansa world, karma is everything. Doing one\s karma alone grants moksha. There is no Ishwara nor is he required. There is no need to escape from samsaara because whatever sukha-dukhkha tht one is experiencing is result fo one's own karma. And there is no escaping from that fruit, no matter if one worships one ishwara or millions.

The above is also true of Buddhism- Chan/Zen/Dhyana(except ofcourse devoid of moksha). If you look at Bodhidharma's Anthology about his four entrances to the path. His thinking is very similar to the above he makes it clear that karma is everything and one should accept sukha-dukha with open hands and just bear the consequences as there is no escape and it is our own karma that bears fruit.

But isn't it mahayana school? This is not my understanding of Thervaada school. I may be wrong, but this sounds very similar to Mahayana. Mahayana is much more closer to aastika ideologies as compared to thervada (relatively speaking only)..

[member_22872]

Atri garu, you are correct, this is Mahayana.

And also could you please post or refer me to books which explains how Advaita defeats or undermines Mimamsa? I mean how Adi-Shakara shows that? It is for my understanding onlee. I would be grateful to you.

[Atri]

First off the mind reference is biography of great master himself - Shankara Vijayam..

thereafter this is a good reference - http://books.google.co.in/books?id=nAiy ... &q&f=false

Thervada and Mahayana discredit each other. Thervada (most of the neo-buddhists and Sri Lankan buddhists) are Theravadi people. They have similar disdain for Mahayana people just like they have for aastikas. They claim to be purer than Mahayanas. Mahayanists OTOH call Theravadi people as "Heenayaana".. Mahayana shows quite a degree of overlap with Adi Shankara's ideas. Especially Shunya, anatta and aatma-maya of advaita.

[member_22872]

Atri garu, thank you, didn't know about the book. Too bad Kumarila and Adi-Sankhara never debated, that would have given us a wonderful work perhaps.

[Agnimitra]

X-posting:

Looks like Sinhala Buddhists from Sri Lanka are taking an interest in Sanskrit. Nice to see this. Anyone know if this is normal for that sect? I thought their brand of Buddhism was anti-Sanskrit.

The Award Ceremony of Saraswati Sanskrit Prize 2012 was held at the Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany on 30 August 2012. Here a Certificate of Appreciation (Praśastipatra) was conferred upon me. As chief guests, Mr. Ajit Gupte (Chargé d'Affaires, Embassy of India, Berlin) and Prof. H. S. Shiva Prakash (Director,Tagore Centre, Berlin) attended the ceremony.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_l2cXfyzVo

[member_24042]

I have read Verardi's book " Hardship and Downfall of Buddhism in India". I will be posting many subsequent posts that outline conclusions and evidence from this well researched academic book.

[member_24042]

First off the mind reference is biography of great master himself - Shankara Vijayam..

thereafter this is a good reference - http://books.google.co.in/books?id=nAiy ... &q&f=false

Thervada and Mahayana discredit each other. Thervada (most of the neo-buddhists and Sri Lankan buddhists) are Theravadi people. They have similar disdain for Mahayana people just like they have for aastikas. They claim to be purer than Mahayanas. Mahayanists OTOH call Theravadi people as "Heenayaana".. Mahayana shows quite a degree of overlap with Adi Shankara's ideas. Especially Shunya, anatta and aatma-maya of advaita.

And your Dvaita and Advaita discredit each other. Your Vaishnavas and Saivas discredit each other, your Upanishads discredit your Vedas, etc. Also Sankara's Advaita was conceived by Gaudapada which is a rip off of Nagarjuna's Madhyamika.

Seriously Theravadins and Mahayanists get along just fine, they are both Buddhists as they have taken the Three Refuges, belief in Anatta, Four Noble Truths, Noble Eightfold Path, Impermanence, Kamma and Reincarnation, etc.

[Aditya_V]

TS- Upanishads are part of Vedas. But you can go on beliving whatever you want to.

[member_22872]

He has no clue what so ever about Hindu texts and here he is dissecting them. A horse wearing blinkers only sees what it is constrained to see. Daivata and Advaita are parts of Vedas too, Hindu philosophers who are interested in one stream of thought expounded on them, no conflict unless you want it to be so. Similarly no conflict between Shiva and Vishnu either, JohneeG ji too had posted, here:

Shivaaya Vishnu Roopaaya Shiva Roopaaya Vishanave |
Shivasya Hrudayam Vishnur Vishnuscha Hrudayam Shivaha ||
Yatha Shivamayo Vishnuhu Yevam Vishnu Mayaha Shivaha |
Yathaantharam Na Paschyaami Thatha Me Swasthi Ra Yushi ||

Don't spread lies. Better keep quiet if you are not sure what you are talking about.

[Adrija]

Adi Shankara's Maya-vaada is quite similar to shunyavada of nagarjuna.

Atri mahashya, have you read this book- this was the first instance in which I came across Sh Adi Shankaracharya being accused of being a neo-Buddhist.........did not understand fully then but thanks to you now have a better idea!

http://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Brahmin- ... 8178241382

Apologies if this has already been referenced before


BTW, what is a good introductory book for Mimansa? And what is the name of the Gita which Sh Krishna sahred with Uttara, which you mentioned above? The Uttara Geeta is from Krishna to Arjun, IIRC....

Thanks!

[harbans]

Shivaaya Vishnu Roopaaya Shiva Roopaaya Vishanave |
Shivasya Hrudayam Vishnur Vishnuscha Hrudayam Shivaha ||
Yatha Shivamayo Vishnuhu Yevam Vishnu Mayaha Shivaha |
Yathaantharam Na Paschyaami Thatha Me Swasthi Ra Yushi ||

Shiva and Hence Vishnu is Chinese does not belong to Secular India. Only the communals stake claim.

[member_24042]

TS- Upanishads are part of Vedas. But you can go on beliving whatever you want to.

They are more like an appendix to the Vedas. Hindus always say they revere the Vedas and Upanishads. Anyways most of the Upanishad's teachings were borrowed from Sramanic traditions like Jainism and Buddhism and on a whole is a complete 180 degrees different from the samhitas which describe a religion that is more akin to Zorastrianism. This is no coincidence since the Caucasian Indo-Aryans and Indo-Iranians are from same roots. In fact the purest Aryans in India today seem to be the Parsis indeed.

Anyway the Vedic religion is very similar to Zorastrianism with fire worship, rituals, sacrifices, chants with the people "living life to the fullest" as they say in the West (no renunciation) and quite war like

While Sramanic traditions: Karma, renunciation, meditation, reincarnation
These concepts were copied by the Upanishads and many Upanishads subtly disparaged the Vedas (Lord Buddha was not so subtle ).

I will continue later on...

[harbans]

Tony every canon of Buddhism has been enunciated and propagated by Brahmins.

[Atri]

So everything comes and stops at AIT, eh?

Upanishads are not appendices of vedas. They are vedas. When you say veda, it refers to sanhitas, aranyakas, braahmanas and upanashidas. Every ved is comprised of these four components. All this together is called a "Ved". They are not appendices. Vedas are not books. They are compositions transmitted orally where different parts of this composition are sung/chanted on different occasions.

If you are going to take refuge in AIT, in all your debates, then even buddha will say that your matka (pitcher) is kachchaa. Go bake yourself in original knowledge and worldview of buddha which was staunchly based in India. Not a macaulayite world view.

Hindus view vaada as means to validate/check/peer-review their dharma-artha-kaama-moksha related theories and experiences. They do not see vaada as arguments as arguments. The macaulay-putras look at hindus indulging in vaada and conclude they are fighting. This reflects in your statement about dvaita, advaita and shaiva-vaishnavas fighting. Lol.

When I say heenayana and mahayana debated and criticised each other, I refer to this very hindu tradition of vaada. You construe it as a brahminical attack on buddha and go on defensive.

