Buddhism - Socio Political Contributions

[RamaY]

^

Agreed that any/every Buddhist nation triumph is in Indian interests. In fact I support Buddhism coming out as the victor in SL, Nepal, Burma and even China (you can see my posts in there related threads to this effect). I can also agree that we should make alliance with other Buddhist nations like Thailand, Japan etc and support them in every manner we can.

Now the question is should we accept a Buddhist revival and even become Buddhist rashtra ourselves if required? I am not sure about it. I would rather recommend 100% reservations to capacity (meaning reservation applies to every suitable candidate) for Dalits in all national/rashtra structures as long as they remain Hindu Dalits. I think this is better than forcing them to Buddhism and the other remain in Hinduism for it furthers the split and not unify them. History is my proof where many Buddhist kingdoms fought with Hindu kingdoms until one of them retreated out of Bharat.

If the need of the hour is reformation of Hindu Dharma, then that is what we must do. And we must do it in a way/place Hindu Dharma deserves it. But fixing a Buddhist/Islamic/Christian problem in Hindu Dharma is not wise for it amounts to chemo-treatment for a wrong decease on a wrong patient.

Quoting Sri Dalai Lama who said Hindu/SD is like Guru and Buddhism Sishya and Bharat elder brother and Tibet younger brother, Bharat can provide spiritual and ethical leadership and civilizational defense even as Hindu Rashtra. But unfortunately we are not a Hindu Rashtra but a "secular" state, which is worse than being a communist state for secularism is appeasement of Abrahamic faiths. What civilizational defense "secular" Bharat can provide to Buddhism? The variety it provide to Sri Dalai Lama himself?

The truth is always there and will be there and it is the individual who need to "realize" it is what SD says. There is no "search for truth" per se, but search for realization of truth that is always there. Buddha himself 'realized' it as himself and not something he would search and find outside of him.

Coming to the modern Buddhist movement of India, it has nothing to do Buddhism as a spiritual structure. It is a socio-political identity that is defined and claimed specifically out of Hindu Dharma. Your example of Suddhi and Honor are introduced by Buddhism if you look at it. Please check the video I posted in L&M thread a week or so ago.

What we need to fight is the self-hatred among Hindus. It is not some Indian Muslims or Christians that are wanting to go to Buddhism. It is the Hindus who are impatient with their lack of self identity and self respect. This is something they have to "feel" and cannot be given.

Following is an excerpt of an article by a Dalit intellectual from a Telugu news paper:

http://www.suryaa.com/opinion/edit-page/article-134109
...
సామాజికశాస్త్ర పట్టభద్రుల్లో ప్రతీ పది మందిలో ఒకరు, ఇంజినీరింగ్‌ చదవిన వారిలో నలుగురే ఉద్యోగార్హత కలిగి ఉంటున్నట్లు అధ్యయనాలు చాటుతున్నాయి. ఇటీవల వైద్య విద్య కూడా ప్రామాణికతను కోల్పోతున్నది. దేశ వ్యాప్తంగా 90 శాతం కళాశాలలు, 70 శాతం విశ్వ విద్యాలయాల్లో నాసిప్రమాణాలున్నాయి. ముఖ్యంగా విశ్వవిద్యాలయాల్లో చేరుతున్న బీసీ, ఎస్సీ, ఎస్టీ కులాల విద్యార్థుల్లో మరింత వెనకబాటుతనం అగుపిస్తున్నది. ప్రభుత్వం, విద్యాశాఖ వారు, ఓసీ కులాల వారు ఒక పద్ధతి ప్రకారం పనిగట్టుకొని ఈ వర్గాలకు నాణ్యమైన విద్య అందకుండా చేస్తున్నందు వల్లనే ఈ పరిస్థితి ఏర్పడింది. ప్రభుత్వానికి సుస్పష్టంగా తెలిసే విద్యా ప్రమాణాలు పతనం అవుతున్నాయి. తెలిసోతెలియకో బీసీ, ఎస్సీ, ఎస్టీ అధ్యాపకులు, విద్యార్థులు ప్రభుత్వ విధానాలపట్ల తాన తందానా అంటున్నారు. విషయ పరిజ్ఞానం, ఒంట బట్టక పోయినా వస్తున్న పట్టాలను, ఉద్యోగాలను చూసి ఈ వర్గాల వారు మురిసిపోతున్నందునే ఈ పరిస్థితి ఏర్పడింది.

Research shows that only one in every 10 social science students and one in every 4 engineering students are having real employable skills. The academic standards of 90% colleges and 70% universities nationwide are below par. Most importantly there is visible (academic) backwardness in BC, SC and ST students. This situation came to this because Government, Education ministry/dept and Upper Castes are making sure that quality education is not made available in a systemic manner. Govt is very clear about these falling standards. Knowingly or unknowingly BC/SC/ST (read Dalit) professors and students are supporting such Government policies. This is because these sections are happy with degree certificates and the jobs that come with those certificates even though they do not have any true knowledge.
...
ఓసీ కులాల వారు తమ పిల్లల్ని విదేశీ విశ్వవిద్యాలయాలకు, దేశంలోని ప్రైవేట్‌ విద్యా సంస్థలకు పంపిస్తున్నారు. లేదా వారి అదుపు ఆజ్ఞల్లో ఉన్న సంస్థల్లో చేర్చుతున్నారు. సాధారణ ప్రభుత్వ విశ్వవిద్యాలయాలను వారు బీసీ, ఎస్సీ, ఎస్టీ, మైనార్టీ విద్యార్థులకు వదిలేశారు. వారు వదిలేసిన స్థానాలను వీరు మహాప్రసాదంగా స్వీకరించి తృప్తిపడుతున్నారు. ఉస్మానియా, ఆంధ్ర, వెంకటేశ్వర, కాకతీయ తదితర విశ్వవిద్యాలయాల్లో చేరుతున్న సాధారణ పిజి విద్యా ర్థులు ఎవరు అనే విషయాన్ని గమనిస్తే ఈ విషయం తెలుస్తుంది. వీటిల్లో చేరుతున్న వెయ్యి మంది విద్యార్థుల్లో పట్టుమని పది మంది కూడా బ్రాహ్మణ, రెడ్డి, కమ్మ, వెలమ విద్యార్థులు ఉండడం లేదు.

Upper castes are sending their children to international schools and/or private institutions in India. Or they are sending them to the institutions that are under the control of upper castes. They left common universities to BC/SC/ST/Minority students. These categories are happy with what upper castes left. This becomes evident if one analyzes who is joining Osmania, Andhra, Venkateswara, Kakatiya (universities in Andhra Pradesh) etc universities. Not even 10 students out 1000 belong to Brahmin, Reddy, Kamma and Velama students in these universities

Do you see what is happening? The fathers of constitution gave caste/birth based reservations hoping that these sections will be empowered. In the process they never cared about the "quality" of education because it has to be secular. The quality levels have to be diluted in order to "facilitate" the lower caste students even if they do not make the cut-off marks.

