Buddhism - Socio Political Contributions

[member_24042]

Err, what is Brahminism?

Isn't it obvious? Brahminism is where the Aryan Caucasoid Brahmins (who today form less thatn 2% of India's population) perpetuated their racial bigotry against the Australoid Shudras. This is also a reason why the Greeks, Hunas, and Scythians were made "kshatriyas" because they were Caucasoid like the Aryan Brahmins. This is inspite of the fact that these idiots invaded India and were foreigners but the Australoid-the substratum of India's population-were Indians and always ridiculed. We can see the origin of Indians' fascination with white skin in this caste system of the Hindu Aryans.

[ramana]

WoW. So much hatred.

Off you go.

ramana

[Shanmukh]

Again I see a lot of garbage. Yes, the Hindu Shahis may have Brahmin origin but the latter Shahis are said to be Janjua Rajputs. So there is some confusion. However, the presence of Brahmins in Afghn during that period is likely to be miniscule. Mihirakula was a Huna and Saiva and he persecuted Buddhists. There are other examples e.g. Pushyamitra Sunga. There is no doubt that Brahminical Hinduism and Buddhism were in contest for domination of the subcontinent sometimes leading to violence. There was much violence between different sects of Hindus as well. But to extrapolate that to some kind of genocide or extermination is fallacious.

Supratik-ji,
I encourage you to take a look at
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/arti ... mitra.html

The article by Koenraad Elst deals with the canard about Pushyamitra very effectively.

As for Mihirakula and the Hunas, please take a look at page 458 of Sita Ram Goel's book `Hindu Temples of India - What Happened to Them?'.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/10120488/Hind ... a-Ram-Goel

Having just read the Rajatarangini yesterday, I can testify that there is no verse in the book that tells of Mihirakula's persecution of Buddhists. There is only a tale of conquest, and pillage in Kashmir. The Xuen Xang incident has been very clearly dealt with by Sita Ram Goel.

[Anindya]

What I never understand is - if Hindus were really such genocidal maniacs, then we would see this trend continue till today in some form. We would see minority populations disappear in parts of India (or other societies), where Hindus dominate demographically. There would at least be a few outstanding and recurring examples of this.

But, as far as I can see, the only society that consistently decimates minorities when it has demographic dominance is Muslim society. This has been happening for decades and centuries.

[Atri]

Wow. He really lost it, didn't he?

[Arjun]

Had too much of a Paki mindset. Is this common in Buddhism or was he an extreme one ?

[Atri]

This is kancha ilaiah or BAMCEF type buddhism. Chk bamcef. Its fun.

[Yagnasri]

Neo Buddists of India really hate Brahmins. Lot of stories/ideas are circulated by "Dalit" activits media and no one can counter them because it is politically incorrect. Kancha is one of such cases who writes all kinds of rubbish things.

The attacks on poor dalits in many places like TN, UP, are being done by the so called OBCs. Yet this is rarely discussed because of the political power of OBCs. Since Brahmins are easy target all will through mud on them.

[Atri]

Neo Buddists of India really hate Brahmins. Lot of stories/ideas are circulated by "Dalit" activits media and no one can counter them because it is politically incorrect. Kancha is one of such cases who writes all kinds of rubbish things.

The attacks on poor dalits in many places like TN, UP, are being done by the so called OBCs. Yet this is rarely discussed because of the political power of OBCs. Since Brahmins are easy target all will through mud on them.

No.. Most do not..

Dalit is a very generic term. It comprises of thousands of castes. Not all dalits are neo-buddhists. Similarly, not all neo-buddhists are anti-brahminical. There was always a caste (which is scheduled as dalit in post independence india) which was in the power-circles of graama-vyavastha.

For example in MH, the Mahar Caste (of Mahar regiment) is a dalit caste, but was always represented in panchayat of every village. In maratha era, many mahar killedars (incharge of hill-forts) are mentioned. They were quite an integral part of Maratha armies. Yes, there was always a tussle in later Peshwa era (which had become too brahminical, especially after death of Madhavrao-1 in 1772). The Brahminization of Peshwa rule started after 1740 after death of Bajirao-1. But things were flying under radar and were manageable until 1772. Post 1780s, this started increasing. The infamous doji-bara famine made things worse (in famine, people tend to protect their near and dear ones at the expense of others). about 10 million died in maratha - india and broke the back of Marathas. Their last victory came in 1795. In 1799 Nana Phadnavis died. A huge famine broke out in same region again in 1802, again killing lakhs. This resulted in defeat of India in second anglo-maratha war. Official policies of Peshwas had skewed a lot against non-brahmins (that too against non-chitpavans).