Last but bot the least. Buddha is "our" as well. He is ninth avataara of Sri Vishnu. All those shlokas about shiva and vishnu being one also apply to other devatas, vibhutis, avataras etc.

[Atri]

And what is the name of the Gita which Sh Krishna sahred with Uttara, which you mentioned above? The Uttara Geeta is from Krishna to Arjun, IIRC.

Uttara geetA, u r right, is when arjuna asked krishna to sing the BG again because he had forgotten the essence of krishna's words in the war. So krishna sings BG again in essence.

This part that I speak of comes in Drona-parva of MBH. Even I do not know the name of this geeta. I read it somewhere that this discourse of krishna to uttara and subhadra is called some geeta. I am not sure of it being called as geeta per se in popular culture. It is possible that some people chose to call this discourse as a geeta as well.

But popularly called geeta or not, it is nevertheless a very beautiful and sublime discourse by Krishna on how abhimanyu is not body but something else. To understand what "I" is (Aatman), krishna says, one has to understand what "I" is not (Anaatman). Then krishna gives a gist of anatman concept from chhandogya upanishad from the hymns composed d by uddalaka Aaruni rishi.

[Adrija]

^^

Thanks Atri ji.....

[brihaspati]

TonySoprano ji,
Just because he holds a degree and post - does not necessarily imply that he is "well researched". We have similar "well-researched" samples among Indian sociologists and historians too. In history - a lot goes based on assumptions and ideologies used to reconstruct a possible reality. The huge gaps in between verifiable information is made up with large dollops of personal biases and small-group ideological commitments who happen to serve political or regime purposes at that particular historical moment and therefore get a highlighting.

Anyway, I wanted you to discuss his "conclusions" here. It will be great fun to analyze those conclusions.

[Shanmukh]

Also, I hope Tony will do an analysis of the Vedic religion vs Zoroastrianism. I have been looking into the original sources of the Zoroastrian teachings, lately. It should be an interesting discussion.

[Vayutuvan]

TAnd your Dvaita and Advaita discredit each other. Your Vaishnavas and Saivas discredit each other, your Upanishads discredit your Vedas, etc. Also Sankara's Advaita was conceived by Gaudapada which is a rip off of Nagarjuna's Madhyamika.

Seriously Theravadins and Mahayanists get along just fine, they are both Buddhists as they have taken the Three Refuges, belief in Anatta, Four Noble Truths, Noble Eightfold Path, Impermanence, Kamma (? bOdhisattva, does it have the same meaning as samskrita word "karma" or something else altogether? inquiring minds want to know) and Reincarnation, etc.

i

The term (hinayana) was widely used in the past by Western scholars to cover "the earliest system of Buddhist doctrine" as the Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary (Oxford, 1899) put it.[2] However its use is increasingly deprecated, because of its pejorative origins, and uncertainty as to which Buddhist schools it should cover. It has been used as a synonym for the Theravada tradition, which continues as the main form of Buddhism in Sri Lanka and South-East Asia, but some scholars deny that the term included Theravada Buddhism. In 1950 the World Fellowship of Buddhists declared that the term Hīnayana should not be used when referring to any form of Buddhism existing today.

[johneeG]

TS- Upanishads are part of Vedas. But you can go on beliving whatever you want to.

They are more like an appendix to the Vedas. Hindus always say they revere the Vedas and Upanishads. Anyways most of the Upanishad's teachings were borrowed from Sramanic traditions like Jainism and Buddhism and on a whole is a complete 180 degrees different from the samhitas which describe a religion that is more akin to Zorastrianism. This is no coincidence since the Caucasian Indo-Aryans and Indo-Iranians are from same roots. In fact the purest Aryans in India today seem to be the Parsis indeed.

Anyway the Vedic religion is very similar to Zorastrianism with fire worship, rituals, sacrifices, chants with the people "living life to the fullest" as they say in the West (no renunciation) and quite war like

While Sramanic traditions: Karma, renunciation, meditation, reincarnation
These concepts were copied by the Upanishads and many Upanishads subtly disparaged the Vedas (Lord Buddha was not so subtle ).

I will continue later on...

In essence, your stance is: If anything is common in Buddhism and Hindhuism(Sanathana Dharma i.e. Vaidhik religion), then
a) if it is perceived as positive, then Buddhism gets the credit and Hindhuism copied it from Buddhism.
b) if it is perceived as negative, then Hindhuism gets the abuses and Buddhism copied it from Hindhuism.

Thats your stance right?!

When it is shown that Buddha also supposedly talked about castes, then you say,"Oh, Buddha was merely repeating what Hindhuism said."
When it is shown that most of the Buddhist philosophies are already present in Vedhas(which includes Upanishadhs/Vedhantha), then you say,"Oh, Vedhas copied Buddha."

If it is positive, you put it in the account of the Buddha. If it is negative, you put it in the account of the Hindhuism. Nice!

If two people(Buddhism & Hindhuism) want to share their common earnings and debts, then someone like you will argue,"All the earnings are of Buddhism and all the debts are of Hindhuism."

To give a better analogy: your stance is same as the stance of Antonio or Pappu who claim credit for any positive done by the sarkaar. But blame all the negatives on the sarkaar. Pappu or Antonio will always be present to take bouquets while the brickbats and chappals have to be taken by others.

Similarly, you want all the bouquets to go for the Buddhism, while all the brickbats are reserved for Hindhuism.

Presently, you claim that caste system was invented by the Hindhuism but Buddha(or Buddhism) continued it because they could not do tear it down. You say this because caste system is perceived as negative these days. But, if caste system is seen as positive in future, then you will claim that Buddhism invented caste system and Hindhuism copied it from there.

Similarly, you claim that Vedhantha was invented by the Buddha, but Hindhuism copied it. You say this because Vedhantha is seen as positive these days. But, if Vedhantha is seen as negative in future, then you will claim that Hindhuism invented the Vedhantha and Buddha merely repeated it because he could not tear it down.

Thats your stance in essence.

But, the fact of the matter is that all the concepts of Buddhism are taken from Hindhuism... whether they be seen as positive or negative, it is all taken from Hindhuism. Then those concepts are distorted, twisted, tweaked and customized to suit the needs of Buddhism as it evolved.

First off the mind reference is biography of great master himself - Shankara Vijayam..

thereafter this is a good reference - http://books.google.co.in/books?id=nAiy ... &q&f=false

Thervada and Mahayana discredit each other. Thervada (most of the neo-buddhists and Sri Lankan buddhists) are Theravadi people. They have similar disdain for Mahayana people just like they have for aastikas. They claim to be purer than Mahayanas. Mahayanists OTOH call Theravadi people as "Heenayaana".. Mahayana shows quite a degree of overlap with Adi Shankara's ideas. Especially Shunya, anatta and aatma-maya of advaita.

And your Dvaita and Advaita discredit each other. Your Vaishnavas and Saivas discredit each other, your Upanishads discredit your Vedas, etc. Also Sankara's Advaita was conceived by Gaudapada which is a rip off of Nagarjuna's Madhyamika.

Seriously Theravadins and Mahayanists get along just fine, they are both Buddhists as they have taken the Three Refuges, belief in Anatta, Four Noble Truths, Noble Eightfold Path, Impermanence, Kamma and Reincarnation, etc.

You are simply trying to do a tit-for-tat kind of argument.

But, no, Dhwaitha, Vishishta Adhvaitha and Adhvaitha...etc (or Shaiva, Vaishnava, Ganapathya, Shaktheya, Skaandha, & Saura) do not discredit each other in the same way as different sects or philosophies of Buddhism.

I'll explain:
Pramana means 'means of knowing a truth'.

There are 3 pramanas:
a) observation (Prathyaksha)
b) words of others (Shabdha)
c) inference (anumaana)

Observation (Prathyaksha) and words of others (Shabdha) form 'facts'. Inference (anumaana) forms 'theories/hypothesis/opinion'.

