Bharat Rakshak

TonySoprano ji,

You must be a Kumaoni . Soft hearted, easy going, soft speaking guys who take all criticism to the heart and then go Vakri after the inflexion point.

Box item : For those who do not know. TonySoprano ji has claimed he is from Uttarakhand. And in Uttarakhand there is a, ‘neither here nor there’ kind of rivalry between Garwalis and Kumaonis. Garwalis claim that Kumaonis use their soft linguistic skills to seek friendship and play the favours game. Kumaonis OTOH allege that Garwalis are people of harsh manners, almost anti-social and not worth the effort of developing a relationship with. Now allow me to show why this is relevant to the discussion and why BRF should at all listen to this.

Uttarakhand is the land supposed to have been ‘Converted’. From Shaminism to Buddhism to Adi Shankarism. And TonySopraon ji is not the first or the unique among such claimants. A well known ‘Cars and Vehicles consultant’ also tried to hand over such a tale to me at one of the Paki sites. The tale where a virgin, innocent bunch is sought to be hoodwinked by the scheming Brahminists. Well yes and no. The understanding of the people is mostly correct but the second part of scheming Brahminist is pure propaganda.

At one point TonySoprano ji brought in the "History of Uttaranchal", O.C. Handa (Pg. 31). Brihaspati ji took him on, on that reference and as is usual with the opponents of Devaguru, TS ji also just melted away. This was about a month back on page 5 of the thread. TS ji has been bringing in ‘evidence’ that at times include also the eminent scholars like Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty (Search on page 4 of the thread). So you know what kind of evidence that would be. Anyhow, I am a strong votary of Hindu consolidation and among other eccentricities of this pitrubhoomi, consider Jaati a part and parcel of the legacy that Hindu has tolerated and been a part of and that will in all likelihood remain a part of this world in future. Something I believe needs to be set on its proper place and not just avoided and be ashamed off. So some time after TS ji had quoted O.C. Handa, but independently, I too landed up on the exact same page. You see our kula guru claims that my ancestors came from the Kumaon region (For a very long time my clan is settled now in Pauri district but in what is said to be Dushaan region which is supposed to be the border region of Garwal and Kumaon). What I found strange, as I grew, was that we have not the usual one but two Ishta-devas. One of which is named Katyur. Now there was a Katyuri dynasty that is historically attested to in these parts. What is not known to me is whether my family and this Dynasty took their names independently from a third original source or did my family take a dynasty/ruler as the Ishta. The later possibility is not something unimaginable in the Uttarakhand, Nepal and other mountain regions (refer : Nepalese Royalty and our own Golu Devta - a local administrator cum military chief who is taken today as a real deity esp. in the Kumaou region). Bolo, Golu Devta ki Jai. So searching for Katyur dynasty I landed up on this golgol-e-book. The name of the chapter ‘The Katyuri Imperialism’ was itself a turn off. You see the word Imperialism simply does not sit well with anything of administrative matters in these regions. But I had to persevere which I did till after a while of reading this chapter I knew it was too much for me. The whole thesis was build up in much the same manner as is the case of ManuSmriti==Hindu law. Somebody said something to somebody who was a gazetteer infatuated with ‘the written word’ and they both started a history that had nothing to do with the lives of the people in general. These two jokers go about collecting some ‘choice evidence’ of folk songs regardless of whether the folk song was actually well known or not or whether it carried words that are well known in these regions or not. Then these two jokers go all out to throw ‘scientific skepticism’ at some other prior gazetteer because there is an ‘implausible 600 year gap in the dynasty’. Then off course the mandatory allusion to AIT/AMT, which is especially helpful considering the people in these parts look like the morphological average of Afghans, Indians, Tibetans and Martians. Ok the last word was a joke but it was important to let you have the idea. You see these parts also have the only known ‘Centum language’ extant in 1947 version of India ie. the Bangani language. And off course the cruelty of the local chieftain. Just one chapter left me feeling like I was reading some fairy-tale from the Grimm Brothers. Well that again is a joke. Hope you guys find it funny. Anyhow the take away was that books are pretty much helpless in guiding you in matters like these.

I know that Uttarakhand has had its share of ups and downs but it also has had its protective phases. That is why people who felt like they needed protection went upto these highgrounds (witness : land ownership patterns and religious demographics of these lands. Muslims are in the Terai and most of the hill-folks are self-classified as Rajputs). People are mostly honest, simple folk. The kind the whole of India would have been had the rest of India not gone through a bigger upheaval of contact with outsiders who considered the natives, little better then cattle. In Uttarakhand the standard pathway of Imperialism->Triumphalism, Vassal->Victimism never found any tract. I was never told as a child if I was supposed to act as a Victim or as an Asharfi ruler. Casteism was and is known in these parts but is a highly attenuated one. One where untouchability and not offering milk products to castes that were claimed to be not sufficiently respectful of the bovines, was the only form of superiority displayed often enough with the implied consent of the caste discriminated against. And at absolutely no point have people been told to enforce untouchability as a canon. All this resulted in the observed phenomena, that no sooner the people come out of these somewhat remote places, they turn into ‘obedient, secular and progressive people’. Unfortunately that also starts to debase the migrants from these parts, with the more confusing notions of social mobility, networking and the other 90 yards. The concept of ‘mine’ is limited to the village boundary and often-enough you will find people who have given up even on the material and land that would normally be a part of family wealth in other parts of the world. I have had quite a few friends and relations who are expending considerable money on building and retaining some form of contact with the respective villages not because they expect returns but because they crave for their own roots. Such a people are well disposed to accepting anything said or done with a clear above board motive. When the people found the Buddhists are making sense they became Buddhists when they found Advaitists making sense they respected them too by following the Hindu dharma but in all cases these were taken up only because they for their times gelled well with the then existing social mores. A ‘novel’ like the one cited as evidence is not something that we can afford to have as history unless off course mass-suicide is on the agenda. Now for the more scientifically inclined who are not intimidated by mass-suicides, bhaijaan, these kind of ‘evidences’ are not even evidenced. These at best are only written before the last word was written on the matter.

Now remember the box item at the start. Had my claim on casteism been wrong w.r.t. these parts and had the people around here been obstinate sobs they would surely have carried over their taste for divisiveness over to other aspects as well. But no, the rivalry between Garwalis and Kumaonis is suitably punctured with ‘roti-beti ka rishtas’ and so both these regions have also carried on with people from outside this region. So much so that my mother claims to have seen Rajasthani migrants as far as 35 km inside Pauri district around the early 1970s, before her marriage. The Rajasthani migrants were probably on hard times to have wandered so far off the nearest road link of those times. My paternal grandfather was a trucker with a bit of a reputation. So he had a separate family in Raipur Madhyapardesh and the children from that marriage also visited their father’s village. This relationship was accorded the same social status as was given to that of the first marriage.

Tony Soprano ji, probably you are belaboring too much over the written word to notice the simpler facts. Unfortunately facts have a way of falsifying the theories of even the most intelligent. You seem to have taken up Buddhism. Well I would say a prize catch for BRF but go slow bro, what is evidence to you may not be evidence to some others. For all your good wishes for the natives, the Hindu Dharm may not be keen on accepting Messiahs just yet. Come join the party but no poking in the eyes.

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

Do you have a link to either the PInyin original, or even better, the Pali original (if it even exists at all)? Either would be greatly appreciated. I did a quick search, but could not find them.

By the way, the play seems to have been written in the 3rd-4th centuries CE - roughly a thousand years after the time of the Buddha. I am not sure what you are trying to establish here. Can you please be more specific what it is you are trying to say with the reference to the play?

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.

Not sure what you mean by `Half-Brahmin'. How did you deduce the race of his father? And in any case, he seems to have been accepted as a Brahmin by everyone, if Valmiki Ramayan is to be believed. Does that mean that he partook in the oppression of the Australoid folk at the behest of the Caucasoid Brahmins?

`Half-Brahmin,hence not pure Aryan. '

He is of the view that only Brahmins are aryans. I hope he can contribute in AIT/OIT thread.

What is Dharma?
What is religion?

How/when/why/ are they translated to mean equal?

Dharma is not religion.
Karma is not work.

rsangram wrote:

ramana wrote:WoW. So much hatred.

Off you go.

ramana

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.

.....

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.

'We' vs 'Dalits'. What is 'We'?
The way you have formulated is a sureshot way of alienating the 'Dalits'. You have already come to a conclusion that they are different from 'we' or 'us', infact they are living in a parallel world.

I think you(or those who formulate the situation in the way you do) have already fallen hook, line and sinker for the tactics and propaganda of EJs, 'secularists', jihadis, commies and other such entities.

The root cause of the differing views is NOT CASTE. It is EJs, 'secularists', jihadis, commies and other such entities who are trying alienate the non-Brahmin castes from Hinduism by creating a false narrative.

This false narrative is used to sow divisions within Hinduism based on caste or region or sect and so on.
For example, south Indians are told that they are different from north Indians. And that Shri Rama is a north Indian icon and Ravana is a south Indian icon.
Then, north Indians are told that south Indian worship Ravana and they live is completely parallel world from 'us'.
Now, at least a few people are bound to fall for this sustained propaganda from both sides. Then, these people act as virus carriers. For example, some north Indians who fall for this propaganda will start believing that all south Indians are worshipers of Ravana and they are different from 'us'(i.e. they are not even Hindus). Then, some south Indian who fall for this propaganda will start believing that Shri Rama is indeed a north Indian icon and start spewing venom against Hinduism. These type of guys on both sides are responsible for creating more alienation. In fact, they are knowingly or unknowingly furthering the agenda of dividing Hindus.

The same is happening with your post when you say that 'we' are different from 'dalits'.

There are lots of 'dalits' who are hardcore Hindus(even if they do not know all the scriptures and their teachings. Anyway, who can claim to know all the scriptures and understand their import?!)
And there are lots of non-dalits who are hardcore anti-Hindus(because they believe in 'dravidian politics' or because they are commies or because they are EJs and so on). In fact, I think Bji can even give you a list of 'Brahmin' born historians who spew venom against Hinduism and India.

In a way, you are saying the same thing that Tony Soparno is saying. You are saying in a round about way that Hinduism is brahmanism(that means it is a cult created by brahmins for brahmins and that 'brahmin' is a birth based caste formation).

So, please don't go ahead with this kind of formulation. There is no 'we' vs 'dalits'. 'Dalits' are part and parcel of 'we'. There is ample difference of opinion on all sides on all issues. But, there is also a lot of unity underlying these superficial differences. Lets not unknowingly fall for the tactics of anti-Hindus.

