Buddhism - Socio Political Contributions

[sanjaykumar]

As someone who first alluded to the Japanese experience with Christianity, several years ago, let me now recommend an examination of slavery by Christians in Japan.

It will sound quite familiar. The Japanese have mostly forgotten their victory over Christianity. Perhaps the Jesuit repositories at the Vatican will permit heathens to research the beneficence of Christians further.

[member_19686]

You are missing the fact that Rodrigo departed for Mexico in 1610 on the second ship Adams built for Ieyasu.

I don't know what he talked but I doubt he would have boasted what they did in the new world to the natives but that is besides the point.

Your original point was asking for some evidence that the Japanese knew what was happening in the new world. Besides William Adams, Fabian Fukan, & the direct quote I gave from Kirishitan Monogatari I also added this point.

The Japanese must have been mentally retarded then to have not known what was going on there if they were sending ships there (added to the other points I mentioned above).

You are welcome to believe what you want about why the Japanese crushed Christianity (political or religious) but the facts remain 1) They were quiet aware of what Christians did in the New World and the nearby Philippines 2) The Japanese Christians under Jesuit instigation destroyed many shrines and temples which had nothing to do with Nobunaga's orders and went on long after he died.

Here:

In 1610, a Japanese vessel built by Will Adams sailed directly to Mexico on the pretext of returning ex-governor Don Rodrigo de Vivero, whose ship had been wrecked off Japan in 1609.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=vk04ZSI ... ms&f=false

Hope you are satisfied on Rodrigo's journey to Mexico from Japan on a ship built by Adams for Ieyasu.

[Shanmukh]

Your original point was asking for some evidence that the Japanese knew what was happening in the new world. Besides William Adams, Fabian Fukan, & the direct quote I gave from Kirishitan Monogatari I also added this point.

Quite so. The sources you have adduced are irrefutable. The Japanese did know what was going on in the New World. You were right. Thanks for the sources.

[brihaspati]

nageshks ji,
there is a Japanese source - Ibuki Mogusa, that covers Hidyeoshi's trip among others, to Kyushu. The second source lies in the extensive Jesuit mission records in various libraries, not all translated. Some are in archaic Portuguese as far as I know. There is chest thumping galore on their supposed role in temple burning and heresy/witchcraft/paganism elimination through fire in Japan [the Catholics of this period were particularly in love with the cleansing nature of fire - from books to humans]. The Franciscan records are unashamed too in their own records.

I think this "no religion angle" - "purely economic/political reasons" is a double edged sword. It falsifies from a vulgar Marxist angle - the multiple parallel and interacting factors that shape history, and in which the role of ideology is self-contradictorily dismissed. This leads to false understandings and wrong predictions. On the other hand the tool is used selectively - to dilute and decriminalize selected religions and their records - while withholding the same dilution route for the hated religions. I have never seen application of similar purely "economic/political" reasonings to "hinduism" or meso-American religions for example when it comes to ostracizing their supposed "atrocities".

Trying to suppress the religious motivation in christian or related religions associated atrocities, shows a consciousness of the importance of keeping images of ideologies in the past untainted for the present - which in turn shows a political agenda, and a very clear consciousness of the real motivations for atrocities being ideological rather than "purely" economic or military.

[sanjaykumar]

In fact the subtext is that the heathens deserved it for having the temerity of not accepting the one true god. Although Europe is post-Christian (they try not to burn witches unless they are Roma or Jewish), it remains culturally Christian.

Witness the silence on the issue of reparations. A Spanish court has recently indicted some members of the Chinese Communist Party for genocide in Tibet. The mass murder by Spanish Catholics is only remembered in amnesia-when one has forgotten to forget.

[Shanmukh]

nageshks ji,
there is a Japanese source - Ibuki Mogusa, that covers Hidyeoshi's trip among others, to Kyushu. The second source lies in the extensive Jesuit mission records in various libraries, not all translated. Some are in archaic Portuguese as far as I know. There is chest thumping galore on their supposed role in temple burning and heresy/witchcraft/paganism elimination through fire in Japan [the Catholics of this period were particularly in love with the cleansing nature of fire - from books to humans]. The Franciscan records are unashamed too in their own records.

Thanks, B-ji. I will look up Ibuki Mogusa. I was concentrating on the shogunate's (and wannabe shoguns' actions) in central and northern Japan. I guess I missed the Christian atrocities in the campaigns by daimyos in Kyushu and the south. I should have been a bit more careful. Thanks to both you and Surasena-ji for pointing it out.

I think this "no religion angle" - "purely economic/political reasons" is a double edged sword. It falsifies from a vulgar Marxist angle - the multiple parallel and interacting factors that shape history, and in which the role of ideology is self-contradictorily dismissed. This leads to false understandings and wrong predictions. On the other hand the tool is used selectively - to dilute and decriminalize selected religions and their records - while withholding the same dilution route for the hated religions. I have never seen application of similar purely "economic/political" reasonings to "hinduism" or meso-American religions for example when it comes to ostracizing their supposed "atrocities".

This bit is absolutely true. Funnily enough, most `scholars' also provide the same cover to the Islamic atrocities against various groups (but not when Islamic atrocities are directed against Christians). It is all a question of who is the oppressor, and who the oppressed. On the other hand, in the Shimabara revolt, the beginning of it was almost completely due to economic causes, and the Japanese of the period did suppress all revolts pretty ruthlessly, no matter who revolted against the shogunate. Thanks once more, B-ji.

[brihaspati]

nageshks ji,
there is an alternative line of scholarship that points out that
(1) the most atrocious over-taxing feudals were actually those who had allied with the missionaries, for even from all of the early Jesuit writings, from Xavier - to Frois to Valignani, it is quite clear that the greatest atrocities, including forced conversion, temple burnings and torture and execution of resisting Buddhist priesthood in the Kyushu (earlier) or Shimabara(later) areas, were concentrated and more reckless exactly in those areas where considerable foreign Jesuits had become entrenched.

(2) these feudals had been using or given the hope of economic and military assistance [the "black ships" and "guns"] by the Jesuits, against central authorities [which were at this stage engaged in a contest for unification and supremacy].

(3) the atrocious lords and the missionaries were allies, and the missionaries did nothing before - to intervene in the exploitation. The real rebellion in shimabara was apparently led by an 18 year old Japanese "Christian" youth, whose use of the religious mobilization was perhaps partially at least tactically motivated in gaining the supposed military and economic might represented by the Jesuit infrastructure, but the explicit use of Jesuit slogans and millenarial adventist memes shows the classic pattern of running with the hare and with the hound followed by most Christian missions outside of Europe.

(4) Some think that the non-Christian [apart from the Christianist lords] feudal taxation that contributed to the resentment was aimed with a politico-economic need in the non-Christian forces in Japan to prevent the increasing arrogantly militarist and destructive Jesuit and Franciscan activities to spread. This was economic warfare and therefore from the "doctrine of necessity" often used to justify past Christian or related religions' behaviour, what Hideyoshi and Iyeasu did - was "necessary".

I think if we are considering purely economic-political motivations, then this logic should also be considered as valid motivation. This in turn shows that those who ultimately destroyed the Jesuits, were not entirely motivated by economics - for they stood to lose from loss of foreign trade. They saw a political and religious cultural threat.

A purely military, political power, economic motive does not explain the need on Christian side to impose their religion unless you agree that economics, military and political power is religion and religion is economics, military and political power from the Christian viewpoint.

[member_19686]

Of interest also are Ieyasu's private views:

Considering that this code which inculcated humanity, repressed moral laxity, prohibited celibacy, and rigorously maintained the family-cult, was drawn up in the time of the extirpation of the Jesuit missions, the position assumed in regard to religious freedom appears to us one of singular liberality. "High and low alike," proclaims the 31st article, "may follow their own inclinations with respect to religious tenets which have obtained down to the present time, except as regards the false and corrupt school [Roman Catholicism]. Religious disputes have ever proved the bane and misfortune of this Empire, and must be firmly, suppressed." ... But the seeming liberality of this article must not be misinterpreted: the legislator who made so rigid an enactment in regard to the religion of the family was not the man to proclaim that any Japanese was free to abandon the faith of his race for an alien creed. One must carefully read the entire Legacy in order to understand Iyeyasu's real position, - which was simply this: that any man was free to adopt any religion tolerated by the State, in addition to his ancestor-cult. Iyeyasu was himself a member of the Jodo sect of Buddhism, and a friend of Buddhism in general. But he was first of all a Shintoist; and the third article of his code commands devotion to the Kami as the first of duties: - "Keep your heart pure; and so long as your body shall exist, be diligent in paying honour and veneration to the Gods." That he placed the ancient cult above Buddhism should be evident from the text of the 52d article of the Legacy, in which he declares that no one should suffer himself to neglect the national faith because of a belief in any other form of religion. This text is of particular interest:

"My body, and the bodies of others, being born in the Empire of the Gods, to accept unreservedly the teachings of other countries, - such as Confucian, Buddhist, or Taoist doctrines, - and to apply one's whole and undivided attention to them, would be, in short, to desert one's own master, and transfer one's loyalty to another. Is not this to forget the origin of one's being?"