But, as is commonly seen in the world, there is lot of difference among observations of different people. Similarly, different people say/write different things. So, in such situation, what is to be accepted as the absolute foundation?
Modern science implicitly views 'observation' (Prathyaksha) as the absolute foundation. Of course, in practice this is not followed. For example, most of the physicis theories on origin of universe, or theories like relativity are not based on 'observation' (Prathyaksha). They are based on inference or rather guestimate(or imagination) i.e anumaana by some people. The common people take the words (Shabdha) of these 'experts' and believe them.

The reason is simple, at any higher level of discourse, it is understood that observation (Prathyaksha) cannot be the basis. All people cannot directly observe things by themselves. So, they depend on words of others for the knowledge. Of course, it also needs to be understood that any knowledge that is not based on direct observation (Prathyaksha) is merely approximation only.

So, invariably, one has to depend on the words of others to learn(at least initially). So, whose words(Shabdha) to believe?

In Hindhuism,
Hindhu sects or philosophies all agree on one basic fact: Vedhas(including Upanishadhs) are the Pramana. This is called Shabdha Pramana. All Hindhu sects & philosophies agree that words(Shabdha) of Vedhas are to be believed. According to Hindhus, Upanishadhs(Vedhantha) is an integral part and parcel of Vedhas.

In Buddhism,
The words(Shabdha) of Buddha are taken as the pramana.

In Abrahanic creeds,
the words(Shabdha) of their respective so-called prophets is taken as pramana.

But the differences are:
Hindhuism says that one has to depend on others words only for sometime(initially). Ultimate aim is to get the direct observation(Prathyaksha) of the truth(whatever that truth maybe).

Buddhism says that some special personalities(called Bodhisattvas) alone can learn the truth. The common people are not qualified to learn the truth. Only Bodhisattvas can become Buddhas. A Bodhisattva is a special being who has the potential to become a Buddha. Of course, common people can aim to become a Bodhisattva if they try for many lives. Also, it is not necessary to become a Buddha or Bodhisattva to get nirvana. Nirvana itself has two meanings: 'state of nothingness' and heaven.

Abrahanic creeds say that some special personalities(called prophets) alone can learn the truth. And this truth is revealed to them by the god. god only reveals what he wants to reveal. The prophets don't have any power to learn beyond what the god reveals. god reveals to prophets by sending messages to them through angels. So, generally, prophets do not talk to god directly. They do not see the god directly. They only know what they are told by the angels according to Abrahanic creeds. This is the state of so-called prophets. As for the common people, their situation is truly miserable. According to Abrahanic creeds, the common people are sent messages by the god through prophets(who are sent messages through angels. We don't know how angels get message of god). If the common people do not accept the words of the god sent through prophets, then they will burn in hell for eternity. If the common people accept the words a 'false' prophets, then they will burn in hell for eternity. And common people have no way of verifying whether a particular claimant is a 'real prophet' or 'false prophet'. The common people, themselves, have no way of ever knowing the truth directly(prathyaksha). They are prohibited from using their inference(anumaana).

You can clearly see the devolution of ideas starting from Hindhuism to Buddhism to Abrahanic creeds. Hindhuism says that everyone will ultimately perceive the truth for themselves(Prathyaksha). Direct experience of the truth(whatever it maybe). Buddhism says that such experience is reserved for Buddha. And only a Bodhisattva can become a Buddha. But, Buddhism does not completely close the door on common people. So, common people can become a Bodhisattva. Of course, it is taken as a rare occurrence. And Buddhism says that common people can get their liberation without the need of becoming a Bodhisattva or Buddha. Abrahanic creeds go one step ahead on this path. They say that direct experience is not possible for anyone. Everyone depends on the words of others. People depend on the words of so-called Prophet. So-called Prophets depend on the words of so-called angels. So-called angels claim that they are speaking on behalf of so-called god. And so on. No one has anyway of verifying these claims.

So, according to Hindhuism,
the 'facts' are words(Shabdha) of Vedha. They are treated as axioms.

According to Buddhism,
the 'facts' are words(Shabdha) of Buddha.

According to modern science,
the 'facts' are whatever theory(anumaana) that is popular at that time.

But, the difference between Buddhism and Hindhuism in this regard is:
all the dominant Hindhu sects and philosophies have no dispute on the content of the Vedhas(including Upanishadhs/Vedhantha). So, as far as Hindhuism is concerned, there is no dispute on the basic 'facts' or 'axioms'.

But, the same is not true in the case of Buddhism. In Buddhism, as far as I know and understand(and please correct me if I am wrong), there is dispute on the 'facts' or 'axioms' itself. What are the 'facts' or 'axioms' of Buddhism? The 'facts' or 'axioms' of Buddhism are: words of Buddha i.e. teachings of Buddha.

There are different versions of Pitikas(baskets). Pitika refers to the contents of teachings of Buddha. And different schools(which are categorized as Buddhist) have different versions of pitikas. The number of pitikas(baskets) can vary from 3 to 12(or perhaps even more). Over the years, 3 pitikas have become popular because that is adopted by the Theravadha school. According to the Buddhist history itself, the thervadha school became popular because of the royal patronization(in Magadh). Thats why Theravadha school adopts the maagadhi(i.e Paali) language as its official language(of course, it may also have to do with controlling the narrative by controlling the language, but that would be a digression in this post).

So, there are different versions of the teachings of Buddha. One version accepted by one school is not accepted by the other schools. So, there is dispute on the very basic 'facts' or 'axioms' itself. (This is similar to different versions of hadiths. Different versions of Hadhiths have different portrayals of Mo. naroK is interpreted on the basis of these hadiths.)

But, in case of Hindhuism, there is no dispute on the teachings of Vedha. There is no dispute on the words(Shabdha) of Vedha. The dispute(or disagreement) is on the interpretation of the words(Shabdha) of Vedha.

I hope you are able to see the difference.

Vaishnavas, Shaivas, Shaaktheyas, Gaanapathyas, Skaandhas, and Sauras all quote Vedhas to prove their supremacy. They argue with each other on who is the supreme according to Vedhas(including Upanishadhs).

Similarly, different Hindhu(Aasthika) philosophies quote Vedhas to prove themselves.

There is no dispute on the words of Vedha. The dispute is on interpretation. For example, Taththavamasi is part of Vedha. All Hindhu philosophies and sects agree on this. But Dhwaitha and Adhwaitha have different interpretations of the same words is different. The dispute is one whose interpretation of words of Vedha are correct.

But, in case of Buddhism, the very teachings of Buddha are disputed. What exactly are words of the teachings of Buddha, that in itself, is disputed by the various schools of Buddhism.

For example, tell me what is the teaching of Buddha about the reality of the world(including heaven and hell)?
Does the world(including the heaven and hell) exist or not according to Buddha?

[Agnimitra]

Anyways most of the Upanishad's teachings were borrowed from Sramanic traditions like Jainism and Buddhism and on a whole is a complete 180 degrees different from the samhitas which describe a religion that is more akin to Zorastrianism.

TS ji I am connected with the Zoro as well as Vedic communities. If you wanted to compare, I'd say that Zoro'ism is a pissant rip-off (and inversion) of a broader and higher-order Vedic tradition. The bitter, defeated Iranics, after being evicted from the Holy Land (sapta-sindhu = India) in the Battle of Ten Kings carried a bitterness and spite, and they found edification in an inverted devaasura order with a new Prophet.

Note, I don't mean to deride any religion - if used correctly any religion can lead the practitioner to better worlds. However, if you really insist on making these silly comparisons, then the above is the right deduction.

[Atri]

Anyways most of the Upanishad's teachings were borrowed from Sramanic traditions like Jainism and Buddhism and on a whole is a complete 180 degrees different from the samhitas which describe a religion that is more akin to Zorastrianism.