One famous story which reflects this mindset - During 1795 battle of kharde (maratha vs nizam where nizam was defeated again), a mahar general put up his tent amidst the tents of Brahmina nd 96-clan Maratha generals. There was a huge fuss and the argument went to the ears of peshwa himself. The elder named Hiroji Patankar (a brahmin himself) in court persuaded the brahmins and 96-clanners that "this is a battle-ground (Ranaangan) and not a pankti of lunch in temple that Mahar should not be among them". The brahmin and 96-claner generals were openly unhappy, but agreed to accommodate the old man's verdict. This shows how the mindset was skewed and how the fissures were present among various social groups. With fall of marathas in 1802, this mindset remained.

Now, Mahars have always been an aggressive social group. Dr. Ambedkar too belonged to this caste. Amongst dalits, Mahars is the most emancipated dalit caste. They have most taken advantage of reservations and many of them have risen above. I think our HM Shinde too is a Mahar. The antibrahminism is predominantly seen in this caste of Mh-neo-buddhist dalits. This again is not a rule and most of them (so many are my personal friends, I can say that almost 60-70%) are normal. Yes, occasional gibe at brahmins here and there is fine. It happens everywhere and is helped by the fact that brahmins tend to talk and behave in snobbish and at times pretentious manner and this is ridiculed by others.

But this is also true that most of the virulent haters of brahmins come predominantly from this caste. Ridicule is different from hate-speech which is again different from being anti-dharma and anti-national. A section of these (BAMCEF, for eg) take to to such an extent that they start mirroring and repeating the words and ideas of Zaid Hamid and Hamid gul types. They are supported by some 96-maratha organizations under aegis fo NCP. The Brahminical IB killing off Karkare story has a lot of traction among this class.

This is where I draw the line.

So, saying that neo-buddhists are brahmin-haters is generalization. When this anti-brahminism becomes anti-hinduism and in turn anti-India (which it happens inevitably, if allowed to continue), this is when the problems start. And yes, among dalit-neobuddhists there is a section which fuels this.

[habal]

One thing in India that has to filter deep down is that India can never be an exclusivist country. And ridiculing & hate-speech should not be taken as a short cut to hard-work based development. If fate has slotted Indic in a certain matrix, then it is the duty of the Indic to lift themselves out of that matrix especially if the said matrix shows negative traits towards them. Any group that indulges in hate speech thus, will find itself marginalized and the matrix shall neutralize the hate-mongers.

Because there is simply no short-cut out of it. It would have been great if the satvik dharmics had their own universe and the buddhist teravada beef-eaters had their own and mahayana-types had their own. But the case is that India is jumbled up on purpose, somewhat like a smaller experiment in a larger experiment.

[Shanmukh]

This is kancha ilaiah or BAMCEF type buddhism. Chk bamcef. Its fun.

While this is true, Atri-ji, here is an article by Shenali Waduge (she is from Sri Lanka, I think). Can you shed more light on why she makes such nonsensical claims? Is this the direction Sri Lanka is going in?

http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2012/0 ... died-india

[member_22872]

http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2012/0 ... died-india

There is a trend, a trend of hate mongering, there is a very close association between some dalit sanghas, mostly in the South, making this argument that Buddhism was prevalent in India even before Sanatana-Dharma, most of them are also strong adherents of AIT also. All Hindu/Santana-Dharma adherents have their teachings one way or another grounded in the Vedas. No wonder Kumarila Bhatta was such a nemesis to them. He showed even Buddha borrowed his teachings from the vedas. Hence he (Tathagata) surreptitiously propagated Vedic knowledge. Old wine in new bottle. Those who follow the Vedic tradition, geographically are located in the Indian subcontinent south of the Himalayas so state the Vedas, those who follow the vedic rituals and take Vedas as pramanas are the aryans (meaning those who adhere to the tradition of agni homa). So firstly we are Sanata-Dharmics, Hindu is the name given to us by others, to mean those who belong to the Pancha Sindhu, hence you will never find the word Hindu in the Vedic corpus. It is laughable if one searches for it in the Vedas and then concludes that hence Vedas don't belong to Hindus.

[Anindya]

From Vir Sanghvi - slightly dated, but still a writeup on Ayodha for Dhmimis....

December 6, Ayodhya for dummies

There was an era when Hinduism had been eclipsed in much of India by Buddhism. When Hinduism made a comeback some centuries later, Hindu kings destroyed Buddhist monasteries, more or less throwing Buddhism out of India.

[ramana]

So why doesnt Vir Singhvi instead of stealing from neera Radia convert to Buddhism to show his protest against Hinduism?