Another example is Ashis Nandy controversy on his "Dalit Corruption" remark. Again Dalits are put into political and administrative positions without providing necessary support system. Naturally whatever ills ail the upper caste are spreading to Dalits too.

Similarly blind, unqualified and irresponsible support for Dalit-Buddhism would be a blunder in spiritual/civilizational realm.

What Bharat needs is right understanding of itself. What it stands for, what its history was and how different transformations of its society resulted in different outcomes and so on. Without that self-identity and assertion hap hazardous measures like "using" Indian Dalits for Buddhist influence, "using" Indian Muslims for Islamic influence, "using" Indian Christians for western influence etc will backfire.

It will be Bharat that needs to pay the price for all these experimentation.

[Agnimitra]

Casteism - etc, in "current Hindus" should be discussed elsewhere. My point was about possible Buddhist contribution to the original development of "casteism". Linking actual profession or "karma" with rebirth and penalties/rewards in a future birth - smacks too heavily of Buddhist memes, and intensification of marginal strands within the Vedic and post-Vedic that were made into a central issue by the Buddhist infrastructure.

Earliest Buddhist texts do indicate that Shakyamuni's philosophy of life was coming to be referred to as "karma-vAda" or "kriya-vAda", wherein he was putting so much emphasis on intentions and actions already done and their inexorable momentum as destiny. Later, more systematized Buddhist schools tried to reconcile this karmic trace with Shunyata - in finding a provisional carrier of this karma across lifetimes. Depending on which school, some schools accepted a causal relation between karma and the phenomena of birth, old age, disease and death, whereas others refuted any causal relationship between the two - saying that these were subjective phenomena arising from the effects of karma.

I never thought about the possibility that it was Buddhism that could have brought this crushing 'power' of 'karma' into mainstream Indian consciousness. I think as an idea it was always part of Indian thought, but to focus so much on it to the exclusion of other factors of existence may be a Buddhist 'contribution'.

The two independent seats of Buddhism we can test this on - are Sri Lanka and Myanmar. Both have had no compunction in kissing all three forces mentioned above and mortally hostile to the idea of India, and some of them to the very idea of a "Hindu" India.

That antagonism is partly the reflected antagonism from Hindu schools that defeated them. If one can come up with an integrative narrative of "Dharma" then one may be able to win them over. IMHO, adjustment on the Hindu side is required as much as the Buddhist in order to forge such a movement. While the Buddhist clergy in places may be hard to win, lay Buddhist people are quite favorable to Hinduism.

Lastly, in Islamic countries with a Buddhist past, one can see it as an alternative underground religion today in urban areas. For some reasons they prefer Buddhism to Hinduism. That also has to be cultivated.

[SwamyG]

Buddhism is good on paper, like libertarianism.

[RajeshA]

Integrating Buddhism and Sikhism into the Hindu Mainstream

Cross-posting from "The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition" Thread

We should try to understand the fault-lines between the various Dharmic traditions based on adulteration/disowning-enrichment/owning model.

Adulteration/Disowning-Enrichment/Owning (ADEO) Model

The root of the Knowledge Tree is the Vedic/Yogic thought.

1. At any given time there was in some group a traditional thinking.
2. Some faction adulterates this traditional thinking by introducing some revolutionary idea, and thus creates a new thought-line. The revolutionary/reformist idea does not reject the whole tradition, but only some part of it and introduces a new insight.
3. The traditional line is not happy with the revolutionary line and thus disowns it. The revolutionary line sees itself as superior and thus competes with the traditional line for mind share.
4. In the traditional line there is intellectual churning on how to face the challenge of the revolutionary line. This leads to enrichment of the tradition.
5. Thus by intellectually conquering the revolutionary thought, the traditional line reincorporates the revolution within it as a special case and thus claims ownership of it again.
6. The revolutionary faction however does not completely accept this view and it continues with its separate ideological identity in fact asserting it with forcefulness. The revolutionary faction rejects the idea of reuniting simply because the revolution has been carried out by revolutionaries with a following, and even if the revolutionary idea can be reincorporated into the parent tradition, the charisma and/or ego of the revolutionary or founder demands a separate identity.
7. A faction in the traditional line also chooses purity over enrichment, and chooses not to be drawn in into either adulteration nor into enrichment, and tries to retain the status quo of traditional thought.

So we have three views here - the traditional pure, the revolutionary and the traditional enriched.

We know how trees grow. It is not as if branches grow only on one side of the tree, for that would make the root unstable, resulting in its own uprooting. When a branch grows from the trunk (or another branch), there are also other branches which grows on other sides of the trunk which result in balancing out the weight of the initial branch.

What often happens with many religious factions is that they become too focused on the revolutionary and start considering him a founder, and in order to emphasize his role often exaggerate and paint what was earlier as "despicable". Thus the trunk from which the branch grows is either ignored or is shown as wanting. All this is to emphasize a claim to a separate identity built around the founder. The revolutionary however may not even have had such a project in mind, i.e. to create a whole new branch.

As such these branches become over-invested in separate identity as a whole new organization comes up around the branch, which does not like the idea of being considered as part of the same Knowledge Tree.

Buddhism and Sikhism are two identities which have tried vigorously to assert their separate identity at least in their later evolution. Jainism even though had become separated from the Vedic/Yogic Knowledge Tree as a distinct identity has however at the practical level accepted to be part of the Hindu Continuum.

Axioms of Attitude towards Rebellious Ideological Branches

So how do we deal with these separate identities ...