PS: I am a 'Dalit' myself. But, of course, I don't pretend to represent all my community or region or religion or anything else. The same applies to everyone else. Nobody represents anything but themselves. In fact, you would find that most people(specially, the nominal hindus) who rant against Hinduism have some personal axe to grind. Thats that.

devesh wrote:

TonySoprano wrote:
Really? Does it not say in Bhagavad gita that one should only worship Krishna and abandoning all other dharmas? Have you even talked to an ISKCON follower? They are so rabidly dismissive of other hindu gods and consider Shiva a demigod. And what about the frequent clashes between Vaishnav and Saiva sadhus in Kumbh Mela for example? Why do Naga sadhus carry weapons? Saivism is probably the most intolerant creed among Indic religions. Look at the record of Tamil Saivas who in historical times persecuted Sinhala Buddhists, Hindu Vaishnavs, and Jainas. There is no doubt denying their bigotry and intolerance. Which kind of people gleefully record their kind impaling thousands of defenceless Jaina monks?

are you serious? what translation are you reading? Krishna never says "ONE SHOULD ONLY" worship so-and-so person.

I will reproduce the sanskrit sloka here:

sarva dharman parityajya mamekam sharanam vraja
aham tva sarva papebhyo mokshayishyami masuchaha!

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".

repeatedly Krishna reaffirms in the BG that there are many paths and all paths lead to him.
he never, repeat, NEVER, says that "one should only submit to Krishna".

I don't know what translations you are reading, but you are seriously off. I am no expert in Sanskrit, and even I can tell that some of what you are saying is total BS. some sentences in sanskrit slokas are so self-explanatory to any speaker of Indian languages....stop relying on so called "expert" translations so much. use common sense. and the innate sense of understanding that we have based on the sanskrit words and language that is so widely dispersed in our local languages, whatever they might be.

sarva dharman parityajya mamekam sharanam vraja
aham tva sarva papebhyo mokshayishyami masuchaha!

maam+ekam == me+one

Tony Soparno(or whoever told him that) is reading it as 'me alone' or 'only me'. Strictly speaking, nothing wrong with that reading.
"Forget everything else and take refuge in me alone,
I will release you from all sins, don't worry."
But, what does 'me alone' mean?
Does it mean that Lord Shri Krushna is prohibiting the worship of others? Thats the meaning Tony Soparno seems to be reading into it.
Yet, 'me alone' could also be understood as 'merely me'. That means, Shri Krushna is saying to Arjuna," Hey, you don't have to go in search of some difficult method to get rid of your sins(if you are afraid that you contact sins by fighting the war). Just come into my refuge and I will release you from your sins(if any). Happy?! Now, fight! Because thats your duty as a warrior."

I think this interpretation makes more sense because the BG started with Arjuna's whining,"How can I kill my friends and relatives? That will make me a sinner. It is better to not participate in this war than to earn sin by killing friends and relatives for mere land(or power or riches). I'll live by begging if need be rather than commit such heinous sin."

Shri Krushna is giving an assurance to that particular fear of Arjuna.

Also, Shri Krushna explains in BG itself as to how people worship various beings like Yakshas, Dhevathas, ...etc. Lord also explains that regardless of what or whom one worships, all that worship finally reaches Shri Krushna only. Infact, Shri Krushna also explains how He exists in all things(for example, He says that He is Garuda among birds, if I remember correctly). This part expressly invalidates the allegation of Tony Soparno.

So, as Pranav said, Shri Krushna here is an amalgamation of all the things in the universe. Nothing is independent of Him. This also is said within BG itself.

There is another reading also possible:
'me alone' would be taken as,"I alone exist(sath) and you come into that refuge." In this interpretation, Shri Krushna alone exists, the rest is Shri Krushna's maya(mam maaya dhurathyaya). This is based on 'Ekam Sath vipra bahudha vadhanthi'. The 'Ekam Sath' is 'Maam Ekam'.

But the interpretation given by Tony Soparno is very important.
Because it shows that even the Bhakthi that is propounded in BG can create Abrahanic-like creeds. Infact, I think Judism started out as a Bhakti(Devotion) cult and slowly lost its Gyana(Philosophy) component and corrupted its Karma(ritual) component. That started its devolution. I think the same applies to Malsi.

venug wrote:

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.

What about Ravana? Is he not a misogynist and wife abuser? He had several wives and many more concubines and yet, he kidnapped the wife of another man.

In fact, there is a scene in Valmiki Ramayana in Sundhara Kaanda(which was explained beautifully by Chaganti garu):
Hanuman is searching for Seetha-amma in Lanka in the night. He enters the inner chambers of Ravana and finds that Ravana is sleeping on a bed. Many women are sleeping in that room. It seems like an aftermath of a grand party or orgy. Everyone is sound asleep and seem to have been drunk and having sex. Their clothes are disheveled. There are musical instruments. But, one woman is sleeping on a bed away from all this in the same room. Hanuman thought that this woman might be Seetha-amma. But that woman was Mandodhari, wife and queen of Ravana. Imagine that, Ravana was having this grand orgy with so many wives and concubines, while his queen was sleeping on a separate bed knowing that what her husband was doing. And he had already kidnapped another woman and kept her as prisoner. How sad that must have made Mandodhari. Compare that to Shri Rama who did not marry another woman even when He had to bear separation from His wife.

venug wrote: 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.

These narratives were created by EJs in the guise of indologists when they were ruling directly and later by commies.

These Ejs and commies depend on erstwhile Buddhist or jihadi narratives to weave them.

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

If one is a hardcore Buddhist, then such mindset is easy to develop.
If one happens to be hardcore Buddhist and a non-indian(specially from sub-continent), then the effects get amplified. You can see this phenomenon in Lankan Buddhists...

The reasoning is simple:
If a paki accepts the validity of India, then the existence of pakiland becomes unnecessary.
Similarly, if Hinduism is seen as valid, then the existence of Buddhism becomes unnecessary.

The narrative is that Buddhism came as a response to the flaws of Hinduism. And that Buddhism is a refined version of Hinduism. The reformer is Buddha. So, this mindset is very natural.

Agnimitra wrote:^^ And that statement of Krishna is far, far less fetishized and institutionalized than "Buddham sharanam gacchaami, sangham sharanam gacchaami, dharmam sharanam gacchaami." Dharma is made synonymous with a particular personality, and even with a particular organized sectarian sangha.

Still, I am not saying that exclusivism is not there in any and all forms of Hinduism. It is there, no doubt, and is a fundamental part of dharma itself. But its the philosophical context and social application of exclusivist meme that makes all the difference between dharmic and adharmic.

Well pointed out, saar. In fact, that Buddhist definition creates perfect situation for intra-sectarian fights as well.
Why?
Sangam Sharanam Gachchami
Which Sanga(Church)?
This question will create problems within different sangas which will claim to be the 'authentic' ones.

There is another point.
Sangam Sharanam Gachchami comes before Dharmam Sharanam Gachchami.
So, Sanga(Church) has higher priority than Dharma. Basically, one's first adherence is to Church and then to the Dharma that is acceptable to that Church.

Remember, there were/is differences among various Buddhist churches as to what exactly were the teachings of Buddha.
Please note that the differences is not about interpretations alone. But about the teachings itself.
For example, there is differences among various schools of Hindhuism on how to interpret a particular scripture. But, there are no major differences on the content of the scriptures(specially, Vedhas) itself.
On the other hand, there are major differences(in terms of Pithaka) as to the content of Buddha's biography and teachings among various schools of Buddhism, as far as I understand. This is bound to lead to sectarian competition.

This is very similar to differences among various sects of Malsi on the content of bio of Mo(Had-it). And this kind of fundamental differences cannot be reconciled.

venug wrote: 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.

This is it. Ravana, who is a Hindhu villain character/personality from a Hindhu scripture(Valmiki Ramayana). If he can be turned into a hero to undermine Hindhuism. Can a similar thing be done on Buddha? That means, Buddha is a Hindhu character/personality talked about in Puranas. Some people take this character and start creating its bio in such a way as to undermin Hindhu scriptures. Is it possible?

To me that is not only possible but most probable.

That means all the Buddhist scriptures are pirate copies of Hindhu ones. No wonder, therefore, that Buddhist philosophies closely resemble Hindhu philosophies like Sankhya, Vedhantha, or even Bhakthi.
Even Buddha's bio is a complete pirate copy of Hindhu scriptures like Valmiki Ramayana, Bhaghavatham and MB(and other Puranas).
Then, this Buddha's bio is used to create pirate copies to suit various other audiences in various other regions(like Tibet or China). The same thing gets done in Greece, Egypt, Middle-East and Italy.

Christ crucification story is lifted from the story of Buddha's previous life. In Buddha's previous life, he was impaled. Then, Buddha died and went to heaven. Then, he was again reborn as Siddhartha. This part is created in NT tales. Christ is crucified and is 're-born'.

Story of Buddha's previous life is lifted from Vidhura's previous life story in MB. In MB, Ani-Mandavya is crucified by a King for a mistake that he did not commit. The same motif is used in Buddha's previous life story. All the Buddhist characters are merely pirate copies of Hindhu original ones. And then these Buddhist characters are used to create NT characters.

venug wrote: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.

I think, from very early stage. It started out as a sect within Hindhuism and slowly evolved into a revolt against Hindhuism. But the irony is that only Hindhuism existed at that time. So, how are you going to revolt against a system which has complete monopoly. Even the minds of these early buddhists would know nothing more than Hindhuism. So, how do you create a system that opposes/differs from Hindhuism?
This is not an easy task. It is very difficult to create a new system from scratch. In fact, no body has ever done that. No one in the history claims to have done that. Everyone only makes some modifications to the existing system.
So, the most probable thing for the revolutionaries of that time(whatever time it was) to do is to take the differing views(non-dharmic ones) presented in Hindhu scriptures and use them.

This means, you search for differing views in Ramayana and then adopt them and start building up on it using it as a base. For example, you would find the argument of Jabali. One can adopt it and start building on it. And lo, you have an atheistic Vedhantic creed.

Similarly, you take Buddha from Puranas. Use that character as a base and start building your creed.

The same thing applies to Ravana also. You take Ravana as a base and start building a new creed or a new sect within a creed.

The same thing can be seen in Abrahanic cults also. Buddhists took a 'christ' character from the Judaic scriptures. Used it as a base and built a new creed around it by crafting a bio for that character.

Similarly, one also finds 'satanic cults'. What they do is they take the 'satan' character from the Abrahanic literature and use it to build a new creed. This is a theme that can keep on going.

But always, a new character is used to create a new cult/creed as departure/revolt from the old cult/creed.