[Supratik]

Is he Hindu or Jain? The source of this apparent "violent destruction of Buddhism in India" are the Romilla Thapar/Marxist schools which have been further garnished by various vested interests including neo-Buddhists and picked up by anti-Hindutva polemicists like Vir Sanhgvi and propagated in a manner that it is the universal truth. Anyone who opposes it like with those pointing out centuries of "Islamic vandalism" in the subcontinent is a 'reactionary, revisionist, Hindu fundamentalist, sympathiser of Hindu fascist RSS". This is the central theme of this cabal. Unless you uproot completely this cabal and replace it with a more balanced view of our past such views will continue to be propagated as the gospel truth and people like TS will continue to buy them and get agitated. MMJ made misguided attempts at it during NDA rule. I think the cleansing should be done thoroughly by more intellectually accomplished people even at the prospect of the inevitable infamy that will be heaped on them by the INC-Marxist intellectual gestapo, starting right from the university level.

While Hindu-Buddhist violence just like Hindu-Hindu violence was a reality to attribute the decline of Buddhism to Hindu violence is a concoction.

[Pranav]

abandoning all other "dharmas", take refuge in me
I will remove all your sins and gift you moksha!

no where is there an "only". Krishna, after saying so many things, finally decides to give Arjuna one final message. he tells him to abandon all other thoughts and take refuge in him. it is a reassuring message that he (krishna) will take care of Arjuna no matter what.

only a truly twisted mind would take it as an injunction of "only".

Even if there had been "only" it would not be wrong ...

Here, Krishna is not Krishna as an individual, but is identified with the Universal Consciousness. From this perspective it is not wrong to say that Krishna (or Shiva, for that matter) is the only reality.

[Agnimitra]

IMHO like a lot of other things, Western scholarship on Indology is rife with mischievous dichotomies, with two sides trying to pit one against the other.

One such is the theory that the eschatology of karma and rebirth is a purely post-Vedic formulation, whose earliest formulation is in the Upanishads, and which Buddhism picked up on in a major way. That has come up on this thread also. But accepting that wholesale is also risky because of AIT. OTOH, there are those who argue that the concept does have roots in the Veda itself.

Maybe it would be useful to get a good understanding of rudiments and then show how Vedic concepts simply get derailed and deracinated.

The Rigveda, 'small scale' societies and rebirth eschatology

In this paper I would like to join the discussion about transmigration in Vedic times. It
is generally assumed that the ideas of transmigration were introduced by the kšatriyas, as
attested in the Upanišads (Båhadaraòyaka, Chandogya, Kaušitaki)1. The BU and CU present
the ‘knowledge of five fires’ (pañcagnividya) together with the division into the pitåyana and
devayana, paths taken by the dead according to their past deeds. The model of five fires is
used to explain how the world works also in the Jaiminiya Brahmaòa (JB 1.45-46, 49-50).
This Brahmaòa too presents two possible ways the dead can take, depending on their
knowledge.

A lot of scholars maintain that no belief in transmigration existed before the
Upanišads2. However, Killingley 1997 presented a number of data, which show that the topics
of the pañcagnividya and deva-/ pitåyana have their antecedents in the earlier Brahminic
texts. He claims that theories of karma and rebirth are made up of several ideas already
present in Vedic thought. Also Tull 1989 shows that the conceptual framework of the
Upanišadic idea of transmigration has been established already in the Brahmaòas and their
idea of sacrifice during which the sacrificer symbolically undergoes death and rebirth during
his journey to heaven. I would like to follow this line of reasoning and investigation, and to
show that there are at least two stanzas in the Ågveda (RV) from which the belief in rebirth
can be reconstructed.

Obeyesekere claims that
‘because rebirth eschatologies are empirically widespread and perhaps prior to karmic
eschatologies, India might well have had similar (rebirth) eschatologies before it
developed its karmic ones. (…) After all, India was nothing but a conglomerate of
small-scale societies (villages and tribes) prior to the period of Buddhism, which was
also the period of its second urban transformation.’

[vishvak]

Is he Hindu or Jain? The source of this apparent "violent destruction of Buddhism in India" are the Romilla Thapar/Marxist schools which have been further garnished by various vested interests including neo-Buddhists and picked up by anti-Hindutva polemicists like Vir Sanhgvi and propagated in a manner that it is the universal truth. Anyone who opposes it like with those pointing out centuries of "Islamic vandalism" in the subcontinent is a 'reactionary, revisionist, Hindu fundamentalist, sympathiser of Hindu fascist RSS". This is the central theme of this cabal. Unless you uproot completely this cabal and replace it with a more balanced view of our past such views will continue to be propagated as the gospel truth and people like TS will continue to buy them and get agitated. MMJ made misguided attempts at it during NDA rule. I think the cleansing should be done thoroughly by more intellectually accomplished people even at the prospect of the inevitable infamy that will be heaped on them by the INC-Marxist intellectual gestapo, starting right from the university level.