TS ji I am connected with the Zoro as well as Vedic communities. If you wanted to compare, I'd say that Zoro'ism is a pissant rip-off (and inversion) of a broader and higher-order Vedic tradition. The bitter, defeated Iranics, after being evicted from the Holy Land (sapta-sindhu = India) in the Battle of Ten Kings carried a bitterness and spite, and they found edification in an inverted devaasura order with a new Prophet.

Note, I don't mean to deride any religion - if used correctly any religion can lead the practitioner to better worlds. However, if you really insist on making these silly comparisons, then the above is the right deduction.

The primary focus is on showing how mainstream memes of India are foreign OR inconsequential. classic missionary style, although a century late.. geology and genetics have moved far ahead to have proven AIT false time and again.

Agnimitra mahodaya's allusion towards daashraagna war is correct. The confederation of tribes headed by Anu tribe of Kubha (kabul basin) was defeated on the banks of Ravi and thrown out. The sudden floods of Ravi were perhaps instrumental in conferring victory to Sudasa (king of Bharat-vanshi people). Anu vanshi people were repealed out of saptasindhu and were forced to live off in peripheral regions of Persian plateau. The inversion of everything by Zaratushtra that sapta-saindhava people stood for is evident.

It is out of India, not towards India migration. Anu became known as Yavans. Anu-anvaayan-yavan this is how yavan word originated. I do not think Persians were called yavanas in Zaratushtras times by Sapta-saindhavas (hapta-hindu in avesta). It became associated much later. Invasion of Kaala-Yavana is first northwestern invasion on India by a Yavana upon invitation by Jarasandha of Magadha. By time of Guptas, Persians are unequivocally referred to as yavanas. this was not the case with mauryan times when yavanas was used for greeks and persia is referred as paaras.

anyways, we digress.. I wanted to merely take agnimitra ji's point ahead. Daasharaajna war is indeed one of my favorite historical moments which changed the course of Indian history decisively.

[RamaY]

From 2500 years of Buddhism - Sri Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan's Foreword...


1/ Buddhism is a new religion and is against Hinduism and led to Upanishads

Buddhism did not start as a new and independent religion. It was an offshoot of the more ancient faith of the Hindus, perhaps a schism or a heresy. While the Buddha agreed with the faith he inherited on the fundamentals of metaphysics and ethics, he protested against certain practices which were in vogue at the time. He refused to acquiesce in the Vedic ceremonialism. When he was asked to perform some of these rites, he said, "And as for your saying that for the sake of Dharma I should carry out the sacrificial ceremonies which are customary in my family and which bring the desired fruit, I do not approve of sacrifices; for I do not care for happiness which is sought at the price of others' suffering."

It is true that the Upanisads also subordinate the sacrificial piety to the spiritual religion which they formulate,
but they did not attack it in the way in which the Buddha did. The Buddha's main object was to bring about a reformation in religious practices and a return to the basic principles. All those who adhere to the essential framework of the Hindu religion and attempt to bring it into conformity with the voice of awakened conscience are treated as avataras It is an accepted view of the Hindus that the Supreme as Visnu assumed different forms to accomplish different purposes for the good of mankind. The Buddha was accepted as an avatara who reclaimed Hindus from sanguinary rites and erroneous practices and purified their religion of the numerous abuses which had crept into it. This avatara doctrine helps us to retain the faith of the ancestors while effecting reforms in it. Our Puranas describe the Buddha as the ninth avatara of Visnu.
...
The Buddha utilized the Hindu inheritance to correct some of its expressions. He came to fulfil, not to destroy.

[ramana]

^^^^

Radhakrishnan's quote of Gautama Buddha

for I do not care for happiness which is sought at the price of others' suffering

This is the very anti-thesis of game theory of self-interest above everything. And is in conformance with Dharma which says doing the right thing trumps all self-interests bokwas and is eternal.

[member_19686]

Protecting the Portuguese? Dude - do you even know whom the Japanese butchered? No, it was not the Portuguese - they were expelled (replaced by the Dutch). It was other Japanese - Japanese Christians - who were butchered by the Tokugawa Shogunate (those who did not convert back anyway). And can you please produce proofs that the Japanese knew what was happening to the Incas and the Aztecs in the mid seventeenth century? Note- I am not asking you for post facto rationalisations that arose in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. I am asking you for proofs that the Japanese knew what was happening in Central and South America at the time of the massacres of the Christians in Japan.

And saying Christians should not be butchered is the same as protecting the atrocities of the Christians and the Inquisitions? I must now ask you if you seriously contemplate butchery of Christians as a means to stop them. If you think that, then I will frankly say I wish to have no part of any Buddhism that preaches this kind of hatred for any religion. It is obviously toxic.

PS: Wrt Japanese evidence, if you have a pointer to the Japanese originals, that will be ideal. But if not, post any English evidence you can get.

Came across this post while searching for something else.

Half baked knowledge is dangerous.

You act like the Japanese Xtians were some innocent doves butchered by the evil Japanese Buddhists.

The fact was that they were engaged in shrine burning, temple destruction (documented by missionaries themselves), and rumors of their plots to pave the way for a Spanish invasion were rife. The things they did/do in India, they did the same things in Japan but got the shock of their life when they finally met their match in pagans who responded with equal ferocity to Xtian persecution in order to defend themselves and their nation.

And of course the Japanese had a general idea of what the Spanish did in the New World (Date Masamune even sent an embassy to Rome so they had contacts with Europe). Read the anti-Xtian critique of Fabian Fucan a Jesuit Japanese apostate where he mentions this or read the points made in Kirishitan Monogatari.

All this was also informed by the English pilot William Adams to Ieyasu including Spanish actions in the New World.

Good thing the Japanese responded as they did instead of twiddling their thumbs like Hindus or else Japan would have become like India.

The medieval world was a brutal period and even some Hindu rulers like Rana Kumbha took the war to Muslims including Muslim civilians. So what?

That doesn't mean Hindus have anything to be ashamed of.

And it was not Japanese Buddhists who took care of the Xtian problem but the Japanese gov't whose duty it was to protect Japan's nationhood. After they crushed the Xtians, they simply utilized the well established Buddhist temple system to monitor for any crypto Xtians.

In his Legacy which Ieyasu left behind as a private manual for his descendants, he says in so many words that all Japanese are permitted religious freedom except for the false and corrupt school (Christianity). However this does not mean neglect of Shinto is allowed, the first duty of all Japanese is to venerate the kami and then come various foreign schools like Buddhism etc. He says to forget the kami is like to forget the origin of one's being and transfer your loyalty. He was sympathetic to the Jodo sect but he was first of all a Shintoist at heart like many Japanese.

[member_19686]

The King of South Barbary (Spain) plans to subjugate Japan. His means is the diffusion of his brand of Buddhism (Christianity). To this end he has sent a great many Bateren (Padres) over here... Right before our eyes, in Luzon and Nova Hispania, the King of South Barbary (Spain) has installed his own governors, and has new officials sent over every three years. In sum, the plot consists of the design to spread religion.

- Kirishitan Monogatari (Tales of the Christians), a popular anti Christian text authored in the 1630's at the height of the anti Christian purges in Japan.

Ieyasu's procalamation (note the highlighted parts):

By 1603 he, had every district of Japan under his yoke; but he did not issue his final edict until eleven years later. It plainly declared that the foreign priests were plotting to get control of the government, and to obtain possession of the country: -

"The Kirishitan band have come to Japan, not only sending their merchant-vessels to exchange commodities, but also longing to disseminate an evil law, to overthrow right doctrine, so that they may change the government of the country, and obtain possession of the land. This is the germ of great disaster, and must be crushed.....