The same happened with the character of Buddha of Puranas. The same was tried and is being tried with the character of Ravana from Valmiki Ramayana. There are even Buddhist suttas that try to give a twist to Ramayana by portraying Rama and Seetha as brother and sister(and husband and wife) because those Buddhists used to follow incest to 'protect their Kshathriya caste'.

nageshks wrote: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 .....

Link to an old post quoting the exact shlokas of Valmiki Ramayana to back up the fact that Ravana followed Vedhas

The list of Shlokas may not be comprehensive, but it is a fair sample. On the other hand, I don't think there is even a single shloka in Valmiki Ramayana where Ravana bad-mouths Vedhas or even Trimurthy of Hindhuism.

Ravana himself indulged in a great tapasya for Lord Brahma. Ravana is step-brother of Kubhera(who is a ruler of north direction. He is also the ruler of wealth. He is a friend of Lord Shiva. And he is he assistant of Goddess Lakshmi). Ravana also performed a tapasya for Lord Shiva. Ravana obtained a curse from Goddess Gauri. Ravana himself worshiped Goddess Lakshmi.

Ravana is said to have written Shiva Tandava Sthothram.

venug wrote:OT:
JohneeG garu,

Why should Sri Sankara oppose Udayanacarya when he himself argues for the existence of Ishvara? I can understand his "punga" with Mimamsakas like Kumarila Bhatta, but with Udayanacarya? why?

Think of it as a philosophical and theological restoration after the Buddhist hiatus(which introduced various corruptions). This is a slow process with various stages. At each stage, some aspects of previous stage are also taken down. For example, when you build a house, you set up many supporting structures. Once you build the house, you take out all these supporting structures.

Another example, when you perform a surgery to cure a problem, you also take care that the surgery itself does not lead to infection. For this purpose, some medications are given to cure the effects of surgery.

The same thing happened to restore Hindhuism philosophically and theologically. Shri Shankara was the final stage of this restoration. He took care to rectify all the previous stages of the restoration along with the original malaise.

But, what is noteworthy is that this kind of restoration did not take place with respect to other aspects of society. For example, social structure(including caste), war-sciences(which includes physics, bio and chem along with Maths)...etc.

And before that restoration could take place, jihadi invasion started. So, till now, there has not been a social restoration of India to pre-Buddhist stage. So, essentially, Indian is socially organized according to Buddhist times. Then, the jihadis added their own twist. This was not taken out either after the jihadis lost power. On the top of this, EJs and colonialists added their own layer. This was not corrected after independence. After independence, commies and 'secularists' added another layer of social narrative.

That explains why there is so much confusion and contrast in desh. Because social engineering of previous regimes/ideologies was never corrected from the time of Buddhists and continue to co-exist creating disharmony.

^^^^^^^^^^

You may be right in that I might have framed the sentence incorrectly. When I said "we" I meant most members of the BRF, who I presumed, and I am open to be corrected, are not Dalit. In fact this forum is overwhelmingly non-Dalit. But if I am wrong, I am, like I said, open to be corrected. So, by we, I did not mean anything other than the members of this forum. I was merely reflecting the reality of the composition of this forum, not creating a distinction between "we" and Dalits in the sense of being Brahmins and Dalits or in any other larger sense.

However, having said that, I differ with you when you imply that Dalits dont feel alienated from the rest of the Hindus. This is not saying that they are not Hindus or even staunch Hindus. But I am saying that they feel alienated and have grievances against the rest of the Hindus. I did not create those grievances, I dont even agree with some of them, but I have interacted with them closely and I am just a messenger. Look at this article in today's Hindustan Times, which I did not report and it talks about a situation, which I did not create and see what you think of this. This is TODAY. Again, I am not taking sides on this issue, it is quite possible this article is rather one sided, rather biased, as this sort of story creates sensationlism and sells newspapers, but can we honestly say that the Dalits do not feel aggrieved, rightly or wrongly ?

Even in flood relief camps, caste divide prevalent in Bihar
Ruchir Kumar, Hindustan Times Patna, August 10, 2013
First Published: 16:10 IST(10/8/2013) | Last Updated: 16:44 IST(10/8/2013)

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-new ... px?hts0021


AND YOU CANNOT WISH AWAY THESE GRIEVENCES AND THIS ALIENATION BY RESORTING TO ISOLATED EXAMPLES FROM INDIAN MYTHOLOGY AND EVEN BLAMING ISLAMIC INVASIONS FOR IT. Islamic invasions were evil and wicked in their own right, but let us not pin the Dalit/non-Dalit divide on it. That is all our own(by our own I mean, Dalits and non Dalits alike) doing and yes, it would have taken us( Dalit and non Dalit) a superhuman effort, but we could have corrected this on our own, Islam or no Islam, but we did not. We still can, but we will not. Because instead to interacting with the Dalits and getting a realistic pictures of where the relations are on the ground, we wish to bury our head in the sand and just keep repeating to ourselves(our non Dalit selves) in our own(non Dalit) minds that "we are all the same" and anyone who is merely reporting(not even necessarily agreeing with), the Dalit sense of alienation and grievances is creating this mythical "DIVIDE", which of course DID NOT EXIST before the author of the post made this post. Why dont you ask the Dalits, if they feel, "WE ARE ALL THE SAME" and that there is no problem. Even if their sentiments are not justified, you cannot deny that these sentiments of alienation exist and exist very strongly, enough that they are causing major disruptions and disturbances in our society. This is not just true for Dalits, but also of the OBCs and a myriad of other castes. In fact, in India today, it has become a free for all, a state of civil war where all the castes have polarized, and are collectively fighting to get their piece of the pie, and fairness and merit be damned. Might is right and whoever can turn out more numbers on the street and in elections wins.

As a matter of fact, this poster further reports, that in his interaction with the Dalits, and he freely grants that this is anecdotal and may or may not be representative of all Dalits, that he has found some very disturbing and destructive impulses and thought processes among those Dalits that he interacted with, which if not corrected via a variety of means, chief among them - an honest dialogue, will lead to further choas, divisions and yes, further Islamic invasions.

Buddhism as a Derivative of Vedanta

Historical Backdrop

One of the biggest myths about the origins, growth, and spread of Buddhism is the fact that Buddhism was a revolt against Vedanta. Variants of this myth include characterizing this as a revolt against Brahminism and the corrupt Brahmin priestly class. To be fair, there is a grain of truth in the last bit about the corruption of the Brahmin priestly class but the originators of this myth are really hitting at Vedanta because they posit Buddhism as a philosophy that stands in opposition to Vedanta.

But how far is this true?

Buddha is called the Light of Asia for an assortment of just and profound reasons, and he well deserves all the accolades heaped on him although he is beyond them. At the same time, his teachings have been mostly misinterpreted based on the need of the hour, which in modern times have mostly been political. An infinitely tragic consequence of such interpretations of convenience is the fact that that Buddha as a person has been reduced to a little more than a tool for mass manipulation: the Dalit movement is the most glaring example of this mass manipulation using Buddha.

Nothing could be farther from the truth: Gautama Buddha stressed on integration while our neo-Buddhist champions seem to be working overtime to ensure that societal splintering is what Buddha preached. Needless, this is yet another perverse consequence of the Marxist hijack of Ambedkar’s discourse and his conversion to Buddhism.

This Marxist hijack, like their hijack of Indian history also rests on and is a continuation of the British falsification of Indian history. In the context of Buddhism, here’s the Marxist formula: Brahmins were the “oppressing” class and the rest of the society was the “oppressed” class. As we already saw, there might be some truth saying that there existed a set of powerful priests who monetarily exploited people. Such a class of people have existed at all times in all societies. But tarring all Brahmins with this broad brush violates basic common sense.

Indeed, it is highly suspect that this priestly class could be termed “Brahmins” in the real meaning of the term: if they monetarily exploited others, they automatically fell from Brahminhood, which stresses on the need for voluntary acceptance of poverty and aparigraha or non-possession or not accepting anything from anybody. At the other end, it does egregious injustice to those real Brahmins who contributed immensely to enrich India’s spiritual traditions. If this Marxist deceit is taken to its logical conclusion, people Yagnavalkya, Uddalaka, Nachiketa, Chyavana, Dadichi, et al become oppressors, and Buddha becomes some kind of a warrior and cult-founder who opposed them.

However, we arrive at this simple truth after examining Buddha’s own words, a truth that can be expressed in just one sentence: Gautama Buddha reformulated Vedanta and made it accessible to the common people of his time who couldn’t quite cope with complex philosophical treatises. In other words, Buddhism is one of the many nectars that sprung from the fount of Vedanta.

Misinterpretation, Ignorance and Truth

Today, most of those who claim that Buddhism stands in opposition to Hinduism/Vedanta fall into a few broad categories:

- Those who have read only Buddha’s teachings but not the Vedas
- Those who have read both but have a superficial understanding of the Vedas and/or Buddhism
- Those who have not read the primary sources of both and rely mostly on translations
- The rest, pursuing whatever agenda they see fit using whatever tricks that help them further that agenda.

And so, let’s discard all of this and begin by examining some of the broad similarities between Buddhism and the Vedas. The items I have chosen include some of the core and widely known Vedic concepts. Apart from mere similarities in semantics and/or terminology, there exist non-ignorable parallels between these Vedic concepts and their correspondences in Buddhism; that is, how Gautama Buddha understood and/or expounded on each of these. The effort here is not one of upmanship–i.e. to show how the Veda is superior to Buddhism or vice versa; rather, it is to show how both are inextricably linked, how Buddha drank deep from the fount of Vedanta, digested it, made it his own, and disseminated it.

It is important to first understand at a very high level, the structure and division of the Vedas. This is an essential backgrounder to understand what part of the Veda deals with philosophy. The Vedas can be commonly divided into two broad categories: the Karma Kaanda (ritualistic mantras) and the Gnana Kaanda (mantras that expound philosophical precepts).

Mantras from the Karma Kaanda are what one typically listens to during various ceremonies such as the naming, wedding, and death ceremonies, as well as when yagnas are performed. While these are mainly ritualistic, one can reasonably say that they do not contain much by way of philosophy in the sense of the Upanishads. However, they do contain philosophy mainly at a symbolic level–for example, the Rig Vedic Suktas on Fire, Water, Rain, and the conception of what’s known as the “Vedic Gods (sic).” And so we see that Buddha’s “rebellion”–which neo-Buddhists and various other phony intellectuals celebrate–was directed against the misuse of the Karma Kaanda and not the philosophy embodied in the Vedas. In the words of Swami Prabhavananda, author of Spiritual heritage of India,

However, the later followers of Buddha misinterpreted Buddha’s opposition to the Karma Kaanda as his opposition to the Vedic Dharma itself. This caused them to sever themselves away from the Mother (Vedic) Dharma.