While Hindu-Buddhist violence just like Hindu-Hindu violence was a reality to attribute the decline of Buddhism to Hindu violence is a concoction.

Like how when there was a terror attack on one of the holiest Budhdhist mandir, discussion gets deviated tangential to some other topic.

[Agnimitra]

Need advice from gurus - I came across this theory that Sankhya and Buddhism developed in parallel to and as rivals to the Kuru state and its highly complex system of Shrauta Ritual.

Mentioned in Winthrop Sargeant's edition of the Bhagavad Gita with foreword by Christopher Chapple. Available at Amazon.com et al. and receives highest reviews and ratings.

The foreword and introduction describe the setting of the Gita in the historical Mahabharata. It delineates and explains Sankhya and Yoga philosophies to allow the student to follow those threads of thought throughout the Gita. It tries to suggest that these Philospohies are at an earlier stage of development that would later develop into Buddhism. I agree with this...but what about the theory that Sankhya and Buddhism themselves developed in parallel - and as rivals to the shrauta system of the Kurus?

[RamaY]

The founder of Samkhya was Kapila, son of Kardama Prajapati. Later Kapila comes as the one who burned the sons of Sagara to ashes. Rama was born into the family of Sagara and Bhagiratha. Krishna came much after that.

Even if we take the lineage structure extremely conservatively, there is at least 28+ generation gap between Kapila and Rama and at least 3 or 4 generation gap between Rama and Krishna. So when Sri Krishna gave BG, he was talking about Samkhya proposed at least 32+ generations ago (600-700 years).

JMHO

[Agnimitra]

RamaY ji welcome back!

That's interesting. Some speak of two Kapilas, one original and another recent one. (Just like they talk of different Buddhas). I don't know the truth of that.

[RamaY]

Thank you Agnimitra garu,

There are two Buddhas (Purana Buddha and Gautama Buddha) like there are two Kapilas, Kardama-Kapila, Baudha Kapila.

We all know that Samkhya was accepted as a Vedic darshana. So we must take its reference from various Puranic texts. Bhagavatam tells us that Kardama Kapila was the founder of Samkhya.

Buddhist texts tell us that Gautama Buddha was Kapila in one of his past births. We don't know how many births Buddha had between the lives of Kapila and Gautama. We also do not know how much earthly time that soul spent between births.

I need to research more but for now standing under the tree of Tarka, if Buddha was Kapila in his past birth how come he went from Vedic to aVedic darshana between those lives? This can happen if one were to accept that Gautama Buddha proposed something opposite to Samkhya as Kapila in his previous birth. This would put Buddha in the same lines of the Abrahamic god who gave mutually conflicting truths to Abraham, Jesus and Muhammed.

Secondly it is a well known fact that there was conscious attempts in two directions:

1. In one of Pandita Sabhas, all Charvaka schools like Jaina and Baudha had to "invent" the past-births theory in order to face the critics who gave examples of past seekers proposing the very theories that Gautama Buddha and Mahavira Jaina were said to have "invented". Reference for this is first few pages of "2500 years of Buddha" book I mentioned in the early pages of this thread.

2. During the highs of Buddhism, there were recorded attempts to rewrite Ramayana, Mahabharata and other Puranas in the image of Buddhism and Jainism. I gave the reference to one such book in Epics thread w.r.t Mahabharata/Ramayana. That source tells us that RaghuVamsamu was written by Kalidasa to give a proper reference to Rama's lineage so the Buddhist prakshiptas can be cross-checked.

So there is a fair chance that Buddha-Kapila is a prakshipta claim. This is as good as people claiming that Jesus came to India and Quranvadis claiming that Muhammed was Kalki.

Hope this makes sense.

[Agnimitra]

Thanks. That is interesting. I have conveyed your thoughts to some who find these claims "brilliant" and await their response.

[member_24042]

Mods:

Am I allowed to post on this thread? I have massive evidence on my side which I would like to present in a dispassionate fashion.

[Agnimitra]

X-posting from Reverse Inculturation thread from behind the burqa:

I have massive evidences that Christianity is nothing but a Buddhist hearsay. We need to follow the example of Buddhist Sri Lanka which utterly broke the back of missionaries (at one point over 20% of Lankans were Cross-worshippers), SL had an organized Sangha which is always historically involved in politics. For Hindus, I think only Hindutva offers hope against missionaries as the old Brahminist system is full of injustices and now hated by most HIndus it seems.

Dear Tonysoprano ji, I agree that only an organized, 'corporate religion' can engage competitively in the conversion game. So Buddhism is good at it while Hinduism usually isn't.

