A Few Glimpses from South Indian History

[suraju06]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Shri Suraju,

Since you are talking for yourself only and claim that you do not come under the orthodox group, I accept the same. But written language has some limitations and it is not always possible to describe each person individually in posts like those in this forum. For example, S/Shri Nara, myself, Smt. HH and sometimes Shri Kunjuppu are all bracketed as "reformers/reformists", sometimes as those who do "brahman-bashing", etc., for the sake of convenience to indicate all the persons in the opposing team by one collective term. But it may not always be the exact true position.

I do not get what you mean by "homogenisation" and hence I am unable to make any comments at this point. Now the word "nihilist" has the following dictionary meanings:

Someone who rejects all theories of morality or religious belief, An advocate of anarchism.

Before I try to answer your comment about my "nihilist's approach" pl. let me know whether you impute all the above aspects or only some.

Similarly, the last sentence in your post viz., "Only difference is that we refuse to accept defeat and keep fighting whereas the reformists have already buckled and wilted under pressure.", appears to convey something but what exactly is not clear. For example, what kind of pressure and for what?, how do you conclude that the reformists hold whatever view/s you find expressed by them because "they have buckled and wilted" under that (presently unclear) external (very possibly, from the context) pressure and that it cannot be as a result of their own thinking without any external forces pressurizing them to change.

Dear Sangom Sir,

I had posted my reply to your questions in the above post yesterday itself. But i find that that has been deleted obviously for the reason that it had the banned words like reformists etc., in it. The ban came into effect just before my posting perhaps. I used those words only as a matter of convenience as you have used them in your quoted post here. But moderator chose to delete my post while leaving your post and this gives an impression that I have not cared to answer your question or that I have no answers. So I will be posting my reply after editing the banned words from it so that you can know what I have to say in reply to your valid queries. If the moderator closes this thread before that I will send my reply by a PM to you. I will Cheers.
Dear Sri suraju Ji,

Just for the record:

1. Sri Sangom Ji's above cited post was made on 19-03-2011 at my local time 3:46 AM.
2. My post announcing the Labeling rule was announced on 19-03-2011 at 9:29 PM.
3. Your response to Sri Sangom Ji, that violated this rule was on 20-03-2011 at 11:37 AM, and after you have posted a response that did not label.

YOURS CAME MUCH LATER AFTER THE RULE WAS ANNOUNCED, WHILE SRI SANGOM JI'S POST CAME BEFORE I ANNOUNCED THE RULE.

In the future, please do not question the moderator's neutrality, saying things that somehow are supposed to show that I am partial towards some members.

KRS.

 

[sravna]

Looking at the content of the posts here it looks like the moderators are in for a very difficult and an unenviable task. Should we live with this or should we bring in a very controlled setting?

That is the reason the idea to leave to members to decide what is acceptable and what is not acceptable will work better though I don't think there will be any perfect solution. At least just like democracy they get what they deserve.

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Advaita and Buddhism. This debate is hundreds of years old. Madhavacharya is reported to have called Adi Sankara a crypto-Buddhist.

Two questions arise here.

1. Was Buddhism considered a separate religion by the Hindus. The present day Buddhists would like to argue that it was always a separate religion. But then why did the Hindus consider Buddha as an Avatara of Vishnu. This is not something which was concocted recently. Srinivasa Gobinda .....Bhouddha, Kalki Gobinda, Gobinda, Hari Gobinda is a common prayer. Not written by secular people.

THE SARVA-DARŚANA-SAṂGRAHA OR REVIEW OF THE DIFFERENT SYSTEMS OF HINDU PHILOSOPHY by MÁDHAVA ÁCHÁRYA. lists Buddhism and Jainism as Hindu Philosophies. He has included even Charvakas.

Madhava Acharya was the head of the Shringeri Math in A.D. 1331.

In Śríharsha-charita, when King Harsha wanders among the Vindhya forests, he finds "seated on the rocks and reclining under the trees Árhata begging monks, Śvetapadas, Mahápáśupatas, Páṇḍarabhikshus, Bhágavatas, Varṇins, Keśaluñchanas, Lokáyatikas, Kápilas, Káṇádas, Aupanishadas, Ísvarakárins, Dharmaśástrins, Pauráṇikas, Sáptatantavas, Śábdas, Páñcharátrikas, &c., all listening to their own accepted tenets and zealously defending them."

Hinduism has grown by absorbing and assimilating the good thoughts from everywhere.

Aaa No Bhadra Kratavo Yanthu Vishvataha (Let noble thoughts flow into your mind from all sides )— Rig Veda

This is a mere quote today. But for our ancestors it was the the basic principle. The principle on which Hinduism is founded.