And so as we see, the rot in Buddhism set in hundreds of years before the present day Marxist manipulators of Buddhism.

More importantly, the emphasis on the philosophy of the Upanishads cannot be stressed enough. The Upanishads almost wholly deal with abstraction at the highest level—they are attempts at articulating spiritual experiences using language. And language deals with the concrete. What’s more, the Upanishads attempt to capture the indescribable by trying to describe it. This is why the Upanishads are written in the form of poems. As any student of classical literature knows, poetry is the art and talent of trying to approach abstraction, be it in the realm of universal truths or the vagaries of human feeling. And so when Shakespeare says in an avowedly political play, in an avowedly rhetorical speech that

The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones it at once becomes a universal truth.

This is an important point and a distinction to note if we need to clearly understand because (i) Buddhism is both an inspiration and an offshoot of Vedanta (ii) and because of (i), there’s a seamless harmony between Vedanta and Buddhism.

While there are numerous instances one can provide to illustrate the truth of both (i) and (ii) above, in the interest of brevity and limitations of space, we can use just one. And it is one of the most crucial instances because it lays to rest the myth that Buddha rebelled against the Vedas.

Buddha and Yagna

This instance has to do with just one word: Yajna. This is incorrectly translated as “sacrifice” in the sense of killing a living being and offering it as a sacrifice, signifying wanton cruelty. And it is this incorrect translation that came eminently handy for the Marxist manipulators to posit the Vedic culture and civilization as evil and Buddha’s teachings as some kind of a revolt against it.

The word Yajna is derived from the root, Yaj as in Yaj Pujayaam or Yaj Sangatikaranam. Yaj itself means to make an oblation to, to sacrifice, oblation, adore, honour, worship, respect, revere, and so on. From a purely ritualistic standpoint, it encompasses men, materials, form, structure, semantics, and mechanics. Yajna in a social and philosophical context also implies several nobler aspects of sharing, interaction and harmony, which spans the entire universe—as in Yajnena yajnamayajanta devaah, from the Purusha Sukta. As it is commonly understood, Yagna is not performed in isolation barring the Brahma Yagna, which Brahmacharins (celibate Vedic students) perform. Mostly, a Yajna involves a congregation of varying numbers of people with the ultimate goal of preserving Rta or the Cosmic Order. It is thus clear that behind all the ritual, Yajna represents a deeper, philosophical symbolism.

Performing a Yajna is an act of free will. Individuals performing a Yajna do so on their own accord for the implicit purpose of preserving the spiritual harmony of the universe. No book, authority, or person prescribes–much less commands–performing a Yajna. Thus what began as a desirable and noble ritual gradually lost its original symbolism, meaning, and goal and degenerated into mere ritual. And this made it easy for those who chose to exploit it. This is pretty much what happened in Buddha’s time. And justifiably, Buddha condemned it. He condemned the Yajna-as-mere-ritual, and not the original symbolism.

If anything, Buddha has held Yajna in the highest esteem. In one place he says that My Yagna involves no animal sacrifice, no money to be spent, and in another,

Make thy heart the sacrificial pit, and
Thy soul the sacrificial fire

This verse is indeed a direct inspiration from the celebrated Jnana Yajna section of the Mahanarayana Upanishad, which exhorts the seeker to perform the internal Yajna thus:

Devotion the wife,
The Body the Samit (small pieces of wood),
The Heart the sacrificial pit,
The Hair the dried blades of grass (to be offered to the fire),
The Veda/knowledge the fire,
Desires the ones to be sacrificed

Therefore, Buddha’s angst as we have seen was directed towards the exploitative behaviour in the name of Yajna, and not against Yajna itself. Which presents a problem the Veda-baiters choose to ignore: if they reject Yajna, they necessarily need to accept the symbolism that Yajna represents. It is equivalent to saying, “I condemn curd but I don’t accept the existence of milk.” And it is to avoid facing this logical problem that they’ve taken refuge in chicanery, by pitting Buddhism against Vedanta.

Has TonySoprano ji been banned again? Don't understand why he pops in and out of conversations without having one.

TonySoprano ji, the Buddha supposedly called his path "Arya-ashtanga-marga" - the "8-fold Arya path". Does this mean his path is for a so-called "Aryan race" that is caucasoid and antagonistic to australoid races?? But I find that "arya-ashtanga-marga" is usually translated as "the noble 8-fold path" - anyone who follows it through to its conclusion is ennobled as an end phenomenon.

Why is it that when The Buddha uses "Arya" it is usually translated as "noble", but the same word used by a Veda/Vedanta source is given a Nazi colour? Kindly help me understand.

Agnimitra wrote:Has TonySoprano ji been banned again? Don't understand why he pops in and out of conversations without having one.

TonySoprano ji, the Buddha supposedly called his path "Arya-ashtanga-marga" - the "8-fold Arya path". Does this mean his path is for a so-called "Aryan race" that is caucasoid and antagonistic to australoid races?? But I find that "arya-ashtanga-marga" is usually translated as "the noble 8-fold path" - anyone who follows it through to its conclusion is ennobled as an end phenomenon.

Why is it that when The Buddha uses "Arya" it is usually translated as "noble", but the same word used by a Veda/Vedanta source is given a Nazi colour? Kindly help me understand.

IF he is banned again, that is a great disservice to our cause and us.

See, we already miss his buffoonery and the comic relief he provided us.

Seriously, admins, if he is banned, please unban him.

Agnimitra wrote:Has TonySoprano ji been banned again? Don't understand why he pops in and out of conversations without having one.

TonySoprano ji, the Buddha supposedly called his path "Arya-ashtanga-marga" - the "8-fold Arya path". Does this mean his path is for a so-called "Aryan race" that is caucasoid and antagonistic to australoid races?? But I find that "arya-ashtanga-marga" is usually translated as "the noble 8-fold path" - anyone who follows it through to its conclusion is ennobled as an end phenomenon.

Why is it that when The Buddha uses "Arya" it is usually translated as "noble", but the same word used by a Veda/Vedanta source is given a Nazi colour? Kindly help me understand.

Buddhist texts also laud Arya-varta, as `punyabhoomi'. Ashwaghosha, in his famous text, Saundarananda is all in raptures about the virtues of the people of Aryavarta and the hero, Nanda, is referred to as an `Arya'.

nageshks wrote:

Agnimitra wrote:Has TonySoprano ji been banned again? Don't understand why he pops in and out of conversations without having one.

TonySoprano ji, the Buddha supposedly called his path "Arya-ashtanga-marga" - the "8-fold Arya path". Does this mean his path is for a so-called "Aryan race" that is caucasoid and antagonistic to australoid races?? But I find that "arya-ashtanga-marga" is usually translated as "the noble 8-fold path" - anyone who follows it through to its conclusion is ennobled as an end phenomenon.

Why is it that when The Buddha uses "Arya" it is usually translated as "noble", but the same word used by a Veda/Vedanta source is given a Nazi colour? Kindly help me understand.

Buddhist texts also laud Arya-varta, as `punyabhoomi'. Ashwaghosha, in his famous text, Saundarananda is all in raptures about the virtues of the people of Aryavarta and the hero, Nanda, is referred to as an `Arya'.

Buddha was trying to accomodate everyone in the one true Dhamma including the Caucasoid brahmins, it was a true universalistic philosophy unlike brahminism were you are either born into it or not. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. Look at the caste system that was created by the Brahmins: there is a strong racial component to it, infact it is racial apartheid. And infact the racist caste system upheld the legitimacy of Brahminism. Buddha, from the non-Aryan lands of the eastern Gangetic plains (Greater magadha) was the first one to challenge that. Brahmins had always demonized Rakshasas-Australoids- in every instant they got. First they called them Dasyus, then Asuras, then Rakshasas. Different words for the same people: the Australoid substratum that genetically unites all Indians from the South all the way to the Himalayas. What is important that even Hindoo texts such as Ramayana say that Rakshasas were more wealthy, had bigger palaces and forts, etcs. than Hindu Aryans.

Brahmins had always demonized Rakshasas-Australoids- in every instant they got.

Is it the brahmins who demonized or the vedas according to you? Indra whom 'brahmins' venerate was punished many a time. Many Gods were cursed, many gandharvas were cursed, why did you ignore that? what makes you think only asuras and rakshasas were demonized, for that matter Sri.Krishna says in Gita "among rakshasas, I am Prahlada...". And Vishnu is a Aryan God no according to you?

Maya-shaba was built by a Rakshasa for Pandavas (it was named after him), supposed to be an unparalleled palace unknown to Rakshasas or any Gods in architecture. Just to say not all the time Rakshasas had big palaces after that matter. You should atleast be reasonable no?

adharma is adharma whether God does that or the asuras. Who ever does that shall be punished. And what makes you think Rakshasas and Gods were living beings for that matter? could they be work of fiction to elucidate dharma? every person could be a rakshasa or deva based on which side he takes....dharma or adharma...

I am tempted by words like Caucasoid brahmins to ask the following.

Is Shiva Brahmin?

Was Krishna brahmin?

Why did Parashuram, a brahmin, ultimately got restrained by Rama who broke the dhanush? If there was so much superiority complex, why not continue to engage in an indefinite war against Rama?

Why would Rama wash the feet of Shabari?

What was the caste of Sudama?

Was Ravana brahmin?

Why does a Caucasoid brahmin like Shukracharya suddenly become the military guru of the Demons (non-Aryans??).

Alas, last time I read Asuras and Devas were part of the same fraternity....let us check the lineage of the Daityas and Rakshashas. If brahmins have always demonsized so and so how come we are still sticking around with this knowledge? Any pointers folks?

Is it not time to look around and see how much garbage has been peddled until now when ALL these stories show multiple hints towards multiple layers of time and multiple histories of social changes. Cherry picking instances for brahmin bashing from the Puranas does not help when counter examples are pooh-poohed from the very SAME SOURCE. It is sheer hypocrisy and opportunistic\convenient distortion of facts. Rationalism stops there. If objective search of truth is not the agenda, then sorry it is an entirely different story - we are feeding a troll.

TonySoprano wrote:Buddha was trying to accomodate everyone in the one true Dhamma including the Caucasoid brahmins,

This is your explanation of why he called his Dharma "arya-ashtanga-marga" ?? To placate and trick the Nazi-Brahmins into abandoning their supposed apartheid philosophy?? So in order to dissuade the Boers, Mandela should have called his movement "The Aryan/Nordic/Boer Way"!