1. Per reflex, separate identities with accompanying organizations would try to assert their separateness. The more we try to show them as part of the bigger knowledge tree, the stronger would be their reaction. This is natural and part of the clerical angst! We should not be surprised or agitated by this.
2. Those who belong to the ideological branch but have a second separate identity, e.g. ethnic or national, have it much easier to acknowledge the branch being part of the whole tree.
3. The idea should be to reattach the rebellious ideological branch again to the trunk.
4. The strategy to reconnect the ideological branch to the tree is to show the trunk and the tree as healthy and sturdy. The trunk would have to be infused with Rajas Guṇa, where the adherents feel unabashed pride in it and constitute a powerful civilizational pole along all aspects of power. So there would have to be a Sanatan Dharmic identity which goes beyond the Sampradayik divisions. And there needs to be a resurgence in Sanatan Dharma society itself.
5. Intrinsic to the knowledge tree, there is an in-built urge to show intellectual superiority viz-a-viz another philosophical viewpoint. This urge would need to be reined in, to be controlled with respect to branches which have started to assert a separate identity, separate from the knowledge tree. Philosophical debate would not serve to bridge the gulf or grafting the ideological branch back to the trunk of the knowledge tree. Philosophical debate can proceed with those branches which are simply enrichment branches, and still keep their identity anchored to trunk of the knowledge tree.
6. At the sociopolitical level there is also going to be much soul-searching and looking at history and many incidents would come to light which show the "anti-national attitude", the "treason", the "collaboration with the enemy" of the adherents of a branch fixated upon the issue of preserving their separate identity and thus separate interests. This can be condemned but instead of seeing this as constructive critique, the adherents of the separate ideological branch would see it as an attack, and thus one would end up strengthening the separateness, and secondly one would end up strengthening the historical narrative that the branch was always in rebellion against the trunk, which makes it natural that the same dynamic would continue. The separate branch would see it as necessary that the same dynamic indeed continues, as they would see history as endorsing a policy of continued rebellion. So the ideological trunk should basically both forgive as well as hide the history deeper in the historical memory. Bringing this up is both counterproductive and it prolongs the life of the rebellion. It simply increase rancor.
7. It is better to promote a historical narrative of peaceful coexistence and mutual enrichment.
8. In any dialogue, the effort should be to stress the commonality in ideas, culture, terminology and symbols, without appearing to undermine the branch's separateness of identity.
9. There should be an increase in the intermingling of the clergy, thinkers and teachers from the ideologically separated branch and the ideological trunk, such that the former feel completely at ease. They should not feel their organizational structure as threatened, either ideologically or politically.
10. Ethnically or nationally foreign branches of the separated ideological branch, who may have their own separate organizational structure, and thus naturally feel less threatened should be recruited to show strong relationship between the branch and the trunk, though it is natural that they would feel first affiliated with the organizational structure of the ideological branch in the land itself, and only secondarily to the trunk. But the outreach effort should be there.
11. The rebellious ideological branches should feel completely at ease with the knowledge tree and should share in the pride of belonging to the tree. Therefore it is important that
    • it does not feel apprehensive about punishment for past rebellion,
    • it does not feel threatened ideologically,
    • it does not feel threatened in its organizational structure
    • it does not see its founder being demeaned

As long as the various branches of the tree are not reconnected, there would always remain the scope that other civilizations would be able to exploit these faultlines, as obviously they are indeed being done. Unity of the Knowledge Tree is important.

Suggestions for an Integration Strategy

What this translates to concretely are following suggestions:

1. Aastiks would have to forgive Buddhists and Sikhs for the role of some individuals and groups from among their ranks in undermining Bharat (Sindhi Buddist kings and merchants, Khalistanis)
2. Aastiks can of course politely disagree with the deviating ideological claims of Buddhists and Sikhs, without being fixated about trying to prove them wrong.
3. Aastiks should be circumspect in claiming Buddhists and Sikhs as being ideological branches of their trunk. Their separate identity needs to be publicly respected.
4. Aastik Gurus should carry out regular and extensive dialogues with their Buddhist and Sikh counterparts, exchanging views but highlighting the commonality. An effort should be made to establish such dialogue forums which organize these exchanges regularly. More importantly these Gurus should be seen by the people together sharing the same dais.
5. Aastiks should condemn any attacks from Neo-Buddhists and Khalistani ideologues as being motivated by designs of foreigners to undermine the common civilizational pole, with these ideologues playing handmaiden to foreign vested interests. This is usually true.
6. The dialogue with Buddhists should be carried out at an international level, with Buddhists from all lands. This should be intensive and extensive. There should be a concerted effort to woo the clergy and thinkers of Buddhism from these lands. This dialogue should be institutionalized.
7. Sanatan Dharmics should become highly united and show unity and strength. If this is done the deviating branches would themselves wish to come closer.

[RamaY]

Bharatiyas and Hinduism will forgive and forget the transgressions of every Indic thought process, if that is what required. But before that -

All Bharatiyas need to understand what these transgressions and impressions are, if any. Only then there can be a conscious forgiving happen.

Another objective of this thread is for Hindus to understand (hopefully) that some of the aDharmic memes amidst them are in fact are not Hindu memes but some imposed or absorbed memes. This will positively help the Hindus to get rid of those aDharmic memes. Imagine the speed at which the change can be achieved if the untouchability the Hindu upper castes practice is in fact not a Hindu meme but a Buddhist/Jainist/Islamic/Christian/Sikh meme all along.

This will also single out the very specific Hindu aDharmic memes that can clearly be pinned to Hindus and demand corrective measures.

So let the knowledge and truth shared and discussed. Only then we can strategize on if/how/where/when we can use Buddhism as a geopolitical weapon.

[RajeshA]

RamaY ji,

my question then is, why is thread in the Strategic Forum? It makes sense to bring in Buddhism into the strategic mix if the aim is to use Buddhism as a channel to open a deeper dialogue and relationship with the various Buddhist countries in Asia. Then one would be emphasizing the goody-goody things, the commonality!

If however the Dharmics want to wash their laundry in public, and show what revisionist Sanatan Dharmics think of Buddhism then I'm afraid it would have a very negative effect on any proposition of Bharat being able to use Buddhism as a common treasure between us and the East Asians.

This exercise here as I see it is neither a uniting exercise for Bharatiyas, nor is it an exercise which strengthens Bharat's position in the Asian community. The exercise is merely to find a scapegoat for what ails Hindu society! Now Buddhist memes may have a hand or may not, but the allegations would be there.

If one wants to reform and cleanse Hindu society of its failings and weakness in the past, then the way is to show that certain behavior in Hindu Samaj is not borne by our scriptures, and thus must be discontinued. Untouchability could have had valid Hindus reasons as well.

If the scapegoat for some undesired Hindu behavior is found in Buddhism, how does that make it aDharmic. After all Buddhism too is from the same Dharmic stream. However if the source for undesirable behavior is found in the Abrahamic traditions, then it is a different case.

If there is still a desire to pursue this laundry-washing, shouldn't that be done say behind the curtains in GDF!

I do not by any chance contest your right to do so here! You are welcome! But I do appeal to your reason!

It seems this thread is supposed to become a platform from which one can curse and abuse Buddhism and Buddhist society openly and publicly and simply going by the logic, I consider that to be an exercise against Bharat's interests.

[RamaY]

RajeshA ji,

Forget about washing dirty laundry in public, dirty laundry is being created in open public fora. The news paper article I posted was very small sample. Whole Hindu epics/puranas/veda are being interpreted and presented from abrahamic/communist colonial perspective in public media.

There is a genuine need to make an alternative perspective available for Bharatiyas. I am using this forum for that purpose because this forum allows a open and informed discussion from all PoVs, unlike the news and print media which is 'access based'.

Yes we can go behind curtains but that would be a disservice to our nation IMHO where people are looking for alternative perspectives.

[RajeshA]

Whole Hindu epics/puranas/veda are being interpreted and presented from abrahamic/communist colonial perspective in public media.

So why is the crusade against the Buddhists?

[RamaY]

Because they are hiding behind Buddhist curtain. These interpretations claim that Buddha/Buddhism is what exposed these interpretations, where as the fact is that Buddha himself followed Vedic process to achieve his own self-realization. Buddha followed Sam-nyasa, Tapas and self-realization and did not seek some god to give him revelations, which is Abrahamic approach.

We need to remove the maya of Buddhist curtain.