Buddhism and Jainism has contributed to the development of what is Hinduism today.

Actually it is Adi Sankara's Maya Vada which is supposed to be of Buddhist origin. Sankara's followers were called maya vadins earlier.

Adi Sankara only consolidated Advaita Vedanta. There were many schools of Advaita earlier.

I got a book recently. This is called Misconceptions about Sankara, by Swami Satchithanendra Saraswathi published originally in 1973 which throws light on this issue. The explanation is very technical quoting Upanishads and Sankara's works.

How about Ramana Maharishi's followers in U.K, U.S and other places who claim that Adi Sankara's Advaita has nothing to do with Hinduism.

Nonduality: The Varieties of Expression

2. Did Adi Sankara bring about the demise of Hinduism.

No. There is no story of Adi Sankara having been involved in a debate with Buddhists. Sakyamuni Buddha was against the rituals of the Karma Kanda of the Vedas. It was Kumarila Bhatta the Purva Mimansa exponent who is reported to have countered the Buddhists. Advaita itself was against rituals and the most important debate of Adi Sankara's life was against Mandana Mishra disciple of Kumarila Bhatta who propounded Purva Mimansa.

It is strange but true that there were no debates between the Hindus and Buddhists. The Buddhists rejected the rules of Nyaya by which all other schools were bound.

 

[Nara]

...The problem with what you say in post no.574 is that you (deliberately) miss the obvious and stress the trivia..

Dear Saidevo, I am sorry you feel this way, but it is alright. I have already said what I had to say, I would like to leave it at that. As the cliche goes, at least we are able to disagree without being disagreeable.

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri saidevi Ji,

I wish Professor Nara Ji has not commented on the Moderator's job. I wish more that you did not make the statements you have made here.

The reason for rules is simple - it reflects on the conduct of the Forum members. I am sorry to say that many of you are intent on questioning the rules (and non rules I might add, because you have conveniently included the 'Jalra' and 'Proxy', even though those were mere requests of conduct from me without any consequences). This shows your mind set of not honoring what the moderator says. Why don't you as you say try to covey the intent of labeling others through other words? It is my job to look behind the words. And, as I have said, please try.

Your public advice regarding moderation is also not welcome. If you have such suggestions in the future, send me a PM.

I do not want a public response to this anymore. Any more discussion about anything to do with moderation is not allowed. All, please take this as a warning.

Regards,
KRS

namaste Nara.

The problem with what you say in post no.574 is that you (deliberately) miss the obvious and stress the trivia.

My preference to 'Like' (and possibily that of shrI Nacchinarkiniyan too) what Raju said in his post no.574 is because of the statistics he provided for the year 2011, and not because he said that the forum members were not born in 1912. Is this not obvious, Nara, specially when I have further appreciated Raju's input in my post no.581 with further inputs on my part? So why do you try to give a twist in what we 'Like' in that post?

[As you can see in my above statement, there is a 'proxy' there: I can't avoid speaking for shrI Nacchinarkiniyan, knowing what he is from his well-meaning posts in this forum. Are you prepared to say that shrI Nacchinarkiniyan 'Like'-d Raju's post for the 'pot shot', rather than for the statistics he has provided? You know that if you do, it would be ungenerous, which is not your style.]

shrI Nacchinarkiniyan stated in his post no.552, "Nor am I interested in proving that I am correct", and followed it up with a quote from Thomas Jefferson in post no.560. So, your PS in post no.587 may not be of help.

Thus, with Raju's post no.574, the issue has become the brahmin-dominant statistics of 1912 vis-a-vis the zero-dalits figures in 2011, which effectively shows what Vivek has argued all along--that the dalits today are harassed by other upper castes and neglected by the politicians. and that brahmins have nothing to do with or regret for the present situation.

*****

As for your observations about the moderator's tough task, I totally agree with you, which is why, in an indirect way, I have tried to convey to him that he is unnecessarily burdening himself.

• This entire thread, right from its OP, is meant to be a debate, wherein members are bound to align into at least two groups. Unlike a paTTimanRam, there is no arbitrator here to judge the result, so there is bound to be shades of acrimony, although there would/should be no personal ill-feelings.

• So, the moderator only burdens himself (unnecessarily IMO) with the three rules he has imposed now, because the added tasks of watching over these rules is bound to increase the pressure of his work and might even tell on his physical health, going by what we the members are and can be in debates.

• The rule about 'labels' may not work because it can always be circumvented. For example, I used to group the people who are for reform here by the label 'reformists'. Now I can group them as 'open minded people' or even 'people who seek reform' and vary the references so they cannot be construed as labels, and obtain what I want to say, right?