Of course the Shogun, professing to derive his authority from the descendant of the elder gods, could not with consistency have proclaimed the right of freedom to doubt those gods: his official religious duty permitted of no compromise. But the interest attaching to his opinions, as expressed in the Legacy, rests upon the fact that the Legacy was not a public, but a strictly private document, intended for the perusal and guidance of his successors only. Altogether his religious position was much like that of the liberal Japanese statesman of to-day, - respect for whatever is good in Buddhism, qualified by the patriotic conviction that the first religious duty is to the cult of the ancestors, the ancient creed of the race.... Iyeyasu had preferences regarding Buddhism; but even in this he showed no narrowness. Though he wrote in his Legacy, "Let my posterity ever be of the honoured sect of Jodo," he greatly reverenced the high-priest of the Tendai temple, Yeizan, who had been one of his instructors, and obtained for him the highest court-office possible for a Buddhist priest to obtain, as well as the headship of the Tendai sect. Moreover the Shogun visited Yeizan to make there official prayer for the prosperity of the country.

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

[sanjaykumar]

A purely military, political power, economic motive does not explain the need on Christian side to impose their religion unless you agree that economics, military and political power is religion and religion is economics, military and political power from the Christian viewpoint.


The Christian has no use for any such sophistry. The crimes of Christians can never be normalised as being representative of the age or contextualised. For that debases Christianity as a secular enterprise and negates all that is holy within it. The Christian is thus caught in a dilemma. For which the only recourse is to redouble one's reading of the book to the exclusion of thought or scholarship.

[Shanmukh]

nageshks ji,
I think if we are considering purely economic-political motivations, then this logic should also be considered as valid motivation. This in turn shows that those who ultimately destroyed the Jesuits, were not entirely motivated by economics - for they stood to lose from loss of foreign trade. They saw a political and religious cultural threat.

A purely military, political power, economic motive does not explain the need on Christian side to impose their religion unless you agree that economics, military and political power is religion and religion is economics, military and political power from the Christian viewpoint.

Thanks for the clarifications, B-ji.

For the Christians, until at least the French revolution (but even afterwards, but more subtly and quietly), there has always been a need to replace the native religions with their own. They never missed a chance to destroy native cultures. It was a step in their overall domination of the region - political, cultural, economic. I have never had any illusions about that (and we in India are still struggling to get out of the mental trap the Christians put us in)/

Your `need to tax' theory sounds intriguing. I am looking into the comparative tax records of the Amakusa region in Japan before 1549 (when the Europeans started coming), and after 1600s. I will post more when I have more raw data.

[sanjaykumar]

Will the Vatican ever release the financial records of the Jesuit control of Nagasaki, specifically with respect to disbursements, and perhaps more pointedly, purchase of slaves? Of course one of Hideyoshi's petition points, of Coelho, was why the Portuguese purchase and export so many Japanese slaves?

[Agnimitra]

Oldest Buddhist Shrine Uncovered In Nepal May Push Back the Buddha's Birth Date

Excavations uncover a shrine dating to the sixth century B.C.

[brihaspati]

I would go with Julia Shaw's caution. "Ahimsa" or lack of animal sacrifice - need not be a purely Buddhist phenomenon.

[johneeG]

I would go with Julia Shaw's caution. "Ahimsa" or lack of animal sacrifice - need not be a purely Buddhist phenomenon.

Indeed. Infact, there seem to be clues(like Buddha dying of eating spoiled pork) that initially Buddhism was not against animal slaughter. 'Ahimsa' may have been a jaina phenomenon that was borrowed/shared by the Buddhism as it evolved into a non-Vaidhik creed.

[anupmisra]

Oldest Buddhist Shrine Uncovered In Nepal May Push Back the Buddha's Birth Date

Excavations uncover a shrine dating to the sixth century B.C.

My dad, based on his research in his book "Ancient Indian Dynasties", arrived at 514 BC as the date of Buddha's nirvana. Mahavira's nirvana was derived at 527 BC. Apparently, they were contemporaries.

[Shanmukh]

I would go with Julia Shaw's caution. "Ahimsa" or lack of animal sacrifice - need not be a purely Buddhist phenomenon.

Depending on what we accept the date for different parts of the Mahabharata, we have the उञ्छवृत्ति concept, (where one only eats fallen fruits/seeds from trees and nothing else) in it. The idea that one should not harm even a tree by picking a fruit, or harvest grains is seen as the highest form of self discipline and अहिंसा. There is the story of a mongoose who gets one side of his body golden in this context, where the person following उञ्छवृत्ति was seen as the superior of even Yudhishthira, and all his यज्ञानि. I am not sure if the word अहिंसा exists there, but the concept is well known and practised since antiquity. At least, that is my reading of the situation.

[Agnimitra]

Dhume tweets: Did the leaders of Sri Lanka's Bodu Bala Sena and Burma's 969 movement recently meet and exchange gifts?

FP: This Is the Modern Axis of Buddhist Hate

The photo of the two monks above looks innocent enough. One of the men presents the other with a birthday present. It's difficult to make out, but it looks to be some sort of gold figurine on a red velvet base. In fact, the photo would be totally uninteresting if it weren't for the fact that these men are two of the world's most important leaders of a dangerously radical brand of Buddhism.

The man on the right is Burma's Ashin Wirathu. Known as the "bin Laden of Buddhism," Wirathu leads the country's 969 movement, which sees the country's Muslim minority as an existential threat to its majority Buddhist population. The man on the left is Sri Lanka's Galagoda Atte Gnanasara, the face of hardline Buddhism in the island nation.
Together, these two robed radicals anchor a powerful, violent, and new political force in Asia.

Over the course of the past three years, Burma's former military government has embarked on a series of significant democratic reforms, but the departure from military dictatorship has also coincided with a flowering of a radical Buddhist nationalism that has crystallized in communal violence against the country's Muslim minority. Wirathu has emerged as the public face of that movement, and the monk's anti-Muslim rhetoric has helped incite attacks on Burma's Muslim civilians -- particularly its ethnic Rohingya -- over the past 18 months. Last year, TIME magazine featured Wirathu on its cover under the headline "The Face of Buddhist Terror."

But Wirathu is not alone in setting out a dangerous new vision for a religion grounded in the principle of non-violence. Gnanasara, who serves as a spiritual leader of sorts, is using his position to stoke the same type of religious bigotry in his home country of Sri Lanka.

Gnanasara is the co-founder of Sri Lanka's Bodu Bala Sena, or Buddhist Power Force. The group, which was formed in 2012, agitates against what it sees as the threat Islam poses to Sri Lanka's Sinhalese-Buddhist identity. As in Burma, Muslims in Sri Lanka are a small, largely peaceful minority. But that hasn't stopped Gnanasara's group from stoking fears of extremism.

According to a January report by the Associated Press, Buddhists in Sri Lanka have "attacked dozens of mosques and called for boycotts of Muslim-owned businesses and bans on headscarves and halal foods. At boisterous rallies, monks claim Muslims are out to recruit children, marry Buddhist women and divide the country."

In August 2013, a group of Buddhist monks attacked a mosque in the capital of Colombo. The mob struck the mosque while congregants were engaged in prayer, breaking windows and damaging the building. Both Muslims and Sinhalese Buddhists were injured in the clashes that followed the incident.