[Varoon Shekhar]

We should not play up the divisions within Buddhism and Jainism; as a matter of fact approach to counter the anti-Hindu writings of some academics, it's all right. One of the wonderful features of Buddhist and Jain history is the minimal if not wholly absent inter-sectarian violence. There are two major 'divisions' within Buddhism, the Hinayana and the Mahayana. In Jainism it is the Svetambara and the Digambara. There have been spirited, even heated, debates between these groups. But no sectarian violence and terror even remotely comparable to the Sunni-Shia divide in Islam, or the historical Protestant-Catholic conflict in Christendom. Even the Saivite and Vaishnavites among Hindus have not fought each other in anywhere near that level.

And as far as the projection of the 'religion' goes, Buddhism was almost entirely peaceful. Jainism is not even applicable.

[Supratik]

^

Now the question is should we accept a Buddhist revival and even become Buddhist rashtra ourselves if required? I am not sure about it. I would rather recommend 100% reservations to capacity (meaning reservation applies to every suitable candidate) for Dalits in all national/rashtra structures as long as they remain Hindu Dalits. I think this is better than forcing them to Buddhism and the other remain in Hinduism for it furthers the split and not unify them. History is my proof where many Buddhist kingdoms fought with Hindu kingdoms until one of them retreated out of Bharat.

Buddha is already made an avatar of Vishnu. Majority are fine with being Hindu. However, geo-politically we can turn India into a Buddhist Vatican or Mecca. Lets think about India as Jerusalem sacred to Indic faiths like Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism. As these faiths migrate to different parts of the world both organically (immigration) and inorganically (conversion) India will be the spiritual home of people of these faiths.

[RajeshA]

Now the question is should we accept a Buddhist revival and even become Buddhist rashtra ourselves if required? I am not sure about it.

There is no Buddhist revival in India happening. It is all Neo-Buddhist and it is sponsored by West, Islam and China. Congress wants to add another minority vote bank to their list. It has got nothing to do with Buddhism.

I don't think we need to formulate the question that way at all - should we now become all Buddhists? Where is the imperative or pressure?

[RamaY]

Buddha is already made an avatar of Vishnu. Majority are fine with being Hindu. However, geo-politically we can turn India into a Buddhist Vatican or Mecca. Lets think about India as Jerusalem sacred to Indic faiths like Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism. As these faiths migrate to different parts of the world both organically (immigration) and inorganically (conversion) India will be the spiritual home of people of these faiths.

I think this discussion must happen in "Indian Interests" thread of "Future Strategic Scenarios" thread.

This thread is meant to understand Buddhist Socio Political contributions, if any. I request members to focus on posting and discussing Buddhist contributions in Socio-Political areas here.

[RamaY]

Sexual Oppression in India by Dr. Sudhir Kakar

Between 1:00 and 4:00 min

... Indian society is sexually very conservative one. But it has also been a liberal nation. India has gone thru various phases. In Mahabharat it was a very liberal society. Women had sex with anyone for pleasure within and outside marriage etc. Then we have the Buddhist and Jainist phase where god of Death is same as god of pleasure; which was considered a wrong thing and there was sexual repression. Then we have moved to the golden age of sexuality in 1400s where we have the sanskrit poetry (prabandha kavyas), women poets extolling adultery etc., and building Khajuraho etc., and then we moved back to sexual repression in the past 300 years which has been the worst phase...

[Supratik]

I think this discussion must happen in "Indian Interests" thread of "Future Strategic Scenarios" thread.

This thread is meant to understand Buddhist Socio Political contributions, if any. I request members to focus on posting and discussing Buddhist contributions in Socio-Political areas here.

Buddhist socio political contribution is more suitable for GDF. It is not relevant to this forum.

[Paul]

Lastly, in Islamic countries with a Buddhist past, one can see it as an alternative underground religion today in urban areas. For some reasons they prefer Buddhism to Hinduism. That also has to be cultivated.

This is corroborated by writings from Pakistani authors referring to Buddhism in a +ve light as compared to Hinduism.

[brihaspati]

Merger of Buddhism with "Hindu" is next to impossible. Not because of philosophical distinctions if any - but because it has grown up as a close-to-politics distinct identity in contrast and contraposition to Hinduism. That is how it was deliberately shaped up over the centuries.

The identity distinction is the greatest obstacle for schismatic or derived sects. Those who have gained leadership positions and of power - would actually sharpen the subtlest of distinctions, from the parent - to maintain this distinction, and prevent subsumption back into the parent identity.

This has happened with Protestantism vs Catholicism. Let us not be overenthusiastic in imagining convergences and friendships - where they do not exist.

Buddhist Sri Lanka was allegedly sending the ship full of slaves and gifts for the Caliph at Baghdad - which was attacked by pirates, and for which the Hindu king of Sindh was held responsible by the Islamics of Gulf. Hajjaj's third successful attempt under Qasim was based on this excuse.

The then Buddhist Sri Lanka had no problem in sending gifts and "slaves" for a non-ahimsa following regime? How has Sri Lankan Buddhism reacted to the Islamic world since then? How did it justify hobnobbing with Pakistan? How did Sri Lankan Buddhism reconcile its close cooperation with Chinese communism - with its record of repression on Tibetan Buddhism, as well as murderous genocidic tendencies?

I would rather not bring the incidences of clashes between Jainas, and others, or between Buddhist factions and others - on this thread. But please do the requisite research before claiming such blanket no-conflict no-sectarian-conflict non-violence characteristics for these two. This is part of a buildup of a propaganda of contrasts - that seems to have started off with the later British historiography for India - and ranks with those parts of selective narrative pushing and myth making that concocted the historical all-India popularity for Indo-Saracenic architecture as exemplified by the Taj. The contrast was necessary to demonize the "Hindu". Only those that have "left" the Hindu as sects, alternatives - those who distinguish themselves from the majority of "Vedic", are "good". The "Buddhist" Asoka was the only emperor worthy of hogging Indian imperial myths - because he "gave up" on expansion and indigenous military buildups. Thus if the Buddhist past of India could be shorn of its violence or skullduggery and treasonous behaviour out of commercial interests as in Sindhi rich merchants, then its apparent philosophically guided quiet submission to imperialist violence of Islam could be established as the model behaviour for Indians in the future.

Buddhism in the neighbourhood mixed with foreign trade and finance capital interest - would easily justify collaborating with the lowest of the himsaks, if it meant gaining out of the discomfiture of the majority of the subcontinent.

[Agnimitra]

^^^ But B ji, the Lankan Theravadins and the Tibetan Vajrayanas may have a different political attitude towards the Islamist. There is a running oath in the Kalachakra Tantra vowing revenge on Islamics. In fact, the current Dalai Lama has sheepishly apologized for its existence when confronted, and explained it as purely metaphysical onlee.

I'm just saying that there is within Buddhism a grouse against the massive destruction it suffered at the hands of Islam. That grouse is more in some sects than others. Brits and others have tried to focus on the role of Hindus in eliminating Buddhism from India, to divert attention from the fact that the major physical violence on Buddhists was perpetrated by Islamics. That needs to be corrected, by (a) Bringing the facts to light, and (b) Hindu-Buddhist reconciliation. IMHO.