Instead, think of it this way - Gandhi often appealed to "Christian" morality in his fight against British apartheid and exploitation in India and everywhere else. He tried to epitomize nominally Christian ideals such as turning the other cheek, etc. This was his way of pointing out to the Brits that though they called themselves "Christian", their actions and thinking were far from it. In a similar way, the Buddha must have appealed to the "Arya" morality precisely in order to point out the hypocrisy within society, especially the aristocracy, at that time.

OK bro, it looks like you have no idea what these words mean - Arya, Varna, Jaati, Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra, Rakshasa, Dasyu, Dasa, etc. The misunderstood word is the root cause of semantic confusion and thereby ignorance. If I may make a suggestion, here is some reading that quotes primary sources -

TonySoprano wrote:it was a true universalistic philosophy unlike brahminism were you are either born into it or not. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. Look at the caste system that was created by the Brahmins: there is a strong racial component to it, infact it is racial apartheid.

1. Agniveer: There is no caste-system in Vedas
2. Agniveer: Vedas condemn birth-based caste discrimination
3. Agniveer: Manu Smriti and Shudras

Please note that the lockdown of "varna" into "jaati" happened primarily over the last 14 centuries - with roots probably going back to around 200 BC or so. The commentators such as Sayana (14th c. AD), Mahidhara (16th c. AD) and Uvata (11th c. AD) who corroborated the caste-system were less than even 1000 years ago!

TonySoprano wrote:Brahmins had always demonized Rakshasas-Australoids- in every instant they got. First they called them Dasyus, then Asuras, then Rakshasas. Different words for the same people: the Australoid substratum that genetically unites all Indians from the South all the way to the Himalayas. What is important that even Hindoo texts such as Ramayana say that Rakshasas were more wealthy, had bigger palaces and forts, etcs. than Hindu Aryans.

Keep reading -

4. Agniveer: Vedas and Dasyu in Hinduism
5. Agniveer: Vedas and Daas
6. Agniveer: Rakshas in Vedas and Hinduism
7. Agniveer: Arya and Castes
8. Agniveer: Vedas and Shudra
9. Agniveer: Vedas and Dignity of Labor

If you really want to understand class-dynamics through the eyes of the Vedas, be prepared for a shock (a pleasant shock). Because the Veda excoriates those people and communities who think they are somehow special by birth, or by being circumstantial inheritors of some special knowledge, etc. In fact, the Vedic vision of class-dynamics in society is far more subtle and satisfying than Marxist "class-struggle" dialectics.

10. Parikramah: The Dasyu-Dāsa dynamic vs. "class struggle" theory

Agnimitra wrote:

TonySoprano wrote:Buddha was trying to accomodate everyone in the one true Dhamma including the Caucasoid brahmins,

This is your explanation of why he called his Dharma "arya-ashtanga-marga" ?? To placate and trick the Nazi-Brahmins into abandoning their supposed apartheid philosophy?? So in order to dissuade the Boers, Mandela should have called his movement "The Aryan/Nordic/Boer Way"!

Instead, think of it this way - Gandhi often appealed to "Christian" morality in his fight against British apartheid and exploitation in India and everywhere else. He tried to epitomize nominally Christian ideals such as turning the other cheek, etc. This was his way of pointing out to the Brits that though they called themselves "Christian", their actions and thinking were far from it. In a similar way, the Buddha must have appealed to the "Arya" morality precisely in order to point out the hypocrisy within society, especially the aristocracy, at that time.

OK bro, it looks like you have no idea what these words mean - Arya, Varna, Jaati, Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra, Rakshasa, Dasyu, Dasa, etc. The misunderstood word is the root cause of semantic confusion and thereby ignorance. If I may make a suggestion, here is some reading that quotes primary sources -

TonySoprano wrote:it was a true universalistic philosophy unlike brahminism were you are either born into it or not. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. Look at the caste system that was created by the Brahmins: there is a strong racial component to it, infact it is racial apartheid.

1. Agniveer: There is no caste-system in Vedas
2. Agniveer: Vedas condemn birth-based caste discrimination
3. Agniveer: Manu Smriti and Shudras

Please note that the lockdown of "varna" into "jaati" happened primarily over the last 14 centuries - with roots probably going back to around 200 BC or so. The commentators such as Sayana (14th c. AD), Mahidhara (16th c. AD) and Uvata (11th c. AD) who corroborated the caste-system were less than even 1000 years ago!

TonySoprano wrote:Brahmins had always demonized Rakshasas-Australoids- in every instant they got. First they called them Dasyus, then Asuras, then Rakshasas. Different words for the same people: the Australoid substratum that genetically unites all Indians from the South all the way to the Himalayas. What is important that even Hindoo texts such as Ramayana say that Rakshasas were more wealthy, had bigger palaces and forts, etcs. than Hindu Aryans.

Keep reading -

4. Agniveer: Vedas and Dasyu in Hinduism
5. Agniveer: Vedas and Daas
6. Agniveer: Rakshas in Vedas and Hinduism
7. Agniveer: Arya and Castes
8. Agniveer: Vedas and Shudra
9. Agniveer: Vedas and Dignity of Labor

If you really want to understand class-dynamics through the eyes of the Vedas, be prepared for a shock (a pleasant shock). Because the Veda excoriates those people and communities who think they are somehow special by birth, or by being circumstantial inheritors of some special knowledge, etc. In fact, the Vedic vision of class-dynamics in society is far more subtle and satisfying than Marxist "class-struggle" dialectics.

10. Parikramah: The Dasyu-Dāsa dynamic vs. "class struggle" theory

I will read your sources as time permits, but first let me ask you why they are all from a Hindu nationalist organization that itself is descended from Hindu nationalist Arya Samaj? Some impartiality..huh?

Abhi_G wrote: Is Shiva Brahmin?

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

Was Krishna brahmin?

The kshatriya god Krisna was invented to rival Buddha (who was called a kshatriya), which I will get at in a later post

Why did Parashuram, a brahmin, ultimately got restrained by Rama who broke the dhanush? If there was so much superiority complex, why not continue to engage in an indefinite war against Rama?

So? This was an internal Aryan struggle between the Brahmins and Kshatriyas. Kshatriyas came out on top in Gupta times, which was when Aryan kshatriya gods like Rama became popular. So of course the kshatriya Rama would be against the genocidal brahmin Parashurama.

Why would Rama wash the feet of Shabari?

Where do you get your information from? Amar Chitra Katha? Ramanand Sagar?

What was the caste of Sudama?

Irrelevant

Was Ravana brahmin?

He was not pure Brahmin, ask any brahmin today what they would call a "brahmin" who had a non-brahmin mother.

Why does a Caucasoid brahmin like Shukracharya suddenly become the military guru of the Demons (non-Aryans??).

Brahmins have always been oppurtunistic, look at all the Brahmin ministers during Moghul times.

TonySoprano wrote:I will read your sources as time permits, but first let me ask you why they are all from a Hindu nationalist organization that itself is descended from Hindu nationalist Arya Samaj? Some impartiality..huh?

They quote the primary sources. Period. They are peer reviewed by Vedic pandits and authors well known in the Vedic scholarly fraternity. Period.

Arya Samaj types are aggressively against the caste-hierarchy system. You should find an ally in them. Instead, it appears that you are so brainwashed by your Marxist mentors (who have hijacked neo-Buddhism), that the mere identification as "Hindu" is enough to set you off like a jihadi. This is called neuro-linguistic programming. I urge you to stop being a guinea pig and try to understand the purva paksha. I look fwd to hearing from you after you have completed reading.

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

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

The kshatriya god Krisna was invented to rival Buddha (who was called a kshatriya), which I will get at in a later post

, I like that.

Agnimitra wrote:
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.

How can Buddhists ever accept the Hindus as brothers when they think like you? This proves my point, history is witness, the Hindus always persecuted Buddhists and they in turn gave as good as they got. I will now be posting some more evidence of the systematic violent extermination/genocide of Buddhism by brahmins.

by TonySoprano
Dhamma

What is Dhamma?
I am guessing it is the same thing as Dharma i.e. Righteous things to do!

This proves my point, history is witness, the Hindus always persecuted Buddhists and they in turn gave as good as they got. I will now be posting some more evidence of the systematic violent extermination/genocide of Buddhism by brahmins.

You come here, write something which is inaccurate when pointed out, you say "that proves my point"? good enjoy, why post more? you are satisfied? enjoy throw a party.

Tony ji, you should post in OIT, we all think AIT is wrong, take up the challenge and prove us wrong. Please bring some friends of yours.

TonySoprano wrote:

Agnimitra wrote:
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.

How can Buddhists ever accept the Hindus as brothers when they think like you? This proves my point, history is witness, the Hindus always persecuted Buddhists and they in turn gave as good as they got. I will now be posting some more evidence of the systematic violent extermination/genocide of Buddhism by brahmins.

Nooo nononono. Kindly address all the reading material I took the trouble of posting for you. You are laboring under a lot of misunderstood terms, poisoned by malicious propagandists and twisted after being thrust into your heart. Kindly do not balk and go off at a tangent without addressing fundamental terms.

You seem to think that my comment above is an insult to Buddhism. Far from it. I have readily criticized any Hindu cult, including caste-Brahminism also. But I consider the Vedas and Vedanta to be a very valuable resource. Similarly, I do believe hat Buddhism as a process is a valuable part of Indic Sanskriti.

So quit using it as an excuse and a diversion from the actual conversation.

You are demonstrating extremely bad faith here, which according to Buddhist principles is no way to have a heart to heart conversation.

TonySoprano wrote: Buddha was trying to accomodate everyone in the one true Dhamma including the Caucasoid brahmins, it was a true universalistic philosophy unlike brahminism were you are either born into it or not.

Shall we take a look at the number of sages in Indian mythology who were not born Brahmins, but were accepted as Brahmins? Why was Vishwamitra accepted as a Brahmin? What about Ved Vyasa? Was he born a Brahmin? Third is the case of Jabaali. Was he born a Brahmin? Are you even aware that even Rakshasas had their own Brahmins? Virochana, who is said to have understood Brahmavidya (He is even called Adhyatma Vidyanidhi) and considered as a Brahmin (he officiates at Yagnas).

The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. Look at the caste system that was created by the Brahmins: there is a strong racial component to it, infact it is racial apartheid. And infact the racist caste system upheld the legitimacy of Brahminism.

Race? Are you even aware that the Brahmins themselves celebrated dark complexion? Krishna himself was dark. So, by the way, was Rama (dark as a thundercloud in complexion, is what he is described as). In fact, I am trying to recall a single hero from Indian classics who was described as tall and fair in complexion. The only one I can think of offhand is Nala, but otherwise, none of the heroes are lauded for their fair colour of skin.