But the difference is in terms of sanity. Corporate religious bodies are not good for sanity - individual or social. They are like Putana - they come and try to influence people from the cradle to the grave. At an early age, or whenever a spiritual aspiration is born in the individual's heart, they come and seem to offer spiritual nourishment - but their breast is poisoned.

Hinduism offers greater sanity. It is essentially a non-corporatized spiritual culture. But it can spawn dharmic sansthas from time to time to re-customize society. But these dharmic sansthas can never monopolize the whole tradition. They can only serve the tradition by acting as portals to the deeper resources of the tradition. Thus, Hindu dharmic sansthas are active in reform of Hindu society from within, as well as in getting the fundamentals across to Hindus and non-Hindus alike.

Can't say the same about cults like Buddhism, Islamism and Christianity. They are monopolized by corporatized religious networks and their packaged ideologies. In fact, if they are not competing with one another for the souls of men, they have internal schisms and they keep fighting it out.

Whereas many Hindu families that take enthusiastically to service in one or the other such sanstha benefit from it culturally, but in a generation or two they tend to merge back into the non-corporate mainstream of "Hinduism", along with the sanskaars they have gained from those sansthas.

Managed solutions have limited and specific utility in administering society for sanity. But Unmanaged solutions are mor effective, socially and spiritually.

Priest-craft: Managed solutions vs. Unmanaged customizations

So if neo-Buddhism can also re-invent itself as a sort of add-on to the general ocean of "dharma", if it can remove the heavily fortified "wrapper" that insulates it from the rest of Dharma (Hindu, Sikh, etc), which is fortified mostly by hate propaganda, then it would be a very welcome change.

[member_23692]

WoW. So much hatred.

Off you go.

ramana

Ramana,

Dont let TonySoprano go. Let him air out his views. We can counter them with facts and a dispassionate discussion. As long as he does not become totally emotional and devoid of logic, let him argue his case. But before we do that, TonySoprano, please change your name to something that is closer to your identity, so people feel that they can know you and take you seriously.

One thing that has been missing on this forum, is voices of Dalits of today. What they think ? In my experience, the Dalits of today are living in a parallel universe from the rest of us. They nurse very serious grievances towards the rest of us, much more serious than we can imagine, unless we acquire their confidence and reach the real them. A lot of these grievances in my mind at least are not justified and not rooted in history or reality, a lot of them are. But unless we start an honest dialogue we will not be able to change that mindset. We Hindus all need to come together, particularly the Dalits, if we are to survive in this vicious world, and we cannot even begin to do that, without a constructive dialogue. Right now, the only people that listen to the Dalits or pretend to, are the castiest political parties, which means all of them, but these parties simply appease them. There is no alternative dialogue or vision, offered to the Dalits from the rest of us Hindus, even if it is a little tougher vision on them in the short term. Unless, we can open up a dialogue and offer an alternative vision, our vision to the Dalits and have them buy into it, we will stay dangerously divided.

I emphasize again, WE and the DALITS today, LIVE IN PARALLEL UNIVERSES. HOW WE SEE THINGS ARE VERY DIFFERENT and we HAVE to find a way to reconcile these diametrically opposed visions. Otherwise we are doomed. This vacuum in alternate dialogues amongst ourselves, provides the crucial and key space and opportunity to political parties, christian, Islamic and other missionaries to exploit the Dalits for their own ends, and to the great detriment of everybody, including particularly the Dalits.

Soprano, please change your name and present your views clearly and logically. We promise a logical dialogue. But, like I said, please start off by changing your name and an answer to this question, what makes you think that the Brahmins are Caucasians or Aryans ? Have you heard that the Aryan migration theory has been debunked ? Have you read the thread on this forum "Out of India...." ? Yes, there have been some migrations into India in later centuries, a little before and after Ist Century AD from Central Asia, of people such as Indo-Scythians, but their numbers are not large enough and certainly, the Indo-Scythians are not the Brahmins. Brahmins existed many centuries prior.

[member_22872]

WE and the DALITS today, LIVE IN PARALLEL UNIVERSES. HOW WE SEE THINGS ARE VERY DIFFERENT and we HAVE to find a way to reconcile these diametrically opposed visions

sangram ji, this is true. I have a friend, who even though is not a dalit, I hear him have very strong opinions against Hindus, higher jaatis, against heroes in epics and of course he is a strong advocate of AIT. I almost stopped talking to him. To him, Ravana is a God, Rama is a misogynist, and someone who is wife abuser for he tested 'Sita's character' by asking her to prove that she is still a pati-vrata.

He also thinks that Adi-Sankara plagiarized Buddha's thought. He thinks BG is casteist, he misinterprets purusha-sukta to mean Ishawara relegated Shudras to be lower than other varnas.
these feelings are being milked by EJs, no wonder Christianity and Islam find breeding grounds among them. They get agitated very fast, adhere to any thought that puts down or denigrates Sanatana Dharmics. They care less about facts, so reason is not something you can resort to in talking to them.