[brihaspati]

Theravada is the dominant strain in IOR. They were sort of the Wahabis of post-Islamic-trauma Buddhism in SE Asia. Over puritan in some aspects and extremely militant. I am not relishing this discussion.

[RajeshA]

There is no cooperation of Buddhists with the Islamics that the Hindus too have not indulged in!

If in the Mahabharata time one talks of decay setting in, then the decay among all colors of Dharmics when Islam came around was far too progressed, that includes all Dharmics - Aastikas, Buddhists, Jains!

Just because before Islam came in, there were monarchs and dynasties which had various religious identities - Hindu Kshatriyas, Buddhists, Jains, etc. doesn't mean anyone of them was really acting as per Raj Dharma.

So if it comes to showing decay, there is enough muck to throw around. Should one try to analyze the political currents in Buddhist lands or for that matter in Hindu India, one would hardly find any leaders one could look up to, who are not compromised and corrupt to the core!

So the only question left is: what are we trying to achieve by all that? The message being sent out is: everything is bad, bad to the core; there is nothing to salvage, because everything is corrupt! History has shown that leaders with some formal Dharmic identities have sold out their people, so let's pull down those identities and knowledge systems!

I just don't know what one gets from all this rhona-dhona! The decay is everywhere to see. History has been of decay! What new insight are we getting from looking at all the blisters. Everybody knows they are there, and if one hasn't seen them, one can still smell them. So is whining the only thing left to do? How much of reality $hit would one have to smear in one's face before the others are satisfied that one understands the §hitty reality? Can we all ever move on from there?

[brihaspati]

No this is not rhona dhona. This is about facing the reality of friends and enemies. There should not be a rosy reconstruction of a "friend" whose friendly activities are missing from the historical record. We have a host of busy bees trying to whitewash and represent one of the imperialist religions in the neighbourhood - as having lost its teeth, or that it has friendly intentions on India.

Please do not add more smokescreens of confusion. We have to be very very aware of the internal political and ideological tendencies that have led to collaboration with our enemies in the past - and may very well lead to the same phenomena in the future.

We should not go about building partnerships without this awareness. Just because I have to make a strategic alliance with someone, does not mean I have to deny to my group and future members of that group - the dangers, pitfalls, and how exactly my current ally might betray in the future.

[brihaspati]

Only two predominantly Buddhist countries have been relatively friendly towards India in an international politically-side-choosing sense - but not out of "Buddhism", and they have not been tested out in conflict with Islamics. These are Kamupchea and Vietnam. Each has its reasons - from a local geo-strategic view, and the common enemy is China. Here Buddhism does not help choose sides.

[RajeshA]

When there is ethical decay, it happens regardless of ideology. All that is important is ideological identity, whatever it might be, and the need to keep it distinct. The rest is politics - unethical politics.

However behind this unethical political groups there is the general populace, some of which still have idealistic notions about their ideology, some still look towards the standard.

This situation exists whether the identity is Buddhist, Sikh or something else.

This dynamic exists regardless of which identity we speak of. One can say, Nepalis have been hostile, or Sri Lankans have been hostile. Why do we need to say that it is because they are Buddhists? They are hostile simply because they have a different religious identity than us.

[Shanmukh]

We should not play up the divisions within Buddhism and Jainism; as a matter of fact approach to counter the anti-Hindu writings of some academics, it's all right. One of the wonderful features of Buddhist and Jain history is the minimal if not wholly absent inter-sectarian violence. There are two major 'divisions' within Buddhism, the Hinayana and the Mahayana. In Jainism it is the Svetambara and the Digambara. There have been spirited, even heated, debates between these groups. But no sectarian violence and terror even remotely comparable to the Sunni-Shia divide in Islam, or the historical Protestant-Catholic conflict in Christendom. Even the Saivite and Vaishnavites among Hindus have not fought each other in anywhere near that level.

And as far as the projection of the 'religion' goes, Buddhism was almost entirely peaceful. Jainism is not even applicable.

Varoon-ji,
Unfortunately, intra-Buddhist violence is not small at all. Just look up the history of China during the T'ang rule. Buddhists sects bashed up each other with extreme brutality - less for any doctrinal principle, than for where state/private contributions to monasteries would go. Japan also has had its share of intra-Buddhist violence. Extreme militancy was the norm of many Buddhist sects, as the unifier-to-be of Japan - Oda Nobunaga - found out.

Theravada Buddhism, the dominant strain of Buddhism particularly in south east Asia and Sri Lanka, rose as a much more militant faction, a reaction to the brutalities perpetrated on the Buddhists by Islam and the Chinese (the Chinese T'ang dynasty suppressed Buddhist monasteries in an attempt to weed out the foreign religion, and also, because the Buddhists sects were becoming a serious law and order problem because of their internal fights). I don't pretend to know what the common Buddhist people of these countries think of Hindiusm, but the extirpation of Hinduism from south east Asia was the joint work of Buddhism and Islam at times. All Hindu sects, particularly in what is today's Cambodia and southern Vietnam (the then kingdom of Champa, today's ethnic Chams) were brutally suppressed by the respective kingdoms, under the influence of the Buddhist clergy. Even today, you will find a handful of Chams clinging to their version of Hinduism (a fascinating study which I recommend, just to see how much Hinduism has changed in the region), but they are a pathetic remnant of the old religion.

I am all in favour of joining hands with the Buddhists (they are Indics, even if they have diverged greatly from the original), but let us not pretend all is rosy. Japanese, Chinese and even south east Asian strains of Buddhism are extremely different from the Indic versions, and you will find it hard to reconcile the two doctrinally, even if they came from the same Buddhist sources.

[brihaspati]

RajeshA ji,

No. Its also the hatred of the father in the son. Even if there is also love and affection. Its not as simple as different religious identity. The "sunnyata" interface - makes for removal of a core of faith based on something tangible, something that needs to be defended - violently and ruthlessly, if necessary. This in turn creates the ideal conditions to justify whatever contextual and opportunistic spin on previously proclaimed values as are seen as profitable.

Note that the Vajrayanis have less space given to the "vacuum" in their interface. They have survived better in ideological terms.

[Shanmukh]

There is no cooperation of Buddhists with the Islamics that the Hindus too have not indulged in!

If in the Mahabharata time one talks of decay setting in, then the decay among all colors of Dharmics when Islam came around was far too progressed, that includes all Dharmics - Aastikas, Buddhists, Jains!

Just because before Islam came in, there were monarchs and dynasties which had various religious identities - Hindu Kshatriyas, Buddhists, Jains, etc. doesn't mean anyone of them was really acting as per Raj Dharma.

So if it comes to showing decay, there is enough muck to throw around. Should one try to analyze the political currents in Buddhist lands or for that matter in Hindu India, one would hardly find any leaders one could look up to, who are not compromised and corrupt to the core!