• Should the moderator silently and helplessly watch over then? No. He has the most powerful weapon: editing and deleting entire posts. It is obvious because of my being a man of sampradAya, I don't possess the capability of a moderator, but then if I were one, I would first underline/highlight/otherwise indicate in a mild color, right under a post, any objectionable portion of the post, with a caution that if the member does not change/drop it, the entire post will be summarily deleted (despite of any useful contents therein), giving him/her a time of two or three days.

Like everyone here, I have great regard and concern for shrI KRS and his work, which is why I would request him to simplify his tasks, and not complicate them.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sir,

I typed out a reply and found it running into 3 pages (and am still not done with the comparison part between advaita and buddhist concepts). So please give me some time. I shall start a new thread and put up all the material there. However, i shall reply to your second question first here:

(2) I do not think Adi Shankara efforts effectively finished off Buddhism in India. Buddhism thrives in India well enough (though as a minority religion). The downfall of Buddhism was mainly achieved by muslim invaders who razed Buddhist monastries, and ransacked Buddhist universities like Nalanda, Vikramashila, etc. By the time Adi Shankara came on the scene Buddhism was already dwindling. However, Shankara did debate Buddhists and helped in demolishing it from the intellectual pov.

Regards.

Smt HH,

History gives the credit for weakening Buddhism and re-energizing the vedic hinduism to Pushyamitra Sunga (supposed to be a saamavedi Brahman general in the army of the last Mauryan Emperor Brihadratha (next to Asoka)) who assassinated his Emperor in 185 B.C.E. Muslims came much later, somewhere near about Adi Sankara's time. The Sunga empire lasted about 110 years.

 

[happyhindu]

Smt HH,

History gives the credit for weakening Buddhism and re-energizing the vedic hinduism to Pushyamitra Sunga (supposed to be a saamavedi Brahman general in the army of the last Mauryan Emperor Brihadratha (next to Asoka)) who assassinated his Emperor in 185 B.C.E. Muslims came much later, somewhere near about Adi Sankara's time. The Sunga empire lasted about 110 years.

Thankyou Sir. I stand corrected on that.

Regards.

 

[KRS]

Folks,

I am giving one more day for any comments on Sri Sangom Ji's last post, where in he summarized the gist of his argument as well as other arguments against his.

Please respond soon if you want to to his query as to whether you agree with his summary. By this time after 24 hours, this thread will be closed, as per his request.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Nara]

.... But then why did the Hindus consider Buddha as an Avatara of Vishnu. This is not something which was concocted recently..

Dear Mr. Nacchinarkiniyan, I am not sure about Smarthas, but I know SVs do consider Buddha as an avatara of Vishnu, but in a diabolical sense. First, for SVs Buddha avatara is not one of the top 10, collectively called Dasavatara. Next, they consider Vishnu took Buddha avatara to preach lies to asuras and lead them to misery. If I am a Buddist, I would be offended by this kind of outrageous characterization of Buddha's teachings. I am not a Buddist and am still outraged by this kind of patronizing arrogance.

Cheers!

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Dear Mr. Nacchinarkiniyan, I am not sure about Smarthas, but I know SVs do consider Buddha as an avatara of Vishnu, but in a diabolical sense. First, for SVs Buddha avatara is not one of the top 10, collectively called Dasavatara. Next, they consider Vishnu took Buddha avatara to preach lies to asuras and lead them to misery. If I am a Buddist, I would be offended by this kind of outrageous characterization of Buddha's teachings. I am not a Buddist and am still outraged by this kind of patronizing arrogance.

Cheers!

I am in total agreement. Nara. Sad. My sampradhaya has a lot in common with the Tibetan Buddhists. I remember the time when we visited the Vajreswari temple in Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. The deity is Maa Taara. There was a Tibetan lama praying there. We stood watching him. His ritualistic worship was almost the same as ours. Then that is Tantra and I would not dare to quote that with reference to Adi Sankara.

 

[Nara]

....This is a major reason for the conflicts in this forum. In most of the internet forums (religious and computer related) you can remain silent. You do not have to prove anything. You do not have argue "till you are blue in the face." Of course some do.

Even when I have made it clear that I am not here to prove anything or impose my point of view, many members expect me to do that.

[..]
I prefer silence. Please allow me that privilege.

Dear Mr. Nacchinarkiniyan,

Please correct me if I am wrong, but what I gather is, this is a discussion forum, not a blog. If one wants to make op-ed type of posting and a dialog is not welcome, then, this web site has a blog section that can be used, no? The op-ed type post could be made as a blog entry and people may comment on it without expecting a response from the author.

However, when one chooses to post one's opinion as a forum post, then, it seems to me, again I invite correction if I am wrong, there is an implicit expectation of a dialog. Here, I would like to submit to you that having a dialog is not necessarily an attempt to prove or impose a particular POV. If and when an impasse is reached, or if a poster turns into a pest, we always have the option of walking away, which I have myself done often.