The vilification of Muslims is not simply base intolerance; it also serves a convenient purpose for Sri Lanka's largely Sinhalese powerbrokers. Five years after the end of the civil war with the Tamil Tigers, President Mahinda Rajapaksa's political machine needs a new scapegoat for the everyday frustrations of their constituents, many of whom have grown unhappy with the government's heavy-handed security policies and its failure to deliver robust growth. The government seems to be "tacitly encouraging, and in some cases directly supporting, the anti-Muslim campaigns led by militant and often violent Buddhist organizations," according to a November 2013 Crisis Group report.

If Gnanasara is indeed in Burma -- the photos have emerged only on minor Sri Lankan news outlets -- his visit comes at a sadly appropriate time. The Burmese government is considering a law governing inter-faith marriage law that would "protect" Buddhist women by requiring their non-Buddhist suitors to convert and gain permission from the women's parents if they wish to wed. Wirathu has campaigned aggressively in support of the law.

Despite pushback from local activists, public officials in both Sri Lanka and Burma have been loath to challenge Wirathu and Gnanasara. It seems these two men, and the radical brand of Buddhism they represent, are here to stay.

[member_19686]

As someone who first alluded to the Japanese experience with Christianity, several years ago, let me now recommend an examination of slavery by Christians in Japan.

It will sound quite familiar. The Japanese have mostly forgotten their victory over Christianity. Perhaps the Jesuit repositories at the Vatican will permit heathens to research the beneficence of Christians further.

That the Jesuits had their military adventurist faction is all too well established. Gaspar Coelho was one of its members. In 1584 he had addressed to the Spaniards in the Philippines a plea for the dispatch of "four ships laden with men, artillery, and food . . . to succor the Christians of Japan that are pressed by the heathen,"... At precisely the time of Coelho's arrival in Sakai (April 1586) Padre Alonso Sanchez SJ was in Manila submitting his project for the conquest of China, of which C. R. Boxer has to say: "The report has to be read to be believed."10 The Padre, "a person of very holy life, much learning, prudence, and excellent judgement" (as he was touted to Philip II) envisioned that the modest objective would be obtained easily enough, with a motley force of Spaniards, Filipinos, and Japanese auxiliaries conducted by "the fathers of the Society of Jesus, who are to act as guides." It would be interesting to know whether Coelho was aware of the project (or, better yet, Hideyoshi).

- Deus Destroyed The Image of Christianity in Early Modern Japan by George Elison, p. 115

Speaking of Jesuit repositories, here is something interesting:

In 1587 was set only the point of departure for Sakoku. Hideyoshi had not yet fixed upon the notion of a fifth-column of Padres... Before he left Kyushu, he issued (Frois reports) a series of anti-Christian ordinances...

Daft Coelho in the meantime brewed the plan to take up arms, stand a siege in Nagasaki, and wait for aid from abroad. 52

52. See Boxer, Christian Century, p. 149: Coelho "endeavored to get Arima to induce the other Christian daimyo to unite in armed resistance against the expulsion edict. In this he failed, so he fell back on a more temporizing policy. But he still had not learned his lesson entirely, since he wrote to Manila, Macao, and Goa begging for two or three hundred soldiers and firearms wherewith to stiffen the Christian daimyo. The Spanish authorities contented themselves with referring his request to Madrid, and the Jesuit Superior at Manila sent him a severe reprimand for his imprudence. The Portuguese sent him some weapons but no troops."

The precise nature of Coelho's plans is unclear; and Matsuda Kiichi laments (Taiko to gaiko, p. 86) that although the existence and place of repose of voluminous Jesuit correspondence on the topic are known the material's confidential nature has kept it from publication.

- Deus Destroyed The Image of Christianity in Early Modern Japan by George Elison, p. 133

Spain and the Conquest of China
HUGH THOMAS

http://standpointmag.co.uk/text-march-1 ... -philip-ii

[member_19686]

nageshksji following may interest you:



Source: THE CHRISTIAN CENTURY IN JAPAN BY CHARLES RALPH BOXER 1549-1650, p. 169

[johneeG]

Thursday, August 8, 2013
When did the Buddha break away from Hinduism?




Orientalists have started treating Buddhism as a separate religion because they discovered it outside India, without any conspicuous link with India, where Buddhism was not in evidence. At first, they didn’t even know that the Buddha had been an Indian. It had at any rate gone through centuries of development unrelated to anything happening in India at the same time. Therefore, it is understandable that Buddhism was already the object of a separate discipline even before any connection with Hinduism could be made.


Buddhism in modern India



In India, all kinds of invention, somewhat logically connected to this status of separate religion, were then added. Especially the Ambedkarite movement, springing from the conversion of Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar in 1956, was very driven in retro-actively producing an anti-Hindu programme for the Buddha. Conversion itself, not just the embracing of a new tradition (which any Hindu is free to do, all while staying a Hindu) but the renouncing of one’s previous religion, as the Hindu-born politician Ambedkar did, is a typically Christian concept. The model event was the conversion of the Frankish king Clovis, possibly in 496, who “burned what he had worshipped and worshipped what he had burnt”. (Let it pass for now that the Christian chroniclers slandered their victims by positing a false symmetry: the Heathens hadn’t been in the business of destroying Christian symbols.) So, in his understanding of the history of Bauddha Dharma (Buddhism), Ambedkar was less than reliable, in spite of his sterling contributions regarding the history of Islam and some parts of the history of caste. But where he was a bit right and a bit mistaken, his later followers have gone all the way and made nothing but a gross caricature of history, and especially about the place of Buddhism in Hindu history.



The Ambedkarite worldview has ultimately only radicalized the moderately anti-Hindu version of the reigning Nehruvians. Under Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, Buddhism was turned into the unofficial state religion of India, adopting the “lion pillar” of the Buddhist Emperor Ashoka as state symbol and putting the 24-spoked Cakravarti wheel in the national flag. Essentially, Nehru’s knowledge of Indian history was limited to two spiritual figures, viz. the Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi, and three political leaders: Ashoka, Akbar and himself. The concept of Cakravarti (“wheel-turner”, universal ruler) was in fact much older than Ashoka, and the 24-spoked wheel can also be read in other senses, e.g. the Sankhya philosophy’s worldview, with the central Purusha/Subject and the 24 elements of Prakrti/Nature. The anglicized Nehru, “India’s last Viceroy”, prided himself on his illiteracy in Hindu culture, so he didn’t know any of this, but was satisfied that these symbols could glorify Ashoka and belittle Hinduism, deemed a separate religion from which Ashoka had broken away by accepting Buddhism. More broadly, he thought that everything of value in India was a gift of Buddhism (and Islam) to the undeserving Hindus. Thus, the fabled Hindu tolerance was according to him a value borrowed from Buddhism. In reality, the Buddha had been a beneficiary of an already established Hindu tradition of pluralism. In a Muslim country, he would never have preached his doctrine in peace and comfort for 45 years, but in Hindu society, this was a matter of course. There were some attempts on his life, but they emanated not from “Hindus” but from jealous disciples within his own monastic order.



So, both Nehru and Ambedkar, as well as their followers , believed by implication that at some point in his life, the Hindu-born renunciate Buddha had broken away from Hinduism and adopted a new religion, Buddhism. This notion is now omnipresent, and through school textbooks, most Indians have lapped this up and don’t know any better. However, numerous though they are, none of the believers in this story have ever told us at what moment in his life the Buddha broke way from Hinduism. When did he revolt against it? Very many Indians repeat the Nehruvian account, but so far, never has any of them been able to pinpoint an event in the Buddha's life which constituted a break with Hinduism.


The term “Hinduism”



Their first line of defence, when put on the spot, is sure to be: “Actually, Hinduism did not yet exist at the time.” So, their position really is: Hinduism did not exist yet, but somehow the Buddha broke away from it. Yeah, the secular position is that he was a miracle-worker.



Let us correct that: the word “Hinduism” did not exist yet. When Darius of the Achaemenid Persians, a near-contemporary of the Buddha, used the word “Hindu”, it was purely in a geographical sense: anyone from inside or beyond the Indus region. When the medieval Muslim invaders brought the term into India, they used it to mean: any Indian except for the Indian Muslims, Christians or Jews. It did not have a specific doctrinal content except “non-Abrahamic”, a negative definition. It meant every Indian Pagan, including the Brahmins, Buddhists (“clean-shaven Brahmins”), Jains, other ascetics, low-castes, intermediate castes, tribals, and by implication also the as yet unborn Lingayats, Sikhs, Hare Krishnas, Arya Samajis, Ramakrishnaites, secularists and others who nowadays reject the label “Hindu”. This definition was essentially also adopted by VD Savarkar in his book Hindutva (1923) and by the Hindu Marriage Act (1955). By this historical definition, which also has the advantages of primacy and of not being thought up by the wily Brahmins, the Buddha and all his Indian followers are unquestionably Hindus. In that sense, Savarkar was right when he called Ambedkar’s taking refuge in Buddhism “a sure jump into the Hindu fold”.