So the only question left is: what are we trying to achieve by all that? The message being sent out is: everything is bad, bad to the core; there is nothing to salvage, because everything is corrupt! History has shown that leaders with some formal Dharmic identities have sold out their people, so let's pull down those identities and knowledge systems!

I just don't know what one gets from all this rhona-dhona! The decay is everywhere to see. History has been of decay! What new insight are we getting from looking at all the blisters. Everybody knows they are there, and if one hasn't seen them, one can still smell them. So is whining the only thing left to do? How much of reality $hit would one have to smear in one's face before the others are satisfied that one understands the §hitty reality? Can we all ever move on from there?

RajeshA-ji,
While I agree that there is nothing that the Buddhists and Jains have done with regard to the Islamists (and Christianists) that the Hindus have not done themselves, let us go about making our alliances while being aware of the limitations of a quasi-religious alliance. If tomorrow, the Chinese Communist Party utterly ceases to exist and a Chinese party of Buddhist-influenced scholars come to power, do you really imagine that the Chinese foreign/military policy is going to change one bit? I will assure you, it will not.

Also, if we are talking of the distant past, like the pre-Islamic days, I am not even sure that the distinctions between Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism were so entrenched at all. Buddhism and Jainism are both non-God based religions, with a focus on ethics, and they have always co-existed with any local Gods that may have existed (in India with Hindu Gods, in China with Chinese ones, in Japan with Japanese ones, and so forth). Hindu philosophies of the time and Buddhist and Jain philosopies all contested for the mindshare, but I am unable to see any entrenched differences, outside the philosophers and clergy. The kings donating to the various schools of philosophies would have seen it in the light of contributions to four different departments in a University, and the king probably did not believe any!

However, today, this is not the case. Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism have been established as separate religions. It may be our fault, or it may be the fault of the Westerners whom we have allowed to tell us what our religions mean. Nevertheless, this is the current state. The question is - can we go back to that amorphous form that probably existed in the 5th century, when people's religious beliefs were an eclectic mixture of different religions, and no one identified himself as a Buddhist, Jain or a Hindu? I am unsure this can be achieved.

[RamaY]

When there is ethical decay, it happens regardless of ideology. All that is important is ideological identity, whatever it might be, and the need to keep it distinct. The rest is politics - unethical politics.

However behind this unethical political groups there is the general populace, some of which still have idealistic notions about their ideology, some still look towards the standard.

This situation exists whether the identity is Buddhist, Sikh or something else.

This dynamic exists regardless of which identity we speak of. One can say, Nepalis have been hostile, or Sri Lankans have been hostile. Why do we need to say that it is because they are Buddhists? They are hostile simply because they have a different religious identity than us.

Very good point.

There always exist good and patriotic Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and so on. Similarly there always Dharmic Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, buddhists, Jains and so on.

We are talking about the "religiously sanctified" world views and their dharmic quotient.

A wise person chooses his "strategic partners" only after s/he knows the soul of his partner.

Like ShyamD garu says - who cares if GCC is Adharmic and anti-Hindu. Can I use them to extend Hindu interest is more important

Why Hindu interests == Indian interests? Because they make 80% of the population and we do not want to make 850 million sleeper cells in India.

[Prem]

Paki Now Fear Armed Bhuddists!!

Only Islam is a Religion Of Peace
Thinking Aloud : Myth of Buddhist non-violence — Raaw Azz Me

Buddhism is almost universally regarded as synonymous with peace, tolerance and non-violence. On the other hand, so strong and widespread is the perception of Muslims as the source of intolerance and violence in this world that people seem to overlook not just the past but also the present when it comes to judging all the rest, and not just Buddhists.A 2009 book Buddhist Warfare, by Michael Jerryson and Mark Juergensmeyer, is introduced in these words: “Though traditionally regarded as a peaceful religion, Buddhism has a dark side. On multiple occasions over the past 15 centuries, Buddhist leaders have sanctioned violence, and even war. The eight essays in this book...show that Buddhist organisations have used religious images and rhetoric to support military conquest throughout history.”In the Nirvana Sutra, the Buddha is said to have killed some Hindus (Brahmins) in one of his past lives because they insulted the Buddhist sutras (scriptures). “When I heard the Brahmins slandering the ‘vaipulya sutras’, I put them to death on the spot.” Professor Paul Damieville is quoted by Danios (http://www.loonwatch.com) as writing that Buddhists justify killing infidels (icchantika) for a number of reasons, one being pity. Bizarrely also called ‘compassionate killing’, its supposed aim is “to help [them] avoid the punishment they had accrued by committing evil deeds while continuously slandering Buddhism.”Another reason is defence of the Buddhist faith. “When the dharma is threatened, it is necessary to ruthlessly fight against the forces of evil.” The Nirvana Sutra is unambiguous on this subject: “The [true] follower of the Mahayana is not the one who observes the five precepts, but the one who uses the sword, bow, arrow, and battle ax to protect the monks who uphold the precepts and who are pure.”Putting unbelievers to death carries no sin and is not bad karma. According to Demieville, the Buddha says in the Nirvana Sutra that the status of the infidel is lower than that of ants. “One may well kill an ant and earn sin for doing harm, but there is no sin for killing an icchantika.” Besides, killing can in any event be excused if it is done by the right person, especially a ‘dharma-protecting king’.
Danios concludes: “Buddhist Warfare provides many other examples of the theological justifications for waging war and killing, but these shall suffice us for now. They provide the religious basis for Buddhist holy war: (1) Killing those who slander Buddhism as a necessity; (2) Anyone who rejects Buddhism is by default slandering it; (3) Killing infidels carries no sin; (4) In fact, it is not really killing at all.”Seen in this light, the current anti-Muslim hate campaign and violence in Myanmar seems not to be the exception, but rather in line with both Buddhist scripture and history. According to a BBC report by Alan Strathern, it is spearheaded by the ‘969 group’, led by a monk, Ashin Wirathu, who was jailed in 2003 for inciting religious hatred and released in 2012.The rioting in Rakhine followed an alleged rape. In a subsequent incident in central Burma, rioting resulted from an argument between the Muslim owner of a gold shop and an ethnic Burmese customer. In the latest incident, a Muslim girl on a bicycle colliding with a monk led to rioting. It seems that anti-Muslim pogroms can happen in Myanmar virtually at the drop of a hat. These incidents have resulted in hundreds of Muslims killed, many hundreds of houses torched and thousands turned into refugees. All this happened while the police just stood and watched.
In Sri Lanka, the issue of halal slaughter has suddenly been turned into a national crisis. Led by monks, members of the Bodu Bala Sena (the Buddhist Brigade) have been holding rallies calling for direct action and the boycotting of Muslim businesses. Objection to the size of Muslim families is thrown in for good measure.In any list of countries where coups have been endemic, Thailand will rank high. According to one count, it had have 11 ‘successful and nine ‘unsuccessful’ coups in the 20th century. One such coup was accompanied by the Massacre of October 6, 1976, in which student and other protesters were attacked by the military, “shot, beaten and their bodies mutilated.” Hundreds were killed.
In 1999, hundreds of Buddhist monks in South Korea staged a pitched battle over control of the country’s richest monastic order. According to the BBC correspondent, Andrew Wood, “”the fight is not about theology, it is about power and money. They are struggling for control of the temple complex, which is headquarters to the largest order of Buddhist monasticism in South Korea. The sect claims around 10 million followers.” It was the second major clash between Chogye monks in nine months. Thai and Cambodian troops have repeatedly fought over control of the 900-year-old Preah Vihear temple on their border.Given the general perception of Buddhists as the ‘nice guys’ of this world (no prizes for guessing who the ‘bad guys’ are!), I conclude with Professor Michael Jerryson’s disclaimer: “Our intention is not to argue that Buddhists are angry, violent people — but rather that Buddhists are people, and thus share the same human spectrum of emotions, which includes the penchant for violence.”