"Japan is the country of the gods and of the Buddha: it honours the gods, and reveres the Buddha.... The faction of the Bateren* disbelieve in the Way of the Gods, and blaspheme the true Law, - violate right-doing, and injure the good.... They truly are the enemies of the gods and of the Buddha.... If this be not speedily prohibited, the safety of the state will, assuredly hereafter be imperilled; and if those who are charged with ordering its affairs do not put a stop to the evil, they will expose themselves to Heaven's rebuke.

[*Bateren, a corruption of the Portuguese padre, is still the term used for Roman Catholic priests, of any denomination.]

"These [missionaries] must be instantly swept out, so that not an inch of soil remains to them in Japan on which to plant their feet; and if they refuse to obey this command, they shall suffer the penalty.... Let Heaven and the Four Seas hear this. Obey!"*

http://explorion.net/japan-attempt-inte ... ril?page=3

It will be observed that there are two distinct charges made against the Bateren in this document, - that of political conspiracy under the guise of religion, with a view to getting possession of the government; and that of intolerance, towards both the Shinto and the Buddhist forms of native worship. The intolerance is sufficiently proved by the writings of the Jesuits themselves. The charge of conspiracy was less easy to prove; but who could reasonably have doubted that, were opportunity offered, the Roman Catholic orders would attempt to control the general government precisely as they had been able to control local government already in the lordships of converted daimyo. Besides, we may be sure that by the time at which the edict was issued, Iyeyasu must have heard of many matters likely to give him a most evil opinion of Roman Catholicism: - the story of the Spanish conquests in America, and the extermination of the West Indian races; the story of the persecutions in the Netherlands, and of the work of the Inquisition elsewhere; the story of the attempt of Philip II to conquer England, and of the loss of the two great Armadas. The edict was issued in 1614, and Iyeyasu had found opportunity to inform himself about some of these matters as early as 1600. In that year the English pilot Will Adams had arrived at Japan in charge of a Dutch ship, Adams had started on this eventful voyage in the year 1598, - that is to say, just ten years after the defeat of the first Spanish Armada, and one year after the ruin of the second. He had seen the spacious times of great Elizabeth - who was yet alive; - he had very probably seen Howard and Seymour and Drake and Hawkins and Frobisher and Sir Richard Grenville, the hero of 1591. For this Will Adams was a Kentish man, who had "serued for Master and Pilott in her Majesties ships ..." The Dutch vessel was seized immediately upon her arrival at Kyushu; and Adams and his shipmates were taken into custody by the daimyo of Bungo, who reported the fact to Iyeyasu. The advent of these Protestant sailors was considered an important event by the Portuguese Jesuits, who had their own reasons for dreading the results of an interview between such heretics and the ruler of Japan. But Iyeyasu also happened to think the event an important one; and he ordered that Adams should be sent to him at Osaka. The malevolent anxiety of the Jesuits about the matter had not escaped Iyeyasu's penetrating observation. They endeavoured again and again to have the sailors killed, according to the written statement of Adams himself, who was certainly no liar; and they had been able - in Bungo to frighten two scoundrels of the ship's company into giving false testimony.* "The Iesuites and the Portingalls," wrote Adams, "gaue many euidences against me and the rest to the Emperour [Iyeyasu], that we were theeues and robbers of all nations, - and [that] were we suffered to liue, - it should be against the profit of his Highnes, and the land." But Iyeyasu was perhaps all the more favourably inclined towards Adams by the eagerness of the Jesuits to have him killed - "crossed [crucified]," as Adams called it, - "the custome of iustice in Japan, as hanging is in our land."...

From another letter of Adams it would seem that this interview lasted far into the night, and that Iyeyasu's questions referred especially to politics and religion. "He asked," says Adams, "whether our countrey had warres? I answered him yea, with the Spaniards and Portugals - beeing in peace with all other nations. Further he asked me in what I did beleeue? I said, in God, that made heauen and earth. He asked me diverse other questions of things of religion, and many other things: As, what way we came to the country? Having a chart of the whole world, I shewed him through the Straight of Magellan. At which he wondred, and thought me to lie. Thus, from one thing to another, I abode with him till midnight." ... The two men liked each other at sight, it appears. Of Iyeyasu, Adams significantly observes: "He viewed me well, and seemed to be wonderful favourable." Two days later Iyeyasu again sent for Adams, and cross-questioned him just about those matters which the Jesuits wanted to remain in the dark. "He demaunded also as conserning the warres between the Spaniard or Portingall and our countrey, and the reasons: the which I gaue him to vnderstand of all things, which he was glad to heare, as it seemed to me. In the end I was commaunded to prisson agein, but my lodging was bettered." Adams did not see Iyeyasu again for nearly six weeks: then he was sent for, and cross-questioned a third time. The result was liberty and favour. Thereafter, at intervals, Iyeyasu used to send for him; and presently we hear of him teaching the great statesman "some points of jeometry, and understanding of the art of mathematickes, with other things." ... Iyeyasu gave him many presents, as well as a good living, and commissioned him to build some ships for deep-sea sailing. Eventually, the poor pilot was created a samurai, and given an estate.

http://explorion.net/japan-attempt-inte ... ril?page=4

With the massacre of Shimabara ends the real history of the Portuguese and Spanish missions. After that event, Christianity was slowly, steadily, implacably stamped out of visible existence. It had been tolerated, or half-tolerated, for only sixty-five years: the entire history of its propagation and destruction occupies a period of scarcely ninety years. People of nearly every rank, from prince to pauper, suffered for it; thousands endured tortures for its sake - tortures so frightful that even three of those Jesuits who sent multitudes to useless martyrdom were forced to deny their faith under the infliction;* and tender women, sentenced to, the stake, carried their little ones with them into the fire, rather than utter the words that would have saved both mother and child. Yet this religion, for which thousands vainly died, had brought to Japan nothing but evil disorders, persecutions, revolts, political troubles, and war. Even those virtues of the people which had been evolved at unutterable cost for the protection and conservation of society, - their self-denial, their faith, their loyalty, their constancy and courage, - were by this black creed distorted, diverted, and transformed into forces directed to the destruction of that society. Could that destruction have been accomplished, and a new Roman Catholic empire have been founded upon the ruins, the forces of that empire would have been used for the further extension of priestly tyranny, the spread of the Inquisition, the perpetual Jesuit warfare against freedom of conscience and human progress. Well may we pity the victims of this pitiless faith, and justly admire their useless courage: yet who can regret that their cause was lost? ... Viewed from another standpoint than that of religious bias, and simply judged by its results, the Jesuit effort to Christianize Japan must be regarded as a crime against humanity, a labour of devastation, a calamity comparable only, - by reason of the misery and destruction which it wrought, - to an earthquake, a tidal-wave, a volcanic eruption.

http://explorion.net/japan-attempt-inte ... ril?page=8

[Shanmukh]

Protecting the Portuguese? Dude - do you even know whom the Japanese butchered? No, it was not the Portuguese - they were expelled (replaced by the Dutch). It was other Japanese - Japanese Christians - who were butchered by the Tokugawa Shogunate (those who did not convert back anyway). And can you please produce proofs that the Japanese knew what was happening to the Incas and the Aztecs in the mid seventeenth century? Note- I am not asking you for post facto rationalisations that arose in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. I am asking you for proofs that the Japanese knew what was happening in Central and South America at the time of the massacres of the Christians in Japan.

And saying Christians should not be butchered is the same as protecting the atrocities of the Christians and the Inquisitions? I must now ask you if you seriously contemplate butchery of Christians as a means to stop them. If you think that, then I will frankly say I wish to have no part of any Buddhism that preaches this kind of hatred for any religion. It is obviously toxic.

PS: Wrt Japanese evidence, if you have a pointer to the Japanese originals, that will be ideal. But if not, post any English evidence you can get.

Came across this post while searching for something else.

Half baked knowledge is dangerous.

You act like the Japanese Xtians were some innocent doves butchered by the evil Japanese Buddhists.