But the word “Hindu” is a favourite object of manipulation. Thus, secularists say that all kinds of groups (Dravidians, low-castes, Sikhs etc.) are “not Hindu”, yet when Hindus complain of the self-righteousness and aggression of the minorities, secularists laugh at this concern: “How can the Hindus feel threatened? They are more than 80%!” The missionaries call the tribals “not Hindus”, but when the tribals riot against the Christians who have murdered their Swami, we read about “Hindu rioters”. In the Buddha’s case, “Hindu” is often narrowed down to “Vedic” when convenient, then restored to its wider meaning when expedient.



One meaning which the word “Hindu” definitely does not have, and did not have when it was introduced, is “Vedic”. Shankara holds it against Patanjali and the Sankhya school (just like the Buddha) that they don’t bother to cite the Vedas, yet they have a place in every history of Hindu thought. Hinduism includes a lot of elements which have only a thin Vedic veneer, and numerous ones which are not Vedic at all. Scholars say that it consists of a “Great Tradition” and many “Little Traditions”, local cults allowed to subsist under the aegis of the prestigious Vedic line. However, if we want to classify the Buddha in these terms, he should rather be included in the Great Tradition.



Siddhartha Gautama the Buddha was a Kshatriya, a scion of the Solar or Aikshvaku dynasty, a descendant of Manu, a self-described reincarnation of Rama, the son of the Raja (president-for-life) of the Shakya tribe, a member of its Senate, and belonging to the Gautama gotra (roughly “clan”). Though monks are often known by their monastic name, Buddhists prefer to name the Buddha after his descent group, viz. the Shakyamuni, “renunciate of the Shakya tribe”. This tribe was as Hindu as could be, consisting according to its own belief of the progeny of the eldest children of patriarch Manu, who were repudiated at the insistence of his later, younger wife. The Buddha is not known to have rejected this name, not even at the end of his life when the Shakyas had earned the wrath of king Vidudabha of Kosala and were massacred. The doctrine that he was one in a line of incarnations which also included Rama is not a deceitful Brahmin Puranic invention but was launched by the Buddha himself, who claimed Rama as an earlier incarnation of his. The numerous scholars who like to explain every Hindu idea or custom as “borrowed from Buddhism” could well counter Ambedkar’s rejection of this “Hindu” doctrine by pointing out very aptly that it was “borrowed from Buddhism”.



Career



At 29, he renounced society, but not Hinduism. Indeed, it is a typical thing among Hindus to exit from society, laying off your caste marks including your civil name. The Rg-Veda already describes the Muni-s as having matted hair and going about sky-clad: such are what we now know as Naga Sadhus. Asceticism was a recognized practice in Vedic society long before the Buddha. Yajnavalkya, the Upanishadic originator of the notion of Self, renounced life in society after a successful career as court priest and an equally happy family life with two wives. By leaving his family and renouncing his future in politics, the Buddha followed an existing tradition within Hindu society. He didn’t practice Vedic rituals anymore, which is normal for a Vedic renunciate (though Zen Buddhists still recite the Heart Sutra in the Vedic fashion, ending with “sowaka”, i.e. svaha). He was a late follower of a movement very much in evidence in the Upanishads, viz. of spurning rituals (Karmakanda) in favour of knowledge (Jnanakanda). After he had done the Hindu thing by going to the forest, he tried several methods, including the techniques he learned from two masters and which did not fully satisfy him,-- but nonetheless enough to include them in his own and the Buddhist curriculum. Among other techniques, he practised Anapanasati, “attention to the breathing process”, the archetypal yoga practice popular in practically all yoga schools till today. For a while he also practised an extreme form of asceticism, still existing in the Hindu sect of Jainism. He exercised his Hindu freedom to join a sect devoted to certain techniques, and later the freedom to leave it, remaining a Hindu at every stage.



He then added a technique of his own, or at least that is what the Buddhist sources tell us, for in the paucity of reliable information, we don’t know for sure that he hadn’t learned the Vipassana (“mindfulness”) technique elsewhere. Unless evidence of the contrary comes to the surface, we assume that he invented this technique all by himself, as a Hindu is free to do. He then achieved Bodhi, the “Awakening”. By his own admission, he was by no means the first to do so. Instead, he had only walked the same path of other Awakened beings before him.



At the bidding of the Vedic gods Brahma and Indra, he left his self-contained state of Awakening and started teaching his way to others. When he “set in motion the wheel of the Law” (Dharma-cakra-pravartana, Chinese Falungong), he gave no indication whatsoever of breaking with an existing system. On the contrary, by his use of existing Vedic and Upanishadic terminology (Arya, “Vedically civilized”; Dharma), he confirmed his Vedic roots and implied that his system was a restoration of the Vedic ideal which had become degenerate. He taught his techniques and his analysis of the human condition to his disciples, promising them to achieve the same Awakening if they practiced these diligently.


Caste



On caste, we find him is full cooperation with existing caste society. Being an elitist, he mainly recruited among the upper castes, with over 40% Brahmins. These would later furnish all the great philosophers who made Buddhism synonymous with conceptual sophistication. Conversely, the Buddhist universities trained well-known non-Buddhist scientists such as the astronomer Aryabhata. Lest the impression be created that universities are a gift of Buddhism to India, it may be pointed out that the Buddha’s friends Bandhula and Prasenadi (and, according to a speculation, maybe the young Siddhartha himself) had studied at the university of Takshashila, clearly established before there were any Buddhists around to do so. Instead, the Buddhists greatly developed an institution which they had inherited from Hindu society.



The kings and magnates of the eastern Ganga plain treated the Buddha as one of their own (because that is what he was) and gladly patronized his fast-growing monastic order, commanding their servants and subjects to build a network of monasteries for it. He predicted the coming of a future Awakened leader like himself, the Maitreya (“the one practising friendship/charity”), and specified that he would be born in a Brahmin family. When king Prasenadi discovered that his wife was not a Shakya princess but the daughter of the Shakya ruler by a maid-servant, he repudiated her and their son; but his friend the Buddha made him take them back.



Did he achieve this by saying that birth is unimportant, that “caste is bad” or that “caste doesn’t matter”, as the Ambedkarites claim? No, he reminded the king of the old view (then apparently in the process of being replaced with a stricter view) that caste was passed on exclusively in the paternal line. Among hybrids of horses and donkeys, the progeny of a horse stallion and a donkey mare whinnies, like its father, while the progeny of a donkey stallion and a horse mare brays, also like its father. So, in the oldest Upanishad, Satyakama Jabala is accepted by his Brahmins-only teacher because his father is deduced to be a Brahmin, regardless of his mother being a maid-servant. And similarly, king Prasenadi should accept his son as a Kshatriya, eventhough his mother was not a full-blooded Shakya Kshatriya.



When he died, the elites of eight cities made a successful bid for his ashes on the plea: "We are Kshatriyas, he was a Kshatriya, therefore we have a right to his ashes". After almost half a century, his disciples didn’t mind being seen in public as still observing caste in a context which was par excellence Buddhist. The reason is that the Buddha in his many teachings never had told them to give up caste, e.g. to give their daughters in marriage to men of other castes. This was perfectly logical: as a man with a spiritual message, the Buddha wanted to lose as little time as possible on social matters. If satisfying your own miserable desires is difficult enough, satisfying the desire for an egalitarian society provides an endless distraction from your spiritual practice.


The Seven Rules



There never was a separate non-Hindu Buddhist society. Most Hindus worship various gods and teachers, adding and sometimes removing one or more pictures or statues to their house altar. This way, there were some lay worshippers of the Buddha, but they were not a society separate from the worshippers of other gods or Awakened masters. This box-type division of society in different sects is another Christian prejudice infused into modern Hindu society by Nehruvian secularism. There were only Hindus, members of Hindu castes, some of whom had a veneration for the Buddha among others.