[member_24042]

WE and the DALITS today, LIVE IN PARALLEL UNIVERSES. HOW WE SEE THINGS ARE VERY DIFFERENT and we HAVE to find a way to reconcile these diametrically opposed visions

sangram ji, this is true. I have a friend, who even though is not a dalit, I hear him have very strong opinions against Hindus, higher jaatis, against heroes in epics and of course he is a strong advocate of AIT. I almost stopped talking to him. To him, Ravana is a God, Rama is a misogynist, and someone who is wife abuser for he tested 'Sita's character' by asking her to prove that she is still a pati-vrata.

He also thinks that Adi-Sankara plagiarized Buddha's thought. He thinks BG is casteist, he misinterprets purusha-sukta to mean Ishawara relegated Shudras to be lower than other varnas.
these feelings are being milked by EJs, no wonder Christianity and Islam find breeding grounds among them. They get agitated very fast, adhere to any thought that puts down or denigrates Sanatana Dharmics. They care less about facts, so reason is not something you can resort to in talking to them.

Buddhists and brahmins were enemies and this shows in the Lankavatara Sutta where Ravana is a benevolent rakshasa King that invited Buddha to propagate the one true Dhamma. In fact when "rakshasa" is mentioned, it almost always means the Australoid people-the genetic substratum of India's population, whose acheivements have been overlooked by Aryan historians like Thapar, Lal, and Habib. Also regarding Pursha-sukta, it was used to justify oppression of the Australoid Shudras as they have been second class citizens in every regard for almost all of India's history. Sankara's philosophy is nothing but rehashed Madhyamaka Buddhism--this is openly acknowledged by Gaudapada. I have been presenting facts throughout this thread, but all my evidence has been ignored and just sweeping generalizations made like I am influenced by so and so. Instead of giving general statements, argue against the facts and various examples I have provided.

[Sri]

^^^ Saar
1) Who is Gaudapada and where does he acknowledge it? (Links required)
2) On what basis do you claim that Adi Sankara's philosophy == to Madhyamaka Buddhism (Your understanding in bullet points)

Just wanted to learn from you....

[member_22872]

Buddhists and brahmins were enemies and this shows in the Lankavatara Sutta where Ravana is a benevolent rakshasa King that invited Buddha to propagate the one true Dhamma.

Enemies?
You use contradictory terms: Rakshasa -> Demon -> an evil person and then you say he is benevolent. Make up your mind.

Benevolent to whom? It is alright to kidnap one's wife in lust? Even Buddha said "It is better to bore out your eyes with red hot irons than to see a woman's form in lust full desire...". True Dhamma? what is that? if Ravana is considered a benevolent Rakshasa, and you say such an opinion is from Lankavatara Sutta and if that is true Dhamma, Please keep it. There is no use of such a dhamma, even if world class.

[member_22872]

Since when has Buddhism turned from being the path of enlightenment to that of seeing enemies in what Sanata Dharmics love and finding near and dear ones in villains as considered by Sanatana Dharmics? if such is a teaching of Tathagata, then I am very happy that Buddhism is decimated in India.

[svinayak]

We have a troll here

[Shanmukh]

There is just one small problem in Ravana being a australoid follower of Buddhism, to whom the Brahmins were inimical. According to Valmiki's Ramayana, Ravana himself is a Brahmin, and followed the daily routine prescribed for Brahmins. As for all these dramas which our friend insists on quoting as historical evidence, they say more about the author than about the subject .....

[member_24042]

Since when has Buddhism turned from being the path of enlightenment to that of seeing enemies in what Sanata Dharmics love and finding near and dear ones in villains as considered by Sanatana Dharmics? if such is a teaching of Tathagata, then I am very happy that Buddhism is decimated in India.

Don't worry, the true Dhamma is thriving in other countries while the same can not be said of your religion which for all practical purposes has only one country which is ruled by Italian Christian. Judging by your nick, I assume you are South Indian, are you aware that South India is projected to be majority Christian in a few decades?

BTW this is my last post on this forum after all the abuse I have been showered with.

Good day.

[member_22872]

Sir, if you are worried about True dhamma, a mere label, You have missed the whole point of Tathagata's teaching, while you enjoyed Santana Dharma bashing. More over, you must have known better, Hinduism/Santana Dharma is not a religion. Why are you so worried about Hinduism?, it thrived for thousands of years, it will do so in the furutre. And, As you sow, so you reap. Good day.