[Varoon Shekhar]

^^^
In number, range, type and frequency, and sheer relentlessness, it is still no comparison to the Islamic violence. The violence, when it does occur, is localised.

That's the first time I've heard any quote indicating that Gautama Buddha could be intolerant and violent. If this was indeed the case, why are we learning about it now?

[Yagnasri]

In Barna Muslims are being thrashed by Buddist Monks and people now. Now they are faceing same thing as others as for as Islam goes.

Buddisum of Thailand ( King called as Rama) Kambodia, etc has strong roots of Indic civilisation. Has Kambodia and Thailand not fought a small war for the Lord Vishnu Temple??? Can we say such things about any Indian people - Ready to fight for any Hindu Temple??? Never. We can slowly increase the Hindu basis of these people and slowly we can increase outsoft power and frindship.

[Supratik]

The relation between Hinduism and Buddhism pales in front of that between Judaism and Christianity in terms of violence. Today, however, the interests of the Judaic and Christian worlds are aligned but will never merge. Similar things may happen with Hinduism and Buddhism.

[RajeshA]

Also Cross-posted to "The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition" Thread

What assumptions can we make:

1. Doctrinal Deviation: Buddhism as one finds after Sakya Simha Gautama Buddha (say circa 700 BCE) is indeed a different branch of Dharma with a differentiated ideology, identity and history.
2. Doctrinal Difference Assertion: The Buddhist schools and clergy would indeed try to emphasize the differences from the Brahmanical method, and thus from Sanatan Dharma - both in the narrative of the break as well as ideological. Emphasis of this difference becomes part of the life-blood of the Buddhist schools resident in the immediate vicinity of their competitors - Brahmin-led Sanatan Dharmics. This is mostly clergy-specific.
3. Structural Dynamics: One can model the above identity, identity assertion, identity separation, etc. through various models. Some models I suggested and discussed earlier were using tradition-revolution and trunk-branch metaphors. The father-son rivalry is also a very useful model. The rivalry is kept alive due to organizational angst of the clergy.
4. Clarity from Afar: Those Buddhist schools which are located geographically further away with a much less overlap of history of conflict with Brahamin-led Sanatan Dharmics, they are mostly free from this organizational angst or even doctrinal threat from Sanatan Dharmics. Their Buddhist schools, temples are secure in their own identity viz-a-viz Sanatan Dharma, and this sense of security is strengthened by the fact that they are ethnically and even culturally apart. Their autonomy and survival is secure viz-a-viz the Brahmin-led Sanatan Dharma.
5. Power Elite's Competitive Politics: Excluding exceptions, usually the interest of the Power Elite is to secure their position and to ward off competition from any competitors within their own ranks. As such there is a competition to win the favor of the people and the clergy. For such a purpose, individuals, families and groups within the power elite would compete to show that they are the true protectors of the group and clergy affiliated with the identity in question. They would often also play the card of "dharm-khatre-men-hai" in order to make the people hug on to their leadership more strongly, and if this involves provoking a rival identity, they would do that as well. Proximity to the clergy is sought to bolster their credentials as the defenders of the faith. They would also instrumentalize the doctrinal rivalry and organizational angst of the clergy to bolster their assertion of "dharm-khatre-men-hai"!
6. Power Elite's Degenerative Ways: The religious doctrine and the group identity formed around it are basically instruments to serve the Power Elite's hold on power. Except for the outward show of piety and cultural pride, the Power Elite is not really interested much in either the philosophical heritage of their religious tradition or to die for its upkeep. For them the religion-based identity is a means to an end - to hold onto power. However by showing outward piety and projecting themselves as defenders of the faith, it allows them to pursue their mercantile interests, their good life and debauchery, unabashedly free from the wrath of the people, and they also need to deliver less in the form of governance and justice as the attention is diverted to the "dharm-khatre-men-hai".

So what can one conclude:

Historically

1. Buddhist clergy in the Subcontinent was antagonistic to the Brahmanical fold, because of severe losses to them in followership in the Subcontinent due to Brahman-led Sanatan Dharmic resurgence. They had legitimate organizational angst.
2. Certain "Buddhist" Power Elite may have indeed used identity politics viz-a-viz Aastik Power Elite in their tussle for power in the Subcontinent, and may even have been open to the idea of alliances with extra-Subcontinental powers.
3. The degenerate alleged defenders of the Buddhist faith - the "Buddhist" Power Elite, e.g. in Sindh, were the first to give in to Islamic juggernaut as they saw that defense of the faith would only bring death to them.
4. But the main conflict is not at the ideological level. It is not Aastikamata vs. Bauddhamata! It is not Hindus vs. Buddhists. Of course there was proselytizing competition between Brahmins and Buddhist clergy. However the behavior of the "Buddhist" power elite and their collaboration with outside forces, need not be formulated in religious terms at all. It was basically identity politics by the power elite and tussle for power in the subcontinent. Hindu Power Elite has also made similar concessions and collaborations.

Going Forward

1. The doctrinal difference should be acknowledged from both sides.
2. The organizational angst of the Buddhist clergy in the Indian Subcontinent (India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, ...) can be removed through intermingling, dialogue, mutual respect and a mutual-pact not to prey and proselytize the followers of others. If need be external patrons for the clergy can be offered. Aastik Sanatan Dharmics can visit Buddhist Temples and provide assurance of good relations, even as they keep their own sampradayik affiliations.
3. We need to build an umbrella religious identity under which we all can work together against the threat.
4. The "Buddhist" power elite in India and in our vicinity which claims to be defenders of the Buddhist faith but like to poke Bharat and Hindus in the face and then take sanctuary in religious identity conflict, should really have a sword put at their throats. Either they accept the bigger umbrella, or they would simply be crushed. There are a myriad of political and intelligence tools one can use to persuade them.
5. The "Buddhist" clergy and power elite further away from India have zero problems with us and they should be actively courted. Of course the primary interest for them is security, security from China, independence from the West and respite from Islamic pressure.