Buddhist buildings in India often follow the designs of Vedic habitat ecology or Vastu Shastra. Buddhist temple conventions follow an established Hindu pattern. Buddhist mantras, also outside India, follow the pattern of Vedic mantras. When Buddhism spread to China and Japan, Buddhist monks took the Vedic gods (e.g. the twelve Aditya’s) with them and built temples for them. In Japan, every town has a temple for the river-goddess Benzaiten, i.e. “Saraswati Devi”, the goddess Saraswati. She was not introduced there by wily Brahmins, but by Buddhists.



At the fag end of his long life, the Buddha described the seven principles by which a society does not perish (which Sita Ram Goel has given more body in his historical novel Sapta Shila, in Hindi), and among them are included: respecting and maintaining the existing festivals, pilgrimages and rituals; and revering the holy men. These festivals etc. were mainly “Vedic”, of course, like the pilgrimage to the Saraswati which Balaram made in the Mahabharata, or the pilgrimage to the Ganga which the elderly Pandava brothers made. Far from being a revolutionary, the Buddha emphatically outed himself as a conservative, both in social and in religious matters. He was not a rebel or a revolutionary, but wanted the existing customs to continue. The Buddha was every inch a Hindu.
Posted by Koenraad Elst at 7:11 AM

Link

A great question and excellent article by Elst.

However, Elst does not answer the question: when did Buddhism and Hindhuism separate into two distinct streams? This is extremely important question from theological and historical point of view.

The similarities between Buddhism and Hindhuism are noted by many. Upanishadhic teachings find many similarities to Buddhist schools.

So, I would venture to say that Buddha lived during the Upanadhic age. Generally, people try to say that Buddha lived before Upanishadhic age or after Upanishadhic age. If Buddha lived before Upanishadhs, then Upanishadhs copied from Buddha. If Buddha lived after Upanishadhs, then Buddha copied from Upanishadhs. However, given the similarities in both streams, one would have to say that both copied from each other. This is only possible if both were contemporaries.

So, Buddha's age gives the age of Upanishadhs. I personally think that Buddha was supposed to have lived in the earliest Upanishadhic age. The word 'Guathama' associated with Buddha may mean that he belonged to Gauthama school i.e. Gauthama Nyaya school.

But, as Elst points out, at that Buddha was part and parcel of Hindhu framework. So, the real question is: when did Hindhuism and Buddhism emerge as two distinct religion?

For a long time, Buddha was revered figure in Hindhuism. It seems that it was only much later when Buddha was seen as negative. This echo is found in Puranas where Buddha is shown as simultaneously a revered figure and a negative figure by saying that Buddha was an avatara of Vishnu who wanted to delude the Asuras.

It also needs to be noted that Asuras were adopted by one faction while Suras were adopted by another faction. Originally, neither the Asuras nor Suras seem to have been the good guys or bad guys. This is seen in Ahura Mazda.

[RamaY]

LoL JohneeG garu,

You are all over the place.

1/ Buddha didn't do anything different/contradictory to Hinduism/SanatanaDharma. All he did was to renounce his family & went searching for self-realization. Buddha stopped with Self-realization for he thought that's the end (similar to many seekers who stop at basic tantric Siddhis and turn in to Babas, Avatars etc).

2/ Buddhism appeared to be different as it went around the world while Vedic SD stayed home. Buddhism didn't spread Vedas for it didn't have the necessary intellectual depth (required for understanding Vedas) and also the fact that Buddha didn't know the complete God-realization.

3/ It is the self-hating Hindus like Nehru/Abedkar etc who reintroduced Buddhism to Hindu society as a rebellion against Hinduism (whole intellectual base is built by European historians as they are doing now w.r.t Dalits). These sepoys superimposed their own social prejudices/structures on pantheon of Hindu Gods and determined one God is somehow below/above another.

4/ I have posted earlier about the difference between Pauranika Buddha and Gautama Buddha. Please check first few pages of this thread.

5/ Coming to your Vedic ages, did you take into consideration the time of Mahabharata, be it 3120BC or 5400BC as Nilesh Oak suggests? Are you suggesting Vedas & Upanishats didn't exist at MB time?

6/ Gautama Buddha himself was living in a Varna-ashrama vyavastha which is result of Vedic influence on Bharatiya society. So the cause can't be after the result.

7/ I also question the basic proposition of Upanishats being separate from rest of Vedas and somehow come before/after rest of Vedas. I posted about this in different threads.

8/ Elst is questioning the basic premise of Buddhism being some different philosophy from Hinduism. It is just an aVedic offshoot of Hinduism and it crumbled on its own illogic and irrationality because Hindu society has a benchmark to validate it. It flourished in the places where there is no Hindu benchmark.

By the way, if you can read Telugu, there is a novel called Andhra Nagari in Kinige. Read that if you can. Buddhism is "used" by prevalent political powers to usurp others, like how "Mandal commission report" was used by assorted parties to gain power, all the way to PMship. Buddha was pre-BC Mandal.

[A_Gupta]

Book: The Invention of World Religions: Or, How European Universalism Was Preserved in the Language of Pluralism

In this ambitious study, Tomoko Masuzawa examines the emergence of "world religions" in modern European thought. Devoting particular attention to the relation between the comparative study of language and the nascent science of religion, she demonstrates how new classifications of language and race caused Buddhism and Islam to gain special significance, as these religions came to be seen in opposing terms-Aryan on one hand and Semitic on the other.

Book: The British discovery of Buddhism by Philip Almond

This is the first book to examine the British discovery of Buddhism during the Victorian period. It was only during the nineteenth century that Buddhism became, in the western mind, a religious tradition separate from Hinduism. As a result, Buddha emerge from a realm of myth and was addressed as a historical figure. Almond's exploration of British interpretations of Buddhism--of its founder, its doctrines, its ethics, its social practices, its truth and value--illuminates more than the various aspects of Buddhist culture: it sheds light on the Victorian society making these judgements.

[svinayak]

8/ Elst is questioning the basic premise of Buddhism being some different philosophy from Hinduism. It is just an aVedic offshoot of Hinduism and it crumbled on its own illogic and irrationality because Hindu society has a benchmark to validate it. It flourished in the places where there is no Hindu benchmark.

Met a person from Myanmar in a Ganapathi Temple and he was a devotee of Ganesh. He said he is a buddhist and is familiar with all the Hindu temples in Myanmar. He looks just like a mainland Chinese. (Chinese Origin Myanmar)

[RamaY]

8/ Elst is questioning the basic premise of Buddhism being some different philosophy from Hinduism. It is just an aVedic offshoot of Hinduism and it crumbled on its own illogic and irrationality because Hindu society has a benchmark to validate it. It flourished in the places where there is no Hindu benchmark.

Met a person from Myanmar in a Ganapathi Temple and he was a devotee of Ganesh. He said he is a buddhist and is familiar with all the Hindu temples in Myanmar. He looks just like a mainland Chinese. (Chinese Origin Myanmar)

Yes sir.

Like I said there are two dates for Buddha. One around 500BC and another around 1800BC (Sri Kota Venkatachalam).

We also need to study & understand if Buddhism followed Hindu trade routes into East-Asia or Later Hindu empires (Cholas etc) usurped Buddhist trade routes.

Please note that Core-Bharatavarsha itself came under Buddhist influence for few centuries before it crumbled. Same could have happened elsewhere in pockets.

[johneeG]

RamaY saar,

I replied on similar topic in OIT thread, so posting it here:

Mango alert.

My problem with the above is the words like "vedic age" etc. We clearly have a tradition of continuous history from Ramayana period. We have kings list of Magada from Mahabharatha period. In fact many Rajput of Surya Vamsha has the list of Surya Vamsha Kings list from Prabhu Rama Chandra himself. We have a starting of Kaliyuya calculated.

Saar,
the problem is that there is inconsistencies in these lineages which makes people question the reliability of these lineages.

1) Yayathi and Nahusha are mentioned as belonging to Ikshvaku dynasty of Surya Vamsha(Solar Dynasty) in Valmiki Ramayana, Bala Kaanda.

अंबरीषस्य पुत्रो अभूत् नहुषः च महीपतिः |
नहुषस्य ययातिः तु नाभागः तु ययाति जः || १-७०-४२

42. mahiipatiH nahuSaH = king, Nahusha; ambariiSasya putraH abhuut = Ambariisha's, son, was there; nahuSasya yayaatiH = Nahusha's [son is,] Yayaati; naabhaagaH yayaati jaH = Naabhaaga, from Yayaati, born.