[Agnimitra]

sangram ji, this is true. I have a friend, who even though is not a dalit, I hear him have very strong opinions against Hindus, higher jaatis, against heroes in epics and of course he is a strong advocate of AIT. I almost stopped talking to him. To him, Ravana is a God, Rama is a misogynist, and someone who is wife abuser for he tested 'Sita's character' by asking her to prove that she is still a pati-vrata.

Such drivel is popularized by even novelists in various Indian languages. They want to see Ramayana through the eyes of Ravana, or some such character. Really shallow literature that resorts to sensationalism. The fact is that the epics themselves give a highly complex and nuanced multi-sided view of the plot, and never paint any character in black or white.

He also thinks that Adi-Sankara plagiarized Buddha's thought.

That is not an unreasonable statement, though it is mischievously stated. Many Vedantins thought the same. It is an allegation even by the other two major Vaishnav schools of Vedanta.

Gaudapada and Shankaracharya essentially tried to show that Madhyamika Buddhist thought was already present in the Upanishads, but that somehow that Upanishadic thought had become obscured. I think this is true. However, other Vedantins alleged that there were some un-Vedic aspects of Buddhism that Gaudapada and Shankara allowed to seep into Upanishadic thought-stream.

He thinks BG is casteist, he misinterprets purusha-sukta to mean Ishawara relegated Shudras to be lower than other varnas.

He doesn't "think" that, rather he sees that many casteists also think exactly that. Most casteists consider the Purusha-sukta to mean caste hierarchy, although they will offer some mealy-mouthed platitudes about it all being organically connected without "higher" and "lower". When you can settle the interpretation among "orthodox" Hindus themselves, then you can start dealing with "dalit" grievance. There's a lot of taqiyyah by the casteists.

TonySoprano ji, will you stop behaving like a 5 year old and have a clear-headed debate? You bring up some interesting points, but you bundle those with other unsupported, wild claims. Then when other forum members jump on you, you run away like a schoolgirl or throw a fit. Now if you please, kindly resume by quoting the Lankavatara sutta. It would be interesting to see that the subversion of the classics and epics is not a new thing in Indian politics, but is an old stratagem.

[Agnimitra]

In fact when "rakshasa" is mentioned, it almost always means the Australoid people-the genetic substratum of India's population, whose acheivements have been overlooked by Aryan historians like Thapar, Lal, and Habib. Also regarding Pursha-sukta, it was used to justify oppression of the Australoid Shudras as they have been second class citizens in every regard for almost all of India's history.

Caste barriers not older than 2000 years - Indians mated across ethnic groups till 2nd century: Study

G.S. MUDUR
New Delhi, Aug. 8: People across India mixed and mated without class, caste, or ethnic barriers for about 2,300 years until strict endogamy emerged across the subcontinent around the 2nd century AD, a new genetic study has suggested.

The study by scientists at the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB), Hyderabad, and the Harvard Medical School has indicated a staggering level of population admixture that they say had not been previously suspected.

The scientists said that ancient, pervasive and widespread mixture of genes showed up in the genetic makeup of virtually all of India’s present-day populations — upper-castes, lower-castes, and even tribes such as Bhils of Gujarat, the Kallars of Tamil Nadu, and another tribe from Uttar Pradesh, long viewed as genetically isolated.

The study, based on the analysis of the genetic make-up of 571 persons from 73 well-defined ethno-linguistic groups — 71 from India and two from Pakistan — has found evidence of widespread population mixture between 4,200 and 1,900 years ago.

“With the dawn of endogamy, genetic mixing became rare — that’s what we see in present-day Indian genomes,” Priya Moorjani, a graduate student at the Harvard Medical School and the first author of the study, told The Telegraph. The findings will be published tomorrow in the American Journal of Human Genetics.

The CCMB-Harvard team had shown through similar genetic analysis four years ago that most Indians have their origins in two root populations — ancestral south Indians (ASI) not related to any population outside the subcontinent, and ancestral north Indians (ANI) related to present-day Central Asians, Middle Easterners, Caucasians and Europeans.

The genetic makeup of modern Indians contains a mosaic of chromosomal segments from both ANI and ASI — and the lengths of the segments of ASI and ANI ancestry allow them to measure the time of genetic mixture in individual populations.

“We can now assign time periods for cultural changes in India that appeared to culminate in the establishment of endogamy some 1,900 years ago,” said co-author Kumarasamy Thangaraj, a scientist and team member at the CCMB.

The analysis shows the history of India’s population has changed episodically, said David Reich, professor of genetics at the Harvard school and the study’s senior author. Prior to 4,000 years ago, there was no mixture — the ANI and ASI remained isolated.

“Then there was widespread mixture between ANI and ASI that affected all population groups in India, including the isolated tribal groups,” Reich said. “And finally, there was a shift to endogamy such that mixture between even geographically closely-located groups became rare.”