Buddha, from the non-Aryan lands of the eastern Gangetic plains (Greater magadha) was the first one to challenge that. Brahmins had always demonized Rakshasas-Australoids- in every instant they got. First they called them Dasyus, then Asuras, then Rakshasas. Different words for the same people: the Australoid substratum that genetically unites all Indians from the South all the way to the Himalayas.

While I pretend no expertise over Vedic Sanskrit, the words you have written all refer to very different things in literary Sanskrit. `Dasyu' never even refers to any group of people, as far as I know. As for Rakshasas and Asuras, they were all considered to have the same father as the Devas, and were judged by the same laws. Indra, when he sinned, was punished as harshly as the Rakshasas were. The law was above all, and that was also part of the code followed by the same Nazi Aryans ......

What is important that even Hindoo texts such as Ramayana say that Rakshasas were more wealthy, had bigger palaces and forts, etcs. than Hindu Aryans.

Dude, where did you get the idea that the Rakshasas were not Hindus? Ravana, and Virochana worshipped Brahma and Shiva (at least, will you accept that Brahma is an Aryan God?) Prahlada and Bali worshipped Vishnu. Baana, worshipped Shiva. So - what makes them non-Hindu?

TonySoprano wrote:

Agnimitra wrote:
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.

How can Buddhists ever accept the Hindus as brothers when they think like you? This proves my point, history is witness, the Hindus always persecuted Buddhists and they in turn gave as good as they got. I will now be posting some more evidence of the systematic violent extermination/genocide of Buddhism by brahmins.

Calling Buddhism a `cult' proves that we are a bunch of genocidal Nazis, who exterminated Buddhists? You are a riot and a half.

Buddhism's own history is, of course, littered with bones of its wars, both fratricidal and against other religions. In Japan, the Buddhists were such a severe problem that it required Oda Nobunaga's ruthlessness to bring a semblance of peace to the country. And afterwards, when the Buddhists won in the Catholic-Buddhist wars in Japan at the beginning of the Tokugawa Shogunate, the Buddhists used extraordinary brutality in putting down the Christians. In particular, I encourage you to look up the acts of Kato Kiyomasa and how he dealt with Christians. In China, during the T'ang times, the Buddhist sects were such a severe problem that they turned the entire country into a giant battlefield, leaving thousands of people dead. Buddhism's own extirpation of Hinduism in south east Asia was by no means exactly peaceful. Tony, have you ever read how Buddhists extirpated Hinduism from Champa and the Khmer kingdom in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries?

Calling Buddhism a `cult' proves that we are a bunch of genocidal Nazis, who exterminated Buddhists? You are a riot and a half.

Buddhism's own history is, of course, littered with bones of its wars, both fratricidal and against other religions. In Japan, the Buddhists were such a severe problem that it required Oda Nobunaga's ruthlessness to bring a semblance of peace to the country. And afterwards, when the Buddhists won in the Catholic-Buddhist wars in Japan at the beginning of the Tokugawa Shogunate, the Buddhists used extraordinary brutality in putting down the Christians. In particular, I encourage you to look up the acts of Kato Kiyomasa and how he dealt with Christians. In China, during the T'ang times, the Buddhist sects were such a severe problem that they turned the entire country into a giant battlefield, leaving thousands of people dead. Buddhism's own extirpation of Hinduism in south east Asia was by no means exactly peaceful. Tony, have you ever read how Buddhists extirpated Hinduism from Champa and the Khmer kingdom in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries?

At least Japan nipped the Christian problem in the bud while the impotent Indians are now facing a huge and rapidly growing Christian population. Let it be known for the record that I much rather see India as majority Hindu than Christian. Anyways regarding Champa and Khmer kingdoms, as I said the Buddhists gave as good as they got: Hindus collaborated with Muslim barbarians in finishing of Buddhists according to Giovanni Verardi's book which I quoted earlier and NO ONE has replied to it. It is cheap to say Buddhism influenced the wars of China. In China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam, ie the Confucian countries Buddhism was always subservient to the state, always toeing to its line, unlike in SE Asia where the Sangha had high levels of influence on government.

Kerala is one place in India where the influence of Buddhism in society as well as in the current form of religion (Brahmanism/Hinduism) is the most evident of all other places.

Perhaps this is because neither the Hunas, Scythians, or Turks destroyed Buddhism there. But the Indo-Aryan Brahmins did.

The following two links are very informative and extensive in shedding the light on its Buddhist past.

http://ajaysekher.net/2010/01/03/buddhism-kerala/

http://www.academia.edu/2538492/The_Bro ... _in_Kerala

A popular play written by a Buddhist called "ChandalaBhikhshuki" is still enacted and recited in Kerala.



Furthermore Onam signifies the defeat of Buddhism in Kerala.

http://indiafirsthand.com/2009/08/29/on ... in-kerala/

During this period many Buddhists from Kerala fearing prosecution from the Brahmins actually started following Islam and Christianity (which were fairly new faiths in the region at that time). It is interesting to note that many Muslims and Christians in Kerala today call their place of worship as “Palli”. Palli is a Buddhist word derived from the word Pali, which is the language of Buddhism (as compared to Sanskrit which is the language of the Brahmin religion). Although Onam celebrates the return of King Mahabali it also in a way signifying the end of Mahabali’s faith and belief system which is Buddhism.
After the fall of Buddhism many of its religious sites including Ayyappan Temple in Sabarimala or the Kodungallur temple where either included in the Hindu pantheon or in some cases their Buddhist idols where replaced with Hindu idols. There remains only one temple dedicated to Vamanamurthy (Vishnu as the dwarf who defeated Mahabali) in Kerala. It is located in Thrikkakara (near Cochin). This area is considered to have one of the earliest Brahmin settlements in Kerala. More on Lord Ayyappan in a later article. Meanwhile Happy Onam to all of you.

Dr. Jayaprakash says: a number of Buddha statues have been discovered at places like Ambalapuzha, Karunagapalli, Pallickal, Bharanikkavu, Mavelikara and Neelamperur in Kerala. ‘They are either in the form of smashed pieces or thrown away from viharas. Lord Ayyappa of Sabarimala and Lord Padmanabha at Thiruvananthapuram are the proxy images of Buddha being worshipped as Vishnu. Hundreds of Buddhists were killed on the banks of Aluva river. The term ‘Aluva’ was derived from ‘Alawai’ which means ‘Trisul’, a weapon used by Hindu fanatics to stab Buddhists. Similarly, on the banks of the Vaigai river in Tamilnadu, thousands of Buddhists were killed by the Vaishnava Saint, Sambanthar. Thevaram, a Tamil book, documents this brutal extermination of Buddhism.’

TonySoprano wrote:

Calling Buddhism a `cult' proves that we are a bunch of genocidal Nazis, who exterminated Buddhists? You are a riot and a half.

Buddhism's own history is, of course, littered with bones of its wars, both fratricidal and against other religions. In Japan, the Buddhists were such a severe problem that it required Oda Nobunaga's ruthlessness to bring a semblance of peace to the country. And afterwards, when the Buddhists won in the Catholic-Buddhist wars in Japan at the beginning of the Tokugawa Shogunate, the Buddhists used extraordinary brutality in putting down the Christians. In particular, I encourage you to look up the acts of Kato Kiyomasa and how he dealt with Christians. In China, during the T'ang times, the Buddhist sects were such a severe problem that they turned the entire country into a giant battlefield, leaving thousands of people dead. Buddhism's own extirpation of Hinduism in south east Asia was by no means exactly peaceful. Tony, have you ever read how Buddhists extirpated Hinduism from Champa and the Khmer kingdom in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries?

At least Japan nipped the Christian problem in the bud while the impotent Indians are now facing a huge and rapidly growing Christian population. Let it be known for the record that I much rather see India as majority Hindu than Christian. Anyways regarding Champa and Khmer kingdoms, as I said the Buddhists gave as good as they got: Hindus collaborated with Muslim barbarians in finishing of Buddhists according to Giovanni Verardi's book which I quoted earlier and NO ONE has replied to it. It is cheap to say Buddhism influenced the wars of China. In China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam, ie the Confucian countries Buddhism was always subservient to the state, always toeing to its line, unlike in SE Asia where the Sangha had high levels of influence on government.

Calling Buddhism a Cult is what gets your goats but Saivism is Cult for you. And that makes you feel safe. Why don't you just admit that you want to be a 'Religion'.

Also just to remind you, not just the Buddhists, even the Muslims and Christians want this country to remain a Hindu majority country.

Regarding your scholarship. We are not beholden to Giovanni Verardi. You are. So you find the proofs. Proofs which you have not adduced. All you have are claims and mostly these are shifty claims. Your theories have been countered by several people on the thread and your latest theory here has already been killed off by nageshks earlier http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... i#p1480965. You had promised to give a fitting reply to it about a month and half back and I am eager to see you befool yourself here.

Further on, the extracts and references posted by you from Giovanni Verardi has nothing to do with South East Asia. Which is what you were queried on. Pls read the query by nageshks again - "Tony, have you ever read how Buddhists extirpated Hinduism from Champa and the Khmer kingdom in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries?"

You rely on translations (your admission earlier) and in time the likes of you will rely on translations of translations and by the end of it all nobody would even remember what was said in the first place. This is what the Brahmins wanted to avoid when they did shastrarth with Buddhists. And you can see the result, all you need to see is the bathroom mirror. The Buddhists who had any sense left after they were competed out of business by Muslim But-Shikani, converted back to their original dharma.

TonySoprano wrote:

Calling Buddhism a `cult' proves that we are a bunch of genocidal Nazis, who exterminated Buddhists? You are a riot and a half.

Buddhism's own history is, of course, littered with bones of its wars, both fratricidal and against other religions. In Japan, the Buddhists were such a severe problem that it required Oda Nobunaga's ruthlessness to bring a semblance of peace to the country. And afterwards, when the Buddhists won in the Catholic-Buddhist wars in Japan at the beginning of the Tokugawa Shogunate, the Buddhists used extraordinary brutality in putting down the Christians. In particular, I encourage you to look up the acts of Kato Kiyomasa and how he dealt with Christians. In China, during the T'ang times, the Buddhist sects were such a severe problem that they turned the entire country into a giant battlefield, leaving thousands of people dead. Buddhism's own extirpation of Hinduism in south east Asia was by no means exactly peaceful. Tony, have you ever read how Buddhists extirpated Hinduism from Champa and the Khmer kingdom in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries?