The fact was that they were engaged in shrine burning, temple destruction (documented by missionaries themselves), and rumors of their plots to pave the way for a Spanish invasion were rife. The things they did/do in India, they did the same things in Japan but got the shock of their life when they finally met their match in pagans who responded with equal ferocity to Xtian persecution in order to defend themselves and their nation.

Surasena-ji,
Sorry - I had not been monitoring this thread. The temple torching and shrine smashing of the Buddhists was done by the Japanese (most of them non-Christians) themselves under Oda Nobunaga. Off the top of my head, I cannot recall any temple torchings done by the missionaries. They documented it, true, but it was done under the orders of Oda Nobunaga, the future unifier of Japan. Can you point to any temple torchings done by the Portuguese/Spaniards or Japanese Christians, under the orders of the foreigners?

Under Oda Nobunaga, the Japanese completely butchered the also native Ikko-ikki, (the Buddhist sects which were politically opposed to Oda Nobunaga) going to the extent of burning down the holiest of shrines on Mt. Hiei. The Buddhist monks were themselves hyper militant, and also experienced assassins, who kept changing the power structure of Kyoto to their benefit.

You are approaching the events occurring in different decades and under different rulers and trying to link them into a single unifying theory. It all begins with Oda Nobunaga, who was not particularly respected, and his lineage was not sufficiently great for him to aspire to great things. So, he cut a deal with the Portuguese for gunpowder (tanegashima) weapons. He allowed them great freedom in Nagasaki, and patronised Christianity (allowed missionaries, among other things) for benefits flowing from the west. In fact, the tanegashima weapons would allow him to build the musketmen who would help him defeat his `noble' daimyo opponents like Uesugi Kenshin, and Takeda Shingen's heir. At this point, the alliance between Christianity and Nobunaga was one of convenience.

However, twenty five years later, Tokugawa Ieyasu had assumed command of the shogunate in the wake of the failed invasion of Korea. The western weapons, which were once the source of Nobunaga's rise to power, were now problematic for Tokugawa, since they constituted a source of instability for his rule. He wanted the foreigners, their weapons, and their influence gone. And the fact that they were now becoming an alternate power structure in Japan made him nervous. By the way, early in his rule, Tokugawa remained an excellent ally of the Christians, and the greatest expansion of Christianity occurred during the last part of Toyotomo Hideyoshi's rule and the early part of his rule. Many of his top commanders were Christians (Date Masamune, So Yoshitoshi, Kuroda Nagamasa, etc), and all of them helped him in the war against his opponent, Ishida Mitusnari, in the battle of Sekigahara. Mitsunari was helped by some of the more orthodox Japanese commanders (Otani Yoshitsugu, in particular). The only Christian of any significance in the Mitsunari camp was Konishi Yukinaga. Further, in 1608, Nagasaki was called `New Rome' by the pope. Ieyasu was himself trying to establish full relations with the Spaniards in Luzon until 1610. There was nothing wrong between the Christians and Ieyasu until 1614 (when the whole problem began with a bunch of forgeries by a Christian official in the Ieyasu household). Once he got the chance, Ieyasu decided to crush the Christians, since they were an alternate power base, and their weapons were, in wrong hands, a problem.

And of course the Japanese had a general idea of what the Spanish did in the New World (Date Masamune even sent an embassy to Rome so they had contacts with Europe).

As far as I know, Date Masamune had no problems with the Christians, has not written any anti-western or anti-Christian tracts, and finally, his eldest daughter, Iroha, is rumoured to have remained a Christian even after Ieyasu's ban on Christianity. I do not know where you get the idea that Date Masamune spoke to Ieyasu of the atrocities perpetrated by the Christians, or even that he knew what was going on in Central/South America. Masamune remained on excellent terms with the Portuguese and the Spaniards.

Read the anti-Xtian critique of Fabian Fucan a Jesuit Japanese apostate where he mentions this or read the points made in Kirishitan Monogatari.

I tried to get hold of the originals, but found only English translations. In any case, the man remained pro-Christian until the ban in 1614 on the Christians. He began his anti-Christian writings only around 1618-1620, after the ban on the Christians.

All this was also informed by the English pilot William Adams to Ieyasu including Spanish actions in the New World.

William Adams met Ieyasu in Osaka in 1600. The period from 1600 to 1614 saw the greatest expansion of Christianity. Whatever Adams said does not seem to have made any impact on Ieyasu for 14 years. Unless you want to argue that Ieyasu remembered the conversation 14 years later.

Added: I was almost certain about what the Shimabara revolt was about, but wanted to check my source (Peasant Protests and Uprisings in Tokugawa Japan, Stephen Vlastos). Shimabara revolt, Surasena-ji, was not a revolt of the Japanese Christians against the Japanese state. In fact, very few priests/missionaries were involved in the planning of the revolt. It was a revolt against a local daimyo (Katsuie Matsukura), who overtaxed his peasants during the 1630s famine, and conscripted large numbers of them to building a new castle at Shimabara. The revolt consisited of many catholic peasants, but it is vital to remember that Japanese peasants of the region stood shoulder to shoulder against the armies of the shogunate, regardless of religion. Yes, many Catholic peasants existed there (it was the only region of Japan where there were significant number of Catholic peasants, particularly in the Amakusa islands), but the revolt had at least as many non-Catholics (peasants, fishermen, artisans, etc). But all peasants, regardless of religion, fought the shogunate's armies, and almost all peasants involved in the uprising died. The revolt is notable for another reason. It was the only time in the Tokugawa shogunate, when a daimyo was executed for misrule and overtaxation.

It was not the only peasant revolt of the early 17th century either. There are at least a dozen others, many in the 1630s too. And a decade later, part of the Buddhist establishment revolted against the Tokugawa shogunate, during the Keian rebellion (it was the revolt of the ronin, under the direction of a segment of the Buddhist establishment). That revolt, and the part of the Buddhist establishment were crushed equally ruthelessly by the Japanese shogunate.

[brihaspati]

^^^Are you so sure that there is no trace of missionaries themselves having destroyed temples? Does "Kyushu" strike any bell? 1587?

[brihaspati]

There is a long debate on the proportion of economic resentment versus millenialism/chiristianism in the Shimabara clash. Nicholas Koeckebacker, the Dutch factor in Hirado witnessed, on 25 December 1637, Karatsu, fifteen miles north of Hirado, sent numerous boat loads of soldiers to Amakusa to punish the ringleaders, only to be routed. He adds that a few days later the Christians of Arima (Shimabara) made common cause with the peasant-rebels of Amakusa, destroying Japanese religious symbols and replacing them with Christian emblems. Writing on 10 January, Koeckebacker put the number of rebels at 18,000. According to Murdoch and Boxer whatever the real or ostensible cause of the rising, it soon assumed a religious character. The Christianized rebels of Amakusa and Shimabara carried banners with Portuguese inscriptions such as "Louvada seia o Santissimo Sacramento" (Praised be the most Holy Sacrament) and "San Tiago".

[member_19686]

Here is what you asked for initially:

Protecting the Portuguese? Dude - do you even know whom the Japanese butchered? No, it was not the Portuguese - they were expelled (replaced by the Dutch). It was other Japanese - Japanese Christians - who were butchered by the Tokugawa Shogunate (those who did not convert back anyway). And can you please produce proofs that the Japanese knew what was happening to the Incas and the Aztecs in the mid seventeenth century? Note- I am not asking you for post facto rationalisations that arose in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. I am asking you for proofs that the Japanese knew what was happening in Central and South America at the time of the massacres of the Christians in Japan.

And saying Christians should not be butchered is the same as protecting the atrocities of the Christians and the Inquisitions? I must now ask you if you seriously contemplate butchery of Christians as a means to stop them. If you think that, then I will frankly say I wish to have no part of any Buddhism that preaches this kind of hatred for any religion. It is obviously toxic.