The scientists have found that the dates of mixture are correlated to language and geography as the mixtures are more recent in the northern Indo-European language speaking groups than in the southern Dravidian language speaking groups of India. That is possibly because populations in the north have had multiple episodes of ANI-ASI mixtures.

The study has also indicated tentative dates when specific population groups turned to endogamy — the Vysyas in Andhra for instance have the longest period of endogamy, or genetic isolation, nearly 3000 years. The Bhils in Gujarat have remained largely isolated for nearly 2200 years.

The ancestors of Kshatriyas in Uttar Pradesh were mixing with other groups at least until 2,200 years ago, the ancestors of Brahmins in Uttar Pradesh were doing so at least until 1,885 years ago, as did those of the Sindhis of Pakistan up to 1,940 years ago.

Moorjani, who completed a Bachelor of Engineering in computer science in Mumbai before pursuing a PhD in genetics in the US, said the new study was consistent with the content of the ancient Indian texts, including the Rig Veda.

“The oldest text in India, the Rig Veda, does not mention a caste system at all, and suggests there was substantial social movement of populations, as reflected in the acceptance of people with non-Indo-European names as chieftains and poets,” she said.

“The class system, of grouping people based on occupational roles, is first mentioned only in the book 10 of Rig Veda that was likely to have been composed later. The caste system of endogamous groups is, however, only mentioned centuries later in the law code of Manu, or Manusmriti, that forbids mixing between caste groups.”

“We’ve known there was admixture and co-mingling of populations, but we'll need more evidence to establish the chronology,” said T.K. Venkatasubramanian, a former professor of ancient Indian history at the University of Delhi.

“The date for the code of Manu is not clear, but it is accepted as having been around in the pre-Christian era, after the advent of the iron age which began in India around 1000 BC.”

The CCMB’s Thangaraj said long periods of endogamy had led to concentration of certain deleterious genetic mutations in some populations.

So there have been periodic trends of intermixing and endogamy alternating with one another.

[Atri]

The term ASI (ancestral south indian) has to be understood properly. There are no people belonging to ancentral south indian genome in mainland India since last 40,000 years. Most of the people in INdia belong to ANI (ancestral north indian) genetic group. So, no need to get all worked up.

When they say ANI and ASI did not mix, they mean most of mainland Indians and ASI people from remote places (like andaman, for example) did not intermingle since last 2000 years.

Reference - http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/R ... _India.pdf

[member_24042]

TonySoprano ji, will you stop behaving like a 5 year old and have a clear-headed debate? You bring up some interesting points, but you bundle those with other unsupported, wild claims. Then when other forum members jump on you, you run away like a schoolgirl or throw a fit. Now if you please, kindly resume by quoting the Lankavatara sutta. It would be interesting to see that the subversion of the classics and epics is not a new thing in Indian politics, but is an old stratagem.

Here is a translated passage from the Sutra. It is also available online for free:

Inspired by the sacrosanct power of the Tathagata, Ravana, Lord of the Rakshasas, heard the Buddha's voice. Indeed, the Bhagavan, surrounded and accompanied by an in-numerable host of Sakra, Brahma, Guardian Gods, and heavenly dragons, came out of the palace of the Great Oceanic Dragon King; and looking at the waves of the ocean and also at the mental agitations going on in those assembled, [he thought of] the ocean of the Alaya-consciousness (Alaya-vijnana) where the evolving Vijanas [like the waves] are stirred by the wind of objectivity. While he was standing there [thus absorbed in contemplation, Ravana saw him and] uttered a joyous cry, saying: ‘I will go and request of the Buddha to enter into Lanka; for the long night [of transmigrations) he would probably profit, do good, and gladden the gods as well as human beings’ ~ Chapter 01: Ravana Asking for Instruction

http://www.examiner.com/article/when-bu ... tara-sutra

Now for the poster who said Ravana was a brahmin...he was HALF-Brahmin, hence not pure Aryan. Such miscegenation gave rise to many "brahmins" with Australoid blood but the core of Brahminhood was in the Doab region where they were more or less Caucasians.

Also to Agnimitra for quoting that article: yes I was thinking the same thing after reading the book "Greater Magadha", I will summarize the books findings in a subsequent post.

[member_24042]

Sir, if you are worried about True dhamma, a mere label, You have missed the whole point of Tathagata's teaching, while you enjoyed Santana Dharma bashing. More over, you must have known better, Hinduism/Santana Dharma is not a religion. Why are you so worried about Hinduism?, it thrived for thousands of years, it will do so in the furutre. And, As you sow, so you reap. Good day.

Ok...keep on saying this if it makes you feel better, as South india goes the way of East Timor or South Sudan.