"Ambariisha's son was Nahusha, the emperor and Yayaati is the son of Nahusha, but Naabhaaga is born to Yayaati... [1-70-42]

These names Nahusha and Yayaati also occur in other Puraana-s, indicating them in earlier eras to Ramayana period.

Link

On the other hand, Yayathi and Nahusha are mentioned as belonging to Chandhra Vamsha(Lunar Dynasty) in Mahabharatha.

The Mahabharata, Book 1: Adi Parva: Sambhava Parva: Section LXXV

And Manu begat ten other children named Vena, Dhrishnu,
Narishyan, Nabhaga, Ikshvaku, Karusha, Saryati, the eighth, a daughter named Ila, Prishadhru the ninth,
and Nabhagarishta, the tenth. They all betook themselves to the practices of Kshatriyas. Besides these,
Manu had fifty other sons on Earth. But we heard that they all perished, quarrelling with one another.
file:///C|/a/mahabharata/m01/m01076.htm (1 of 3)7/1/2006 9:20:24 AM
The Mahabharata, Book 1: Adi Parva: Sambhava Parva: Section LXXV
The learned Pururavas was born of Ila. It hath been heard by us that Ila was both his mother and father.
And the great Pururavas had sway over thirteen islands of the sea. And, though a human being, he was
always surrounded by companions that were superhuman. And Pururavas intoxicated with power
quarrelled with the Brahmanas and little caring for their anger robbed them of their wealth. Beholding
all this Sanatkumara came from the region of Brahman and gave him good counsel, which was,
however, rejected by Pururavas. Then the wrath of the great Rishis was excited, and the avaricious
monarch, who intoxicated with power, had lost his reason, was immediately destroyed by their curse.
"It was Pururavas who first brought from the region of the Gandharvas the three kinds of fire (for
sacrificial purpose). And he brought thence, the Apsara Urvasi also. And the son of Ila begat upon
Urvasi six sons who were called Ayus, Dhimat, Amavasu and Dhridhayus, and Vanayus, and Satayus.
And it is said that Ayus begat four sons named Nahusha, Vriddhasarman, Rajingaya, and Anenas, on the
daughter of Swarbhanu. And, O monarch, Nahusha, of all the sons of Ayus, being gifted with great
intelligence and prowess ruled his extensive kingdom virtuously. And king Nahusha supported evenly
the Pitris, the celestials, the Rishis, the Brahmanas, the Gandharvas, the Nagas, the Rakshasas, the
Kshatriyas, and the Vaisyas. And he suppressed all robber-gangs with a mighty hand. But he made the
Rishis pay tribute and carry him on their backs like bests of burden. And, conquering the very gods by
the beauty of his person, his asceticism, prowess, and energy, he ruled as if he were Indra himself. And
Nahusha begat six sons, all of sweet speech, named Yati, Yayati, Sanyati, Ayati, and Dhruva. Yati
betaking himself to asceticism became a Muni like unto Brahman himself. Yayati became a monarch of
great prowess and virtue. He ruled the whole Earth, performed numerous sacrifices, worshipped the
Pitris with great reverence, and always respected the gods. And he brought the whole world under his
sway and was never vanquished by any foe. And the sons of Yayati were all great bowmen and
resplendent with every virtue. And, O king, they were begotten upon (his two wives) Devayani and
Sarmishtha. And of Devayani were born Yadu and Turvasu, and of Sarmishtha were born Drahyu, Anu,
and Puru. And, O king, having virtuously ruled his subjects for a long time, Yayati was attacked with a
hideous decrepitude destroying his personal beauty. And attacked by decrepitude, the monarch then
spoke, O Bharata, unto his sons Yadu and Puru and Turvasu and Drahyu and Anu these words, 'Ye dear
sons, I wish to be a young man and to gratify my appetites in the company of young women. Do you
help me therein.' To him his eldest son born of Devayani then said, 'What needest thou, O king? Dost
thou want to have your youth?' Yayati then told him, 'Accept thou my decrepitude, O son! With thy
youth I would enjoy myself. During the time of a great sacrifice I have been cursed by the Muni Usanas
(Sukra). O son, I would enjoy myself with your youth. Take any of you this my decrepitude and with my
body rule ye my kingdom. I would enjoy myself with a renovated body. Therefore, ye my sons, take ye
my decrepitude.' But none of his sons accepted his decrepitude. Then his youngest son Puru said unto
him, 'O king, enjoy thyself thou once again with a renovated body and returned youth! I shall take thy
decrepitude and at thy command rule thy kingdom.' Thus addressed, the royal sage, by virtue of his
ascetic power then transferred his own decrepitude unto that high-souled son of his and with the youth of
Puru became a youth; while with the monarch's age Puru ruled his kingdom.

"Then, after a thousand years had passed away, Yayati, that tiger among kings, remained as strong and
powerful as a tiger. And he enjoyed for a long time the companionship of his two wives. And in the
gardens of Chitraratha (the king of Gandharvas), the king also enjoyed the company of the Apsara
Viswachi. But even after all this, the great king found his appetites unsatiated. The king, then recollected
the following truths contained in the Puranas, 'Truly, one's appetites are never satiated by enjoyment.

2) Bharatha is mentioned as the son of Shakuntala and Dushyantha in Mahabharatha and other puranas. In vedhas, the address is 'Bhaaratha'(i.e. descendent of Bharatha). So, Vedas have to be dated after Bharatha.

3) Kaalidhaasa has written Raghu-vamsha. It has been considered one of the classics of Sanskruth from the time it was composed. It does not tally with the linage mentioned by Valmiki Ramayana. Are we to assume that Kaalidhaasa who was writing about Rama's ancestors actually made the mistake of not checking up with Valmiki Ramayana before writing his work? And if we actually made such a big mistake, would it be considered a classic?

So, it seems to me that a more probable explanation is:
Kaalidhaasa was not aware of Valmiki Ramayana's lineage because that lineage was written after Kaalidhaasa wrote his classic.

This lineage is found in Baala Kaanda. Baala Kaanda and Uttara Kaanda of Valmiki Ramayana are related to each other. If Uttara Kaanda is suspect then it makes Baala Kaanda also suspect.

Baala Kaanda and Uttara Kaanda share many similarities with each other while they are very dissimilar from other kaandas.

Baala Kaanda and Uttara Kaanda are irrelevant to the larger story of Raamayana and appear as prologue and epilogue.
They both have contain huge amount of stories about Rushis like Vishwamithra, Vasishta, ...etc.
They both have a theme of a Yagnya.

So, it seems to me that Baala Kaanda and Uttara Kaanda are later additions.

4) Saptha-Rushis(Seven Sages, infact many sages) are frequently mentioned in all scriptures. They are Vasishta, Vishwamithra, Vyasa, Dhaumya, Dhalbhya, Garga, Gauthama, Angirasa, Sukhra, Bruhaspathi, Jamadagni, Parashurama, Shunaka, Dhevala, Asitha, Mudgala, Bharadvaja, Maithreya, ...etc.

They are mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana, Mahabharatha, Puranas and even Vedhas. What is most confusing is that they are mentioned as contemporaries in all these scriptures. That means, they are mentioned as contemporaries of Rama, Mahabharatha war and even Vedhic events(Dhasha-rajanya war).

How can these set of people be contemporaries of all these events which are supposedly separated by vast time?

Further, even Buddhism mentions many of these figures as contemporaries of Buddha.

Now, different people try to explain this conundrum in different ways.

Traditional Hindhu scholars give super-natural twist to this and say that these sages are immortals who just live in all ages playing key role in the events. This just sounds like trying to find some explanation for the unexplainable.

The west-oriented scholars try to use this give as later dates as possible to all the scriptures. It seems that the main aim of the western orientalist sciences is to give later dates to Bhaarath's scriptures.

But, both the above view-points seem to be agenda-driven and prejudiced. So, the truth is obscured.

What could be the reason for mention of these figures in all these various scriptures.

Further, many of these figures are also mentioned in Upanishadhs.

Not just the sages, but even the Kings like
Janaka Vidheha
Ashvapathi Kaikeya
Pravaha Jaivali - Paanchala
Ajathashatru - Kaashi

are mentioned in Ramayana and Upanishadhs. Will the traditional Hindhu scholars claim that even these Kings are immortals living in all ages?