PS: Wrt Japanese evidence, if you have a pointer to the Japanese originals, that will be ideal. But if not, post any English evidence you can get.

So I gave you Fabian Fukan, William Adams, Kirishitan Monogatari, and Date Masamune.

I never said Date was hostile to Xtians did I?

I merely pointed his embassy as evidence that the Japanese had made contact with Rome itself & would have easily known the general tenor of events.

Furthermore you seem to have missed that Don Rodrigo Vivero y Velasco sailed to Mexico in 1610 on a ship built by William Adams for Ieyasu.

How can the Japanese not be aware what the Spaniards & Portuguese were up to in the New World when they sent a ship to Mexico?

Why go so far as the new world, you don't think the Japanese knew what the Spaniards had done in the nearby Philippines?

Now you say that what William Adams may have told Ieyasu seems to have made no impact, where as previously you wanted evidence for the Japanese merely being aware of the events going on in the new world.

Of course everyone who studied the period knows that Ieyasu didn't act immediately because he wanted Spanish trade & also because he had yet to fully consolidate his power. The Shogunate would only fight the Siege of Osaka in 1614-1615 & having daimyo side with you was important. This is known as waiting for the right moment to strike.

When Nobunaga wanted to wipe out Xtianity after seeing what they were doing in Japan, his advisors told him that they were too powerful with many daimyo having converted and advised against it.

Ieyasu was of course aware of these factors and the fact that he had not yet made the Shogunate completely secure and so waited.

Your argument sounds like our secularists arguments that Shivaji allied with the Deccani Sultanates, so he was just a bandit. Of course he did because the circumstances dictated it but that does not mean his main aim wasn't Hindu freedom.

At that time Japan had been in a civil war for a long time with ever shifting alliances & Ieyasu played the game so that he could first secure power before dealing with other problems.

Nobunaga's quarrel was not with Buddhism or Buddhists but with certain sects and their militarized monks interfering in politics. You are aware that Christianity's entire history is chock full of destroying pagan shrines and temples everywhere it went but somehow in Japan they only did it under the orders of Nobunaga?

So Christians miraculously became peace loving doves in Japan while conducting the inquisition in our own lands here in Goa at the same time?

Anyway since you asked, here is a sample of what Japanese Christians were doing:

As Omura Sumitada had gone off to the wars, it so happened that he passed on the way an idol, Marishiten by name, which is their god of battles. When they pass it, they bow and pay reverence to it, and the pagans who are on horseback dismount as a sign of their respect. Now the idol had above it a cockerel. As the daimyo came there with his squadron he had his men stop and ordered them to take the idol and burn it together with the whole temple; and he took the cockerel and gave it a blow with the sword, saying to it, “Oh, how many times have you betrayed me!” And after everything had been burnt down, he had a very beautiful cross erected on the same spot, and after he and his men had paid very deep reverence to it, they continued on their way to the wars.

- Luís Fróis (1532 – July 8, 1597), a Portuguese Christian missionary giving an eyewitness description of non Christian shrines being destroyed by Japanese converts.

http://vajrin.wordpress.com/2013/03/02/ ... or-hindus/

There were MANY such incidents not just against Buddhist temples but also against Shinto shrines and they had nothing to do with Nobunaga. They were being perpetrated long after Nobunaga's death.

Of course the Shimabara rebellion started off as a general peasant rebellion but increasingly took on a Christian color.

Christianity is an exclusive ideology which leads people to do similar things wherever they are. If you think the Japanese Christians were by some miracle a totally different, then you should read the sources closely.

[member_19686]

When Nobunaga rose to power, he favoured the Jesuits in many ways - not because of any sympathy with their creed, for he never dreamed of becoming a Christian, but because he thought that their influence would be of service to him in his campaign against Buddhism. Like the Jesuits themselves, Nobunaga had no scruple about means in his pursuit of ends. More ruthless than William the Conqueror, he did not hesitate to put to death his own brother and his own father-in-law, when they dared to oppose his will. The aid and protection which he extended to the foreign priests, for merely political reasons, enabled them to develop their power to a degree which soon gave him cause for repentance. Mr. Gubbins, in his "Review of the Introduction of Christianity into China and Japan," quotes from a Japanese work, called Ibuki Mogusa, an interesting extract on the subject: -

"Nobunaga now began to regret his previous policy in permitting the introduction of Christianity. He accordingly assembled his retainers, and said to them: - 'The conduct of these missionaries in persuading people to join them by giving money, does not please me. How would it be, think you, if we were to demolish Nambanji [The "Temple of the Southern Savages" - so the Portuguese church was called]?' To this Mayeda Tokuzenin replied. 'It is now too late to demolish the Temple of the Namban. To endeavour to arrest the power of this religion now is like trying to arrest the current of the ocean. Nobles, both great and small, have become adherents of it. If you would exterminate this religion now, there is fear that disturbance should be created among your own retainers. I am therefore of opinion that you should abandon your intention of destroying Nambanji.' Nobunaga in consequence regretted exceedingly his previous action in regard to the Christian religion, and set about thinking how he could root it out."

http://explorion.net/japan-attempt-inte ... suit-peril

Note the curious mention of "The conduct of these missionaries in persuading people to join them by giving money, does not please me."

Does that not remind you of the rice conversions in India today?

Again Christian tactics display a remarkable convergence in time and space.

Before accusing another pagan people of being needlessly cruel against the most destructive ideology the world has ever known & its followers (i.e. Christianity), it would be better to study the issue in more detail no offense.

Of course the Western historians have an interest in whitewashing what the Xtians were up to just as they whitewash what they did/are doing in India.

[sanjaykumar]

It is not whitewashing at all. That imputes a recognition and defence of Christian history. Most can charitably be called ignorant-they are ignorant of the historical crimes and thievery conducted by Christian nations. The way forward is, as always, appeal to reason by a calm and confidant probing of the the vulnerabilities of Christian Europe, from incestuous murdering Popes to the twentieth century Germans, that acme of European culture. From the negation of the Hindu zero as the work of the devil to the pogroms against the Roma to the violent conversions of European peoples themselves. What is most sordid, the most repellent, the most perverse in humanity found its flowering in Christian Europe.

Most Christians would be very uncomfortable with such gentle questioning. But a few months later, or perhaps years, they will turn into the most committed rationalists.

[Shanmukh]

^^^Are you so sure that there is no trace of missionaries themselves having destroyed temples? Does "Kyushu" strike any bell? 1587?

Are you referring to the Ryuzoji wars against Omura Sumitada in Kyushu? Although I am not seeing anything specific in 1587 with respect to them, I agree that there were temple torchings galore in the region during the war and Omura Sumitada got plenty of support from the Jesuits. In fact, to get the support of the Jesuits and their weapons (and particularly, gunpowder), Omura Sumitada turned to Christianity, converted plenty of his retainers also to Christianity, and then fought brutally against his one time superior, burning plenty of Buddhist shrines in the bargain. This is something I had missed.

I am not sure which particular event you are referring to in 1587, though. Can you please be more specific?

[member_19686]

DECREE

1. Japan is the Land of the Gods. That a pernicious doctrine should be diffused here from the Kirishitan Country is most undesirable.

2. To approach the people of our provinces and districts, turn them into [Kirishitan] sectarians, and destroy the shrines of the gods and the temples of the Buddhas is something unheard of in previous generations. Whereas provinces, districts, localities, and fiefs are granted to their recipients temporarily, contingent on the incumbent's observance of the laws of the realm and attention to their intent in all matters, to embroil the common people is miscreant.

3. In the judgement of His Highness, it is because the Bateren amass parishioners as they please by means of their clever doctrine that the Law of the Buddhas is being destroyed like this in the Precincts of the Sun. That being miscreant, the Bateren can scarcely be permitted to remain on Japanese soil. Within twenty days from today they shall make their preparations and go back to their country. During this time, should anyone among the common people make unwarranted accusations against the Bateren, it shall be considered miscreant.