At least Japan nipped the Christian problem in the bud while the impotent Indians are now facing a huge and rapidly growing Christian population

Dude - do you know how they crushed Christianity? And is it a template you advocate that people use against religions you dislike? When you look up what Kato Kiyomasa did and the practices of fumi-i, I will be happy to debate this with you.

Anyways regarding Champa and Khmer kingdoms, as I said the Buddhists gave as good as they got:

And pray what did the Hindus of Vijaya and Angkor do to the Buddhists? Or is it your view that for any sins committed by any Hindus, all are equally responsible and vengeance of any degree can be visited on them by the holy, divine, pure Buddhists?

Hindus collaborated with Muslim barbarians in finishing of Buddhists according to Giovanni Verardi's book which I quoted earlier and NO ONE has replied to it.

You quoted a summary. You have not quoted the PRIMARY evidence, as I suggested you do. I happen to be in a very large and well funded university, with a top class library, but even my library does not have Verardi's book, nor had the people in the comparative religions department heard of Verardi or his book. And I am certainly not going to buy the book. In any case, I am not going to wade through an entire book for evidence. If you post the relevant PRIMARY evidence for specific incidents, we can have an informed debate.

It is cheap to say Buddhism influenced the wars of China. In China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam, ie the Confucian countries Buddhism was always subservient to the state, always toeing to its line, unlike in SE Asia where the Sangha had high levels of influence on government.

It is very clear that you have not the slightest idea of the role played by Buddhism in the histories of China, Japan, Korea and Vietnam. Confucianism was not always the dominant ideology in any of the countries (and it is debatable how much influence Confucianism has had in Japan and Vietnam, whose societies have their own peculiar characteristics). All of them, however, suppressed Buddhism violently (and the Buddhists gave as good as they got, too). Maybe they are also racist Nazis?

Krishna was Invented to Rival Buddha

Around the 2nd Century AD when Buddhism was in its peak popularity in the Indian subcontinent, and the Brahmins had also established themselves in majority of the parts of India for a few centuries, though still as a minority and elite race very different from the native cultures of natives of India. While the Shramanic religions were well established among the native Indians with monasteries, stupas and temples, most of the Brahmins were still learning their own religious and mythological literature and indulging in Vedic rituals and magic.

Since the popularity of Buddhism was enormous, something had to be done about it. So Brahmins created a parallel myth to the Buddha. Krishna, as a human-god was born, a completely new canon was written (Bhagavad Gita) taking ideas from Buddhist literature. The new book (Gita) was appended into Mahabharata to establish sanctity of its origin. Many ideas taken from Shramanic thought, which had started to influence the Vedic peoples a few generations earlier itself, were now added into the Brahmanic literature with new Upanishads and other literature. But no other text acts as the steep transition of though among the Indo-Aryans from their ritualistic religious practices to the more ascetic ideals than the Gita in which Krishna introduced concepts like Karma, rebirth, Nirvana etc. A few generations later, the Brahmins had started to call these ideas as their own.

Some of the similarity between Buddhism and the laws of Krishna as laid in Gita is so starking as to erase any further doubts of one having influenced the other. Many scholars have done comparisons between the two. For example, the parable of the Prodigal's son, which is a whole chapter in Lotus Sutra, is repeated by Krishna in Lotus Sutra in almost a word to word similarity. The only difference is that, aside fom the Shramanic ideas, now the Gita again propounds the theory of varna and of how Brahmins stand at the top of the ladder. Although it doesn't explicitly state that the Varnas and divisions are by birth, it can be easily implied from various verses, which means it was still indirectly supported by Brahmins.

"A number of ideas in Gita", as Kashi Nath Upadhyaya says, "are borrowed from the Buddhist Nikayas", more, "it has assimilated all those Buddhist elements which could be conveniently fitted into its scheme". It is on the other hand more appropriate that of the numerous pieces of Brahmanic literature, the Bhagavat Gita has made the maximum absorption from Buddhism. In his "History of Indian civilization" (Vol. 1, pp 282-283), Radha Kamal Mukherjee brand the ideas transported from Saddharma-pundarika sutra (Lotus sutra) to the Gita as parallelism which is only a mild defense for outright plagiarism.

pg 177

"A Social history of India" by S. N. Sadasivan

"As in his brilliant study "Early Buddhism and the Bhagavad Gita", Kashi Nath Upadhyaya says, " when we compare the yoga of Buddhism with the yoga described in Yogasutra of Patanjali, the similarities are so striking that they hardly leave any doubt regarding the one being influenced by the other"

- " A Social history of India" by Sadasivan

The scholar Kashi Nath Upadhyaya wrote a whole book - "Early Buddhism and Bhagavad Gita", comparing the Gita with early Buddhist ideas, which shed a whole light of the deep influences the former had for latter.


However, somewhere down the line (sometimes around when Mahayana was very popular), when the Buddha could not be ignored at all, he was added as an avatar of Vishnu, with the caveat that he had deliberately come down to Earth "to deceive the demons/Asuras and deviate them away from Holy Vedas by preaching heretic doctrine". Of course, it was also to show Buddhism as being a subset of Brahmanism. But not all sects agreed to this, which is evident from the fact that some other puranas do not show Buddha as a Vishnu avatar.

Tony Soprano ji,
Haven't been visiting this thread. Thanks for bringing Verardi into this. We can get to his output in a while.

But before all that, some humble questions :
(1) If you are bringing Verardi in, are you conversant with the archeological evidence he claims supports his thesis?

(2) are you able to read "original sources" he "paraphrases" in his own sweet interpretations? Like Xuan Xang?

(3) Are you aware of the advent of tantra within Gangetic valley Buddhism? And the factional infighting that is evident among the Budhhists of the "north" as well as the south - including yes, from that period's Kerala? Would you be familiar with the sources that discuss "heretics" bashing from such sources?

Just a hint - are you aware of something called "eating the heart of the Brahmana"?

There are two ways forward, you can think about whether this polemical battle is at all necessary, given the obvious recognition of ground realities and common enemies that you acknowledge. Either you still choose to further this debate, which will not be nice for the images of people like Prof Verardi and his methods or "agenda" [something he accuses others freely of, but on rare occasions, his own does come out too - if we apply his own methods characterizing "agendas"] - or we skip this bit, and think of building commonalities and bridges.

I am game to discuss his works. But it will force me to discuss aspects of buddhist linen that you would rather not want washed in such public debate.

TonySoprano wrote:Krishna was Invented to Rival Buddha

Are you kidding?!!!

Around the 2nd Century AD when Buddhism was in its peak popularity in the Indian subcontinent, and the Brahmins had also established themselves in majority of the parts of India for a few centuries, though still as a minority and elite race very different from the native cultures of natives of India. While the Shramanic religions were well established among the native Indians with monasteries, stupas and temples, most of the Brahmins were still learning their own religious and mythological literature and indulging in Vedic rituals and magic.

How do you prove this peak of popularity? Archeologically? Can you cite the sources you are using to claim this? What is the proof that Brahmins had "established" themselves for a "few centuries" at that stage? How do you know that their "culture" was very different from the native cultures? Assume that they were not "natives"? Where are you getting all this stuff!!! How do you know that they were racially different at that stage? Really, the commoners and non-elite had the tremendous resources to spare to build elaborate and extensive stupas+monasteries+temples and the "minority but elite" did not have the resources to do so? Have you ever actually gone through stupa-chaitya-vihara architecture to estimate the labour and material cost of the rock cut and brick-stone massive structures? Have you really ever cared to study the early Sanskrit texts of buddhism and even the Simhala Pali canon? You never did - for otherwise you would have seen the fact of the first Buddhist founders being very urban, very elite, coming from the richest and elite, and living in rather luxurious arrangements of "pleasure gardens" donated or assigned by wealthy people - not at the centre of the city but also not far from the city - in the traditional places of "pleasure" ityadi. You would have seen how most of the early founders were also "Brahmins" and some were shresthis and some kshatryias - but they all had one thing in common - they were all elite. Even in the early literature, "Brahman" and "shraman" are used almost equivalently.

Since the popularity of Buddhism was enormous, something had to be done about it. So Brahmins created a parallel myth to the Buddha. Krishna, as a human-god was born, a completely new canon was written (Bhagavad Gita) taking ideas from Buddhist literature. The new book (Gita) was appended into Mahabharata to establish sanctity of its origin. Many ideas taken from Shramanic thought, which had started to influence the Vedic peoples a few generations earlier itself, were now added into the Brahmanic literature with new Upanishads and other literature. But no other text acts as the steep transition of though among the Indo-Aryans from their ritualistic religious practices to the more ascetic ideals than the Gita in which Krishna introduced concepts like Karma, rebirth, Nirvana etc. A few generations later, the Brahmins had started to call these ideas as their own.

Some of the similarity between Buddhism and the laws of Krishna as laid in Gita is so starking as to erase any further doubts of one having influenced the other. Many scholars have done comparisons between the two. For example, the parable of the Prodigal's son, which is a whole chapter in Lotus Sutra, is repeated by Krishna in Lotus Sutra in almost a word to word similarity. The only difference is that, aside fom the Shramanic ideas, now the Gita again propounds the theory of varna and of how Brahmins stand at the top of the ladder. Although it doesn't explicitly state that the Varnas and divisions are by birth, it can be easily implied from various verses, which means it was still indirectly supported by Brahmins.

Or the Buddhist founders being elite brahmin/ksatryas suffering urban and/or midlife anomie - simply used memes they were familiar with from their birth culture and education - the "survey of the battlefield" section of the evidently older and much popular mahabharatha as well as the Upanishadic stream. Note that the Upanishadic ideas also form the core of the "Brahamana" texts - such as shatapath. Buddha's ksatryia origins probably inclined him towards adapting from a text which was essentially in its core a battlefield pep-talk, evolving into a theory and theology of action and social engagement.

Yours is a speculation - so my speculation should worth a thought too.

"A number of ideas in Gita", as Kashi Nath Upadhyaya says, "are borrowed from the Buddhist Nikayas", more, "it has assimilated all those Buddhist elements which could be conveniently fitted into its scheme". It is on the other hand more appropriate that of the numerous pieces of Brahmanic literature, the Bhagavat Gita has made the maximum absorption from Buddhism. In his "History of Indian civilization" (Vol. 1, pp 282-283), Radha Kamal Mukherjee brand the ideas transported from Saddharma-pundarika sutra (Lotus sutra) to the Gita as parallelism which is only a mild defense for outright plagiarism.

pg 177

"A Social history of India" by S. N. Sadasivan

"As in his brilliant study "Early Buddhism and the Bhagavad Gita", Kashi Nath Upadhyaya says, " when we compare the yoga of Buddhism with the yoga described in Yogasutra of Patanjali, the similarities are so striking that they hardly leave any doubt regarding the one being influenced by the other"

- " A Social history of India" by Sadasivan

The scholar Kashi Nath Upadhyaya wrote a whole book - "Early Buddhism and Bhagavad Gita", comparing the Gita with early Buddhist ideas, which shed a whole light of the deep influences the former had for latter.