[Singha]

imo india and myanmar should take a reciprocal arrangement for visa free tourist & business travel between the nations and open the land border as well to tourists and trade. the benefits being

- it will drive the border smugglers and haftagiri out of business - build some good roads from nagaland, manipur and mizoram and hook into myanmar network
- extend the railway from tripura down to myanmar via mizoram opening a new gateway of trade
- counter the chinese investment and invasion of north myanmar
- get the local political and economic elites on our side as well the military
- there is a lot of shared culture and things to discover there ... north myanmar is culturally very similar to contiguous areas of NE and yunnan.
- this will put pressure on BD to join in or lose out on the tourist and trade flows
- get rid of any rear area base for NE terrorists
- encourage myanmar people to study and work legally in india just as nepali and bhutan people do

WTF should be open our western borders under the urine-ki-asha and close the gate to our eastern neighbour who is the gateway to other indic influenced lands like cambodia, laos, thailand and vietnam?

the stupid nehruvian policy of leaving the "tribals" as noble savages was wrong from the word go. it only opened the field to EJs , arms, drugs and the worst aspects of western culture. its time that mess in NE got cleaned up and the fortress mentality and "inner line permits" got scrapped.

we are only letting the Cheen take over that whole region uncontested by shivering and hiding like cowardly dogs under a bed.

[Supratik]

Singha, those are good ideas but there are two caveats a) the drug trade and b) anti-Indian sentiments among the Burmese. As long as the drug trade exists it will be difficult to have seamless movement of people. Also the Burmese need to get out of their anti-Indian feelings from the British period when Indians took all the civil positions. Since Myanmar is at the cusp of change may be slowly we can move towards what you have suggested.

[Singha]

drugs - drugs are freely available to those who need it in the NE. the "closed" border has no impact on drug trade as it doesnt do on US-mexico border as well. people find ways around it. likewise I hear punjab is flooded with paki sourced drugs despite the huge army presence of the border....did that block indo-pak aman ki tamasha and wagah border?

I dont know about current myanmarese feelings about indians - the 1947 gen must be passed on now.

http://www.dw.de/drug-abuse-threatens-p ... a-16683761
The Indian state of Punjab is in the grip of a drug abuse crisis. Surveys indicate that more than half of all rural households are home to at least one drug addict, a problem most severe along the Pakistan border.

[Varoon Shekhar]

Just reread that passage, and it says that Gautama killed some Hindus in his previous life. That could be very metaphorical and symbolic, though still quite distasteful. But it's not the same thing as killing a live being in the present, there's no record of Buddha or any of his immediate, closest followers ever doing that.

[brihaspati]

^^^
In number, range, type and frequency, and sheer relentlessness, it is still no comparison to the Islamic violence. The violence, when it does occur, is localised.

That's the first time I've heard any quote indicating that Gautama Buddha could be intolerant and violent. If this was indeed the case, why are we learning about it now?

There is indeed not much narrative record of Buddhist violence comparable to the Islamic record. But the line or thread about violence is easily seen by those who have cared to study Buddhist texts. Its subtle, and not always so obvious. The legends attributed to Gautama - can be a starting point in the various retellings of his lives. Tiger, lion, and other "violent" animals are associated with him or his manifestations - they in turn do the violent bits, not "him", when needed. Or natural forces are harnessed to "destroy" evil. Its there - but one has to shed the lens of reconstructed posturings about ahimsa - that is more a result of a certain late 19th century orientalist European approach, than a reality of interpretations from actual texts.

Also the comparative historical record of the regions where Buddhism entered - needs to be taken into account. How peaceful really these societies became?

The hints of iconoclastic violence and intolerance - the introduction of proto-Christo-Islamo moral authoritarianism into public life of ordinary humans, the dress-codes, the penalties for deviations from "moral behaviour" as approved by the "sangha", all show a certain hard authoritarianism and social engineering that could not have been enforced without state coercion and violence.

There could be a link between the archeological absence of "Hindu/Vedic" symbols/icons from the periods before the advent of Mahayana compromise with "idolatry", simply because of the possible early and violent intolerance/iconoclasm of the early Buddhist phase. Note that the schism was quite "violent" and needed the mediation of emperors - who sided with the "compromisers", which meant the latter were the weaker party - and therefore shrewdly supported by the imperial mind - as has been the practice of all empires.

Buddhist iconoclasm or violence based on puritan moral authoritarianism is well traceable. We should not simply trust the convenient ideological packages that have been gifted to us by interested imperialists or their colonial/post-colonial servants.

This is no way diminishes the philosophical effort evident in Buddhist canons, but we should read it as it is - not in a reverse projection of Gandhian posturings [posturings because in him too - violence was not always an anathema, it was merely the conditional use of it - and the approved of targets, that was the issue].

[brihaspati]

Singha ji,
there has always been an asymmetric reaction in GOI's towards the western vs the eastern threat. The whole threat perception is strangely and uncannily what exactly the British would have liked us to see as : make Pakistan the principal devil, so that the intra-subcontinental problem is never solved, while take an on-off more compromising attitude towards China. UK's interest are tied to existence of pakistan, and Chinese belligerence and sovereignty over the stretch of land that straddles Turkmenistan - preventing Russian land connection to India.

So GOI attitude seems to be perfectly complementary to what British imperial post WWII interests would want - not expand in the NE and NNE so that Russia comes geo-strategically "closer", and no better bet than China controlling Tibet and encroaching and surrounding the NA. South China IOR-Pacific coastal networks of drug smuggling and financial flows was established by the Brits well and good, China being a primary supplier - and some say, continues healthy through offshore banking networks and continued "goodwill" of key ports and transit points in ex-colonies. This would be important for the British economy within economy [not the public one but the transnational one that serves the elite], and any eventual long term plans they have of hoping to retrieve their IOR empire again in the future after they have managed to emasculate the USA through engagements in Asian conflicts between forces sponsored and patronized carefully in the Brit imperial days and still kept in touch with by the British establishment.

So China cannot be severely hurt. Keeping the NE as kind of a no-man's land seems apparently contradictory while Pakistan is sought to be embraced - but fits in as a perfect dual for this underlying perception.

[brihaspati]

One can see what happens when British interests are hurt where China is linked - one way or the other - in the recent alleged murder of a biz-magnet/possible-MI-agent by the wife of a faction leader at the highest echelons of the CPC. There was an immediate convergence of interests - with the rival finished off politically, and the British man getting "justice".

[brihaspati]

Regarding Myanmar,
the whole country and its "nationalism" was managed in ways that would make it impossible for future continued relations with India in a collaborative sense. The Buddhism in Myanmar sits alongside a Chinese relationship forged in the covert action days of British "management" of the Burmese communist movement, its engineered splits, and complicated involvement of the religious orders with the communist factions and in turn with British connections.

This went on until Mao showed willingness to appear separated from Russia, and the whole game changed. Since then there has been lots of overt posturings on the basis of democratic parctices not being adopted and junta rule etc, but this is because the Chinese relationship with the Brit network has been restored fully overcoming the interregnum of doubt about early Maoist phase of China.