4. The purpose of the Black Ships is trade, and that is a different matter. As years and months pass, trade may be carried on in all sorts of articles.

5. From now on hereafter, all those who do not disturb the Law of the Buddhas (merchants, needless to say, and whoever) are free to come here from the Kirishitan Country and return. Be heedful of this.

That is all.
Tensho 15.VI.19

[Kuwata, Toyotomi Hideyoshi kenkyu, pp.347-49; JSAE]

LETTER TO THE VICEROY OF INDIA

You have sent me a letter from afar. Opening it and reading it, I feel as though a vista of myriad miles of seas and mountains had opened before my eyes.

As your letter intimates, this empire, which comprises more than sixty regions, for many years knew more days of disorder than of peace. Hence evildoers fomented foul plots, provincial warriors banded together, and the imperial court's orders could not be enforced. In the prime of my life, I spent all my days and nights deploring and lamenting this state of affairs. I studied the art of self-cultivation and the essentials of governing the country, formulated deep designs, and made plans for the future. Founding myself in the three virtues of humanity, perspicacity, and martial valor, I nourished the warriors with affection and treated the farmers with compassion. I rectified rewards and punishments and set the state on a safe course free of perils. I rectified rewards and punishments and set the state on a safe course free of perils. Consequently, before many years had passed, the realm was unified and now rests solid as a rock. There is no foreign land or territory however distant that fails to offer tribute. East and West, North and South: I order and they obey.

And now, disseminating His Sacred Majesty's decrees throughout his dominions and brandishing the authority proper to his worthy captain as far as the borderlands, I opened all the barriers and bridges within the Four Seas, permitting free passage. I have struck down the bandits on land and the pirates on the sea, bringing peace to the state and the people. Our country is now secure. For all that, I have formed the ambition to ruler over the country of Great Ming. Any time now, I will set sail for China aboard my palace-ship, and it will be as easy as pointing to the palm of my hand. Then will have a convenient route for proceeding to your part of the world. Why should we let distances or differences come between us? . . .

As long as humans are active in society, humanity will be their basic principle. Were it not for humanity and rightness, a lord would not act as a lord or a subject as a subject.1 It is by applying humanity and rightness that the essential ties between lord and subject, father and son, and husband and wife are perfected, that the Way of these relationships is established. Should you want to learn about the gods and the Buddhas in depth, kindly ask, and I will explain.

In lands like yours, one doctrine is taught to the exclusion of others, and you are unaware of the Way of humanity and rightness. You therefore fail to revere the gods and the Buddhas or to distinguish between the lord and the subject. Instead, you seek to destroy the True Law by means of a pernicious doctrine. Hereafter, stop fabricating wild, barbarous nonsense in ignorance of right and wrong!

Some years ago that notorious group, the Bateren, came to this country, seeking to bedevil and cast a spell on religious and lay folk, men and women alike. At that time I subjected them to only some slight punishment. Were they to return to these parts with the intention of proselytizing, however, I shall extirpate them without sparing any of their ilk, and it will then be too late for the gnashing of teeth. Should you have the desire of maintaining friendship with this land, however, the seas have been rid of the pirate menace, and merchants are free to come and go anywhere within these borders. Think it over.

Tensho 19. VII.25 [September 12, 1591] The Imperial Regent

[Kuwata, Toyotomi Hideyoshi kenkyu, pp. 253-55; JSAE]

1. Allusion to Analects 12:11

- Source: Sources of East Asian Tradition: Vol. 2 the Modern Period edited by William Theodore De Bary

First is Hideyoshi's proclamation banning missionary activity.

Second is his letter, presumably to the Portuguese Viceroy of Goa.

Bateren refers to the Christian padres.

Note that Nobunaga was dead & yet Hideyoshi is accusing them of shrine and temple destruction.

There are many other sources or just read any introductory text on Christianity in Japan during that period. Unless the author is a completely shameless liar/Christian, you will see them mention the destruction of shrines and temples that the missionaries instigated.

Here is one sample:

As Alvarez-Taladriz points out,70 however, Nobunaga's motives in his destructive attacks on Buddhism were very different from those of Omura Sumitada, Takayama Ukon and other Christian daimyo who set about destroying 'the houses of the Devil and their idols of wood and stone'. They attack those who opposed the will of God, whereas he attacked those who opposed the will of Oda Nobunaga. Frois, Valignano, Coelho-in fact, as far as we know, all the missionaries-looked on with undisguised Schadenfreude as Nobunaga terrorized the Buddhists and put an end to their militancy, and they encouraged the wrecking of temples and shrines in lands under the control of Christian daimyo. Elison's statement that 'efforts at formal accommodation notwithstanding, the Jesuits were engaged in wholesale destruction of the Japanese tradition'71 is unsympathetic but not untrue. Nobunaga and Hideyoshi, for all their arrogance, ruthlessness and violence, were less radical in their ambitions.

Frois states that Nobunaga, following the opinion of the Zen sect, holds that there is no after life and nothing other than what is visible,72 and Valignano notes...

- Japanese and the Jesuits By J. F. Moran

http://books.google.ca/books?id=kruXu_m ... an&f=false

[Shanmukh]

I merely pointed his embassy as evidence that the Japanese had made contact with Rome itself & would have easily known the general tenor of events.

Furthermore you seem to have missed that Don Rodrigo Vivero y Velasco sailed to Mexico in 1610 on a ship built by William Adams for Ieyasu.

How can the Japanese not be aware what the Spaniards & Portuguese were up to in the New World when they sent a ship to Mexico?

This is indeed something I had missed. Rodrigo de Vivero y Velasco (if you and I are referring to the same man) was a Spanish-Mexican who was shipwrecked on the coast of Chiba, negotiated with the shogunate, and even produced a mutual recognition diplomatic treaty, on behalf of Spain. Funnily enough, he spoke of the terrible dangers of admitting the Dutch and the English to the Japanese islands, and tried to steer Japanese foreign policy to be pro-Spain. Maybe I am missing something here, but I am not seeing where he sailed to Mexico on a ship built in Japan (unless it was to return home). And he does seem to have made a good impression on the Japanese court, and actually got Ieyasu to sign off on a document of mutual diplomatic recognition. Did he speak of the conquests in Mexico to the Shogun?

Your argument sounds like our secularists arguments that Shivaji allied with the Deccani Sultanates, so he was just a bandit. Of course he did because the circumstances dictated it but that does not mean his main aim wasn't Hindu freedom.

I made no such argument, Surasena-ji. I make the argument that it was a political decision to destroy the Christians, in changed political circumstances (compared to what they were when the alliance with the Christians had been made). The Christians were becoming a political powerbase, and their gunpowder weapons were becoming a problem for the shogunate. Consequently, the Shogun decided to crush them. Religion was a secondary consideration.

As for Shivaji, he fought the Deccan sultanates too for a long time, and when the Mughals attacked both Shivaji and the sultanates, he made common cause with the Bijapur sultanate in particular, and decimated them by stepping into the void of power. His calculation was all about who would win in the longer struggle. they were tied down to their forts and their palaces, and their nobility. He was not. The Mughal attacks would destroy the administration of the sultanates, and he would step into the void. He could keep up the war endlessly, until the Mughals tired of it, and he was the master of the northern Deccan - a Maratha deccan.

So Christians miraculously became peace loving doves in Japan while conducting the inquisition in our own lands here in Goa at the same time?

Christianity is an exclusive ideology which leads people to do similar things wherever they are. If you think the Japanese Christians were by some miracle a totally different, then you should read the sources closely.

I do not contest the evil done by Christianity at all, nor is it my intention to belittle what they did in Japan (and I had indeed missed many of the Omura Sumitada atrocities). Thanks for the help.