More interestingly, even Buddhism mentions Ajathashatru as the contemporary of Buddha.

How to make sense of all these things?

I think the only theory which explains this conundrum is:
All these figures lived in a certain era. They were influential and powerful enough to have their stories get incorporated into the epics.

Buddha seems to have lived in Ajathashatru's time. So, these figures seem to have lived some years before Buddha.

Since Upanishadhs tell us about this period, Upanishadhs seem to be composed in this period. So, certain other parts of Vedhas like Brahmanas/samhithas ...etc seem to have been created a little before the Upanishadhs.

So, around 2700 BCE, ritualism became important. Around 2500 BCE, Saraswathi started drying up and rituals slowly gave way to Philosophical age of Upanishads. These figures seem to have lived in this age. Buddha seems to have lived around 2000 BCE after the Saraswathi dried up.

Now, there is a clear theme in all scriptures that there was a great war. The war itself is some times called as Dhasha-rajanya war. Some times, it becomes the war between Kauravas and Paandavs. Some times its called as culling of warriors by Parashu-Raama....etc. But, the theme is that a great war happened between Saraswathi river and Sindhu river.

The after-effects of the war are also shown in Upanishadhs and even Puraanas. We are told by them that the marriages became open i.e. men and women could go with each other even after the marriages. This is seen in the stores of Uddalaka Aruni and Dhirgatamas.

Another theme in all these stores is that the wife's have affairs. Bruhaspathi's wife Thara had affair. Gauthama's wife Ahalaya had affair. Jamadagni ordered his son to kill his wife Renuka for having an affair. This ties in with the general social situation of that time.

So, a great war happened and this made social rules break down. Caste-system(if it really existed before the war) broke down. Marriages became open. Even incest became common.

This is also hinted by Bhagavadh Geetha:
Arjuna mentions in the very first chapter of Geetha that the war will lead to break down of social norms and women roaming freely in Chapter 1, verse 39 and verse 40.

So, if we add all these things, we get the picture:
a great war happened. It led to break down of social rules. But, the rules were revived by certain people called sages(Rushis). They were influential and respected. They were influential enough to get their life stories incorporated into scriptures. These are the figures who were responsible for rituals and later Philosophy(Upanishadhs).

Does that mean that all the Vedhas were created by people in this age?
It doesn't seem to be the case. It seems that there are some really ancient Vedhas. But, newer ones seem to be added in this age. For example, there is a conversation between Yama and Yami in 10th Mandala of Rig Vedha.

Here, Yami is suggesting incest to Yama but Yama declines it saying its not proper. Puraanas and Buddhism contain the theme of Saraswathi being the daughter and wife of Brahma. Buddhism also contains of theme of incest in jathakas.

So, it seems that these were from age after the war when the social rules had broken down. Later, Apasthambha, Manu, ...etc seem to have created rules for society. These are called Dharma-Shaasthras. These Dharma-shaasthras are very similar to Chanakya's Artha-shaasthra. So, they seem to have been created in that time or sometime before.

So, broadly, the chronology would be:
- A great war between Saraswathi and Sindhu rivers fought mainly by Kuru and Paanachal kingdoms leading to death of many warriors.
- Social norms broken down. No caste system. Open marriages. Incest becomes common.
- Rituals and re-creation of social rules(including a very rigid form of caste system) by Rushis and supported by Kings. Certain parts of Vedhas were from this period. In this period, Vedhas were considered 3.
- Saraswathi river starts drying up due to a great famine.
- Rituals become unsatisfying and people move on to philosophy.
- Buddhism in Ajathashathru's rule.
- Epics, Dharma-shaasthra, Buddhism, ...etc get standardized in Mauryan period. I think before the Mauryan period, these were mainly transmitted orally. In mauryan period, they were put down to writing. It does not mean that writing was invented in Mauryan period. It simply means that Mauryan period favoured writing over oral transmition.

None of them even mention the "sudden climatic cataclysmic event" of any kind during 2500-2000 BC period. Balarama going to Prabhasa Theerdha etc, lack of mentioning of a major desert in Rajasthan in both Mahabharata and Ramayana ( not to my recollection - any gurus can correct me) shows that there was no desert at that point of time. Further Janapada names and descriptions also do not show any major desert.

The possible transformation of large areas into desert and drying of Saraswathi river took place after Mahabharatha period and the great tsunami that devoured Dwaraka Nagari. Possible earth quack and shifting of rivers from east to west etc all took place after Mahabharatha period may be immediately after the entering of Kaliyuga.

After Dwaraka submersion bandits and others roomed free in the areas looting every thing. Even Arjuna forgot his Divya Astra and could not stop them carrying away all most all of Sri Krishnas wifes etc. Parikshit stopped this slide for sometime. But could not stop it all together. His death in the hands of Nagas and stopping of Genocide of Nagas by his son Janamejaya etc all showing that rulers were subject to attacks from others like Nagas - who are in vedic fold only but not in traditional power. Incidentally Andhras are also considered a Nagas and oldest world recorded in Teludu is Naagambu.

There was a serious change. but it took place immediately after Mahabharatha period.

End Mango alert.

About Yugas:
Artha-shaasthra of Kautilya mentions that Yuga is a period of 5 years. This is most curious. How can a period of Yuga be just 5 years by Kautilya while other scriptures mention very very numbers?

If Kautilya right, then the other numbers would be huge exaggerations.

More interestingly, Kautilya does not mention any Kali or Dwapara or Tretha or anything like that. So, these divisions seem to have come after Kautilya wrote Arthashasthra.

I am almost of the view that Mahabharatha war and Dhasha-rajanya war(of Vedhas) are referring to the same thing.

So far, I am assuming that the war happened in 3100 BCE.

[member_24042]

We NEED Buddhism, look at SL, it was 21% EJ and now only 7% and declining among Buddhists (while increasing in Tamil population).

[Arjun]

We NEED Buddhism, look at SL, it was 21% EJ and now only 7% and declining among Buddhists (while increasing in Tamil population).

India is not more than 4 - 5% Christian, even after allowing generously for Cryptos. That's a much better outcome than Sri Lanka.

[Supratik]

For a change you are right. SL was 20% christian at the turn of the last century which has declined to 7%. We need Buddhism for strategic reasons in SE Asia - the only remaining bastion of non-Abrahamic faith in the world outside India. They are salivating at the prospects in SE Asia. If they succeed we will be the only isolated region in the world with a non-Abrahamic faith. That IMO is not good as it will bring our civilization under severe pressure to conform.

[svinayak]

We NEED Buddhism, look at SL, it was 21% EJ and now only 7% and declining among Buddhists (while increasing in Tamil population).

India is not more than 4 - 5% Christian, even after allowing generously for Cryptos. That's a much better outcome than Sri Lanka.

From another forum

Folks - the govt has not yet released the census 2011 numbers to public. I was told by a journo with Zee tv that the Xtian percentage has increased to a whopping 8 %. Apart from north east, TN, AP and Kerala saw a huge increase in their population for the decade of 2001 to 2011. As per the journo, Hindus now account for 68% of national population

[svinayak]

For a change you are right. SL was 20% christian at the turn of the last century which has declined to 7%. We need Buddhism for strategic reasons in SE Asia - the only remaining bastion of non-Abrahamic faith in the world outside India. They are salivating at the prospects in SE Asia. If they succeed we will be the only isolated region in the world with a non-Abrahamic faith. That IMO is not good as it will bring our civilization under severe pressure to conform.

Indians will need to create Buddhism like features in Indian society and create large social movement to spread outside India.

[RamaY]

For a change you are right. SL was 20% christian at the turn of the last century which has declined to 7%. We need Buddhism for strategic reasons in SE Asia - the only remaining bastion of non-Abrahamic faith in the world outside India. They are salivating at the prospects in SE Asia. If they succeed we will be the only isolated region in the world with a non-Abrahamic faith. That IMO is not good as it will bring our civilization under severe pressure to conform.

Indians will need to create Buddhism like features in Indian society and create large social movement to spread outside India.

Is Buddhism better than Hinduism in fighting against Abrahamic threats?

If we go back to pre-Islamic periods, Afghanistan and Pakistan were primarily Buddhist societies. Core Bharat turned Hindu.