Naturally naturally - the first convenient fudging is based on pushing the date of the composition of the Geeta as later than the buddhist verses - as if the buddhist verses could not have been loaded and edited later on too to adapt to established or entrenched or popular "Brahminical" systems! This is the same order of BS that AIT theory sought to establish.

Barebones argument will go like this, if Buddhism was not there before - and came to onlee with Siddhartha Gautam [both could be adapted and given names hinting at clues to his real ideological origins in complete contrast to your fantastic claims] then there was a transitional phase when it was weaker than the previously existing system. In that phase, to communicate his ideas to the people who were more familiar with the older memes - the most convenient method and vehicle for Buddha would be to use the previously existing memes that were closest to what he wanted to highlight. This was so he could ensure that he would be understood and able communicate with his intended audience. Therefore if he found the ideas of "survey of battlefield" closest to his own inspiration, he would use them in sermons. It would therefore be the Geeta that influenced him rather the other way around.

However, somewhere down the line (sometimes around when Mahayana was very popular), when the Buddha could not be ignored at all, he was added as an avatar of Vishnu, with the caveat that he had deliberately come down to Earth "to deceive the demons/Asuras and deviate them away from Holy Vedas by preaching heretic doctrine". Of course, it was also to show Buddhism as being a subset of Brahmanism. But not all sects agreed to this, which is evident from the fact that some other puranas do not show Buddha as a Vishnu avatar.

Ah! who was one of the chief popularizers and inventors of the "mahayana" method - pray? Ashvaghosha. What were his origins? Non-elite? non-urban? commoner? non-Brahmin? Are you aware of his connections to theatre with props? And what do all the answers to my above questions imply for his background and social position and associations? Who then is more likely to have copied and adapted from whom? Are you also conveniently forgetting the harsh struggle of the two sects in the formation of the mahayana? Is not mahayana seen by the hinayanis as heresy, corruption and pseudo-Brahmanism? Are you saying you are blissfully unaware of the textual evidence of this confrontation?!!

I precisely want to point out the following:

The very foundations of logical thought that are applied w.r.t characters like Rama, Krishna and other "brahminical" deities are NEVER to be applied to characters like Budhdha. Why does the very logic that is applied while dismissing Krishna as a figment of imagination originating much much later to "rival" Budhdha (thereby automatically making him INFERIOR), is NEVER applied to the origins of Siddhartha Gautama? How come legends relating to Siddhartha Gautama become the truth whereas Krishna (0h my GOD! I should stop chanting his name!) is FALSE and NOT TRUE.

Why do all notions of rationalist thinking vanish or at least all human faculties involving suspicion suddenly appear at the mention of Krishna or Rama? Just because a large number of brahmins revere them? Last time I checked, I found photos of the above deities in homes, shops, workshops, taxis autos where no brahmins are to be found - well maybe they were all brahmins!

No no - it is just a coincidence where a certain line of thought is repeated with the aim of establishing it as the ONE VALID TRUTH, ONE VALID PATH or ONE TRUE DHAMMA. Everything else is untruth.

Wow! I find so many uncanny similarities with "other" ideologies - only one true way, everything else is falsehood!

Sangha was first attempt of Indics to start something similar to "church". If the takshashila allumni story of Jesus is to be believed, then most probably he got th idea of establishing the "church" might. Have come from Buddhist Sangha.

Buddha is 9th Avataara of Vishnu. He not only reformed some aspects of prevalent Indic narrative but also facilitate the export of certain parts of Indic culture abroad (Actually it was Ashoka).

Rest is maya onlee. The sangha is not in sync with the kulachaara based adhyatmik family-clan based traditions of aastika paths. The organized religion is ore often than not a major pain in the mushrraf, because with time, the asurik character of this power pyramid always grow stronger.

Buddhists by harsha's time had become too decadent. Plus Siddhartha Gautama himself had predicted fall of his path in thousand years. So it happened. When they met the even stronger asura, many of the buddhists had gone so far in alieanating aastikas that they cut all the ropes of return. This is how they behaved in Sindh.

Any idealogy which is hierarchical and autocratic is aasurik. And madhvacharya is right. Tony ji has an aasurik and dictatorial streak in him. It is good that the 9th avataara of vishnu has attracted him and not the "one true god of peace and love". So, I am glad that buddha has yet again salvaged an Indic asura from going the abrahmic way. In a way, Buddha is a fire-break provided by Indic traditions for intellectual extremists. For criminally bent minds, we had paths like some parts if tantra, shaakta traditions which culminated in formation of India. Mafia network - the "thugee" cult of Bhavani. As I have said many times, Indics need to have their handle on the extremists within without compromisig with the core of the mainstream. Buddhism on one hand and thugee on the other provided the much needed firebreak for dharma without much cost or loss of allegiance. Thugs and Pindaris have helped Marathas a lot during their reconquest against Mughals. In fact their hold over criminal network allowed them to control the gondwana area where Mughals and Brits (then and now) fear to tread.

While people might consider "asura" in negative connotations, I do not. Even Indra, Surya, Varuna and even Shiva (for his act of consuming halahala) is called "asura" by our rishis. An authoritative and dictatorial meme or person is more often than not, Aasurik. So I think Tony ji should take it as a complement.

Having said that, he has to understand that india is an aastika country. Has always been an aastika country. Aastikas have time and again survived and defeated foreign asuras. The quasi-aasurik memes of Parshurama exists in aastika memes which are witing to be unleashed. And aastikas will. But aastika traditions WILL NOT become authoritarian like Sri Buddha's path.

Take refuge of truth and untruths in the arguments. Krishna extensively quotes from upanishads. In fact that is why adi shankara called BG as navneet (butter which represents the essence of milk - similarly BG is the essence of Upanishads). The philosophies like sankhya, yoga, upanishads etc predate buddha. Mahabharat, ramayan, vedas etc predates buddha. It is buddha who drew inspiration from these epics like many other indics. So no point in defending the indefensible by giving false arguments.

Mafia network - the "thugee" cult of Bhavani.

Atri, off-topic - Devi Chaudhurani, Kapalkundala and subsequently Anandamatha are inspired from these only if I am not wrong. Insurgencies against Mughals and subsequently against portuguese and brits.

Isn't there supposed to be many - infinite- budhhdhha in the past and will be in future.

Abhi_G wrote:

Mafia network - the "thugee" cult of Bhavani.

Atri, off-topic - Devi Chaudhurani, Kapalkundala and subsequently Anandamatha are inspired from these only if I am not wrong. Insurgencies against Mughals and subsequently against portuguese and brits.

Yes dada...

the destruction of the Indian mafia network has been quite detrimental to the sovereignty of India..

TonySoprano wrote:Dr. Jayaprakash says: a number of Buddha statues have been discovered at places like Ambalapuzha, Karunagapalli, Pallickal, Bharanikkavu, Mavelikara and Neelamperur in Kerala. ‘They are either in the form of smashed pieces or thrown away from viharas. Lord Ayyappa of Sabarimala and Lord Padmanabha at Thiruvananthapuram are the proxy images of Buddha being worshipped as Vishnu. Hundreds of Buddhists were killed on the banks of Aluva river. The term ‘Aluva’ was derived from ‘Alawai’ which means ‘Trisul’, a weapon used by Hindu fanatics to stab Buddhists. Similarly, on the banks of the Vaigai river in Tamilnadu, thousands of Buddhists were killed by the Vaishnava Saint, Sambanthar. Thevaram, a Tamil book, documents this brutal extermination of Buddhism.’

I will leave the Malayali parts to someone who knows better Malayali than me, but for the case of Thevaram, I went on to check what is there in the Thevaram of Sambandar. For starters, Sambandar was a Shaiva saint (tradition claims that he was breast fed by the Goddess Parvati), one of the sixty four Nayanars, not a Vaishnava, but let us ignore that initial faux pas of your hero. All I could find was his adventures with the Pandyan King and his Jain courtiers. There is only one mention of Buddhists in the Thevaram of Sambandar - he defeated a bunch of Buddhist theologians in argument and they converted to Shaivism after their defeat. That is all. No river Vaigal, no butchery of the Buddhists. Maybe I am missing something here, but can you post the accurate reference to the Thevaram?

Abhi_G wrote:I precisely want to point out the following:

The very foundations of logical thought that are applied w.r.t characters like Rama, Krishna and other "brahminical" deities are NEVER to be applied to characters like Budhdha. Why does the very logic that is applied while dismissing Krishna as a figment of imagination originating much much later to "rival" Budhdha (thereby automatically making him INFERIOR), is NEVER applied to the origins of Siddhartha Gautama? How come legends relating to Siddhartha Gautama become the truth whereas Krishna (0h my GOD! I should stop chanting his name!) is FALSE and NOT TRUE.

Why do all notions of rationalist thinking vanish or at least all human faculties involving suspicion suddenly appear at the mention of Krishna or Rama? Just because a large number of brahmins revere them? Last time I checked, I found photos of the above deities in homes, shops, workshops, taxis autos where no brahmins are to be found - well maybe they were all brahmins!

No no - it is just a coincidence where a certain line of thought is repeated with the aim of establishing it as the ONE VALID TRUTH, ONE VALID PATH or ONE TRUE DHAMMA. Everything else is untruth.

Wow! I find so many uncanny similarities with "other" ideologies - only one true way, everything else is falsehood!

Are you by chance one of those Hindus who believe that Mahabharata war happened 2.3 billion years ago and that the god Shiva lives on Kailash mountain? If so, I rest my case.

If not, let me tell you there is NO archaeological proof of Rama (who is supposed to live 1.7 million years ago) and Krishna. Earliest buildings in Ayodhya are Jaina and in Mathura they are Buddhist. It is interesting to note that all of the Hindu temples in these towns (including the ones subsequently destroyed by Turkic invaders) were built on the remains of Buddhist viharas or Jain derasars. Sound familiar no? Do you now think the Hindus should still make a big fuss over Ram mandir when the fact is modern humans hadn't even evolved 1.7 million years ago: more like 150,000 years ago.

So you seem to have proof that they built on Buddhist temples. Since you cliam to know better, why don't post some archeological proof instead? Please do that.