Then the Islamic invasions started around 680AD. Buddhist Afghanistan fought well for nearly 300 yrs before it got wiped. Hindu India took the next wave for 600 years (800-1400) and weakened Islam to an extent that Hindus were in regained most of core India by 1750s before EIC entered the picture.

Fast forward to 20th century.

South Korea fell to EJs, China doesnt know what it is doing. Japan became poodle of USA.

The only Buddhist nation that is fighting back is Burma at this point. Sri Lanka was at brink without Indian support (however muddy that was).

The right strategy is to have multiple prongs in the fight against Abrahamics.

Let Burma and SL play Buddhist card to kick out Abrahamism. Let Bharat try Hindu tactics to do the same.

Indian Buddhism, at this point under Secularism, is detrimental to united Hindu front.

[Shanmukh]

For a change you are right. SL was 20% christian at the turn of the last century which has declined to 7%. We need Buddhism for strategic reasons in SE Asia - the only remaining bastion of non-Abrahamic faith in the world outside India. They are salivating at the prospects in SE Asia. If they succeed we will be the only isolated region in the world with a non-Abrahamic faith. That IMO is not good as it will bring our civilization under severe pressure to conform.

Sadly, he isn't. Please take a look at religious demographics as per Govt. of Sri Lanka itself, from 1881.

http://www.statistics.gov.lk/Abstract%2 ... 2/2.13.pdf

[Shanmukh]

From another forum

Folks - the govt has not yet released the census 2011 numbers to public. I was told by a journo with Zee tv that the Xtian percentage has increased to a whopping 8 %. Apart from north east, TN, AP and Kerala saw a huge increase in their population for the decade of 2001 to 2011. As per the journo, Hindus now account for 68% of national population

Doesn't add up. 68%+8%+14%=90%. Who are the other 10%? Also, IIRC, the government said Hindus are now 78.4% or something like that (or was it Firstpost speculation?). Finally, i will be very surprised if Christians have increased `hugely' in KL, even if there has been some substantial conversions in TN & AP (frankly, I will be very surprised if current AP has >15% Christians including cryptos (more likely to be ~10-12%). And TN may also have ~10% Christians, including cryptos.

[member_24042]

Doesn't add up. 68%+8%+14%=90%. Who are the other 10%? Also, IIRC, the government said Hindus are now 78.4% or something like that (or was it Firstpost speculation?). Finally, i will be very surprised if Christians have increased `hugely' in KL, even if there has been some substantial conversions in TN & AP (frankly, I will be very surprised if current AP has >15% Christians including cryptos (more likely to be ~10-12%). And TN may also have ~10% Christians, including cryptos.

John Dayal is saying Xtians are 35.5% in Kerala so is Rajiv Sreenivasan, the fact is in Dravidian South India, Hinduism is being replaced by Xtianity. Sorry for being blunt but it is the truth only.

[Shanmukh]

Doesn't add up. 68%+8%+14%=90%. Who are the other 10%? Also, IIRC, the government said Hindus are now 78.4% or something like that (or was it Firstpost speculation?). Finally, i will be very surprised if Christians have increased `hugely' in KL, even if there has been some substantial conversions in TN & AP (frankly, I will be very surprised if current AP has >15% Christians including cryptos (more likely to be ~10-12%). And TN may also have ~10% Christians, including cryptos.

John Dayal is saying Xtians are 35.5% in Kerala so is Rajiv Sreenivasan, the fact is in Dravidian South India, Hinduism is being replaced by Xtianity. Sorry for being blunt but it is the truth only.

If Rajeev Srinivasan & John Dalal are your sources, you should have said so. I have no wish to argue with either. The former is a conspiracy theorist, the latter is a traitor.

If you have clear figures, post them. Otherwise, it is just conspiracy theory & hot air. I say Christians are 40% in Cambodia. Does it make Cambodia 40% Christian?

[member_24042]

If Rajeev Srinivasan & John Dalal are your sources, you should have said so. I have no wish to argue with either. The former is a conspiracy theorist, the latter is a traitor.

If you have clear figures, post them. Otherwise, it is just conspiracy theory & hot air. I say Christians are 40% in Cambodia. Does it make Cambodia 40% Christian?

Whatever....btw if figures are so okay, why doesn't government release religious census figures?

[johneeG]

Tony,

a) South Indians are anyway "Dravidians" according to you. So, if they become christians or buddhists, what do you care? They are anyway not "Aryans" according to you.

b) On one hand you peddle Aryan race theory propagated by people like Max muller to spread christianity and on the other hand you want to stop christianity?!

c) christianity is roman buddhism. You like buddhism, no? Then, what problem do you have with roman buddhism?

d) And your central claim that Buddhism can resist christianity better than Hindhuism is itself a huge assumption.

e) even if we assume that you are right and buddhism can counter X-ism better than others, there is another issue: buddhism in north-west Bhaarath and central asia was defeated by islam. So, buddhism is unable to counter islam.

f) You want to resist X-ism by peddling aryan race theory and dividing Hindhus and Buddhists?

----
Coming to on-topic point:
I am really curious when buddhism formally separated from hindhuism and why? Also, when Buddhism adopted ahimsa as a core tenet? Because originally ahimsa seems to be the main plank of jains.

[RamaY]

JohneeG Garu,

My theory...

After Buddha achieved self-realization (imagine today's Nobel prize), he went around spreading his theories like a new Swamiji. Many became his disciples in the hope that he found a short cut to Moksha. Buddha too encouraged this fan following and (correctly) told them that anyone can achieve moksha irrespective of Varna or Ashrama.

Given the fact that the ultimate purushartha being Moksha for the underlying Hindu soceity, many left their Varna & Ashrama and followed Buddha.

Some kings & wealthy supported this enterprise thru donations & accommodation.

One fine day Buddha died. Majority of people went home because not a single Buddha desciple got Moksha by that time. But many others continued their pursuit of Moksha in Buddha Marga (same as millions of Gandhian Hindus who thought they too will become Mahatma by wearing half cloths and playing with Charakha etc, mimicking external behavior of Gandhi).

There is another group that supported Buddha enterprise, the businessmen and kings (like the hedge fund found on the basis of noble prize winning economic idea). They used all kinds of tactics to keep this enterprise running & flourishing.

In the process they got into to conflict with already existing Hindu kings, who saw this as a cult, for Buddha didn't find any "new" way to Moksha that was not known to Hindu system. Hindus also proved that Buddha didn't get Moksha (Aham Brahma Asmi) to begin with but just Atma Jnana (Aham Asmi). On top of it Buddhism disturbed prevailing social and law and order (rightly or wrongly).

As they say, rest is history.

[member_24042]

Tony,

a) South Indians are anyway "Dravidians" according to you. So, if they become christians or buddhists, what do you care? They are anyway not "Aryans" according to you.

b) On one hand you peddle Aryan race theory propagated by people like Max muller to spread christianity and on the other hand you want to stop christianity?!

c) christianity is roman buddhism. You like buddhism, no? Then, what problem do you have with roman buddhism?

d) And your central claim that Buddhism can resist christianity better than Hindhuism is itself a huge assumption.

e) even if we assume that you are right and buddhism can counter X-ism better than others, there is another issue: buddhism in north-west Bhaarath and central asia was defeated by islam. So, buddhism is unable to counter islam.

f) You want to resist X-ism by peddling aryan race theory and dividing Hindhus and Buddhists?

----
Coming to on-topic point:
I am really curious when buddhism formally separated from hindhuism and why? Also, when Buddhism adopted ahimsa as a core tenet? Because originally ahimsa seems to be the main plank of jains.

Keep on insulting my religion while you become a minority as Dravidians and australoid Bahujans have had enough of Brahmins and Hinduism, no amount of your efforts are going to bring them back. Even though I sympathize with you and rather have the Dravidians be Hindus.

[A_Gupta]

In India, Buddhism and Hinduism should be seen as two parts of a total context, just like say, Congress and BJP are parts of the political system. Both parties exist because of India's democratic system of politics; and asking when one separated from the other is kind of meaningless. Similarly with Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, etc.. They are not separate in the sense of say Islam and Christianity; or even Protestantism & Catholicism; they are separate like departments of the same university. At least, that is the way I think it was.

I also think that Buddhism, as an organized religion, was urban-centric, and with centralized control and easy for the Islamic invaders to decapitate; Hinduism as more diffuse, was not so destructible. What we have now in India is as though there was a full University with many departments at one time; and now only one has survived and the others are all greatly attenuated.