To freely take the liberty to post one's opinion in a forum meant for dialog, and then refusing to engage even in a reasonable dialog preferring to remain silent, is, I feel, quite unreasonable and disheartening.

Of course this is your prerogative. I find it strange that on the one hand you want to protect your turf from POV that you don't approve (in Bribing god thread), and on the other feel free to express opinions in other threads and refuse to even respond to what I think are reasonable queries with a blanket statement expressing a wish to remain silent.

Let us not think having a dialog by itself means we are out to prove the other person wrong. We may disagree, but as long as we do it with sincerity and dedication to truth, we all are friends. I am not trying to prove anything, all I want to do is to present what I consider to be another way to think, that is all. If you like it take it, otherwise tell me your view and we will talk about it and in the process have fun and may be learn a thing or two.

Cheers!

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Sri. Nara. I can understand your point of view.

Please see this forum where I have posted frequently.

Audarya Fellowship

The most popular Hinduism forum. Unfortunately this is no longer active. Of course this is a religious form.There have been heated arguments. But the original poster was never expected to respond to all the postings. It is his choice. Raghy also expressed this view. It is the dialogue part of it which I would disagree. A discussion is IMO more than a dialogue.

People express opinions which may or may not agree with the opinion of the starter of the thread. As long as one does not digress from the original subject it is fine. One too many threads have been hijacked in this forum. I do have objections to that because it defeats the very purpose of the thread.

In the thread Trying to bribe GOD there are many posters who have expressed a different opinion than my own. I do not want to argue. I post reiterating my opinion and also post about Bhakthi yoga. I objected to your posting only because it involved a discussion about our belief in GOD.

 

[saidevo]

namaste s/shrI Nacchinarkiniyan and Nara.

I became a member of Audarya Fellowship long back but was not active. I think Nara was active there, am I right, Nara?

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Talking about Moderators, I was once a Moderator here. Not that I did any moderating. Kunjuppu was also a moderator if I remember correctly.

I left the moderator's position because it was beyond me.

KRS is doing an excellent job. I would request the members not to make his job difficult.

I have moderated in some forums like Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters. There it used to come automatically by points accumulated. I did not like it.

 

[kunjuppu]

right nacchi,

i was a moderator too. it was rathher offered to me which i reluctantly took. but i did not enjoy it, and i think my 'moderating' judgements went against the core of this forum's sesne of fairplay . i got myself cheerfully kicked out, though i suspect that KRS still has some lingering hard feelings over some fo the exchanges that we had. i probably came double faced to him, but basically i cannot judge people as right or wrong, which is what moderating is all about. there are some boundaries drawn and one has to pull up members seen violating it. for me, the lines are constantly moving. so how can i moderate?

i had forgotten about this completely i think KRS is doing a good job. we members really behave like truants many a times, yours truly probably stands at the top the bratpack.

nacchi when you quit last ime, you might remember pleading very much to you to come back, you ignored me. i changed after that, in the sense, that i felt that you quit because good people sat back and watched while the vultures went after you. i sort of felt guilty that i did not do enough to stop bullying by a certain cabal.

hope you don't quit again in a huff. whatever it maybe i think it is important for our views to be heard. as is supected there isa silent majority out there, who need to hear the voice of the alternate to the moribund redundant tambaram 'superiority' stuff force fed at home ie most homes, if i take my family as an example.

i too quit recently and when i thought about it, i realized how silly i was. quickly i tucked my tail between my legs, and crept slowly (& quietely) back here, and i think i am back in good grace of most members here

let us all enjoy the forum for its worth and make it enjoyable for others too.

 

[ShivKC]

right nacchi,

i was a moderator too. ........


there are some boundaries drawn and one has to pull up members seen violating it. for me, the lines are constantly moving. so how can i moderate?

.

sir, in your own typical sublime style, you said it all.. THE LINES ARE CONSTANTLY MOVING... i dont know how much it moved for last 5 or 10 years, but for sure, i felt the same in the last 6 months. and if there is an option to press the LIKE button on ones own posts, this post would be the first one, i would be try pressing that LIKE button

 

[Nara]

...It is the dialogue part of it which I would disagree. A discussion is IMO more than a dialogue. .

Thank you Mr. Nacchinarkiniyan for your response. What happens in other forums not withstanding, I feel this forum of ours has a tradition (as far as I can recall) of exchange of ideas, discussion, dialog, whatever you may call it. My request to you is only that participate in full, please do not assume a back and forth is an attempt to prove or disprove.

Thank you....

I became a member of Audarya Fellowship long back but was not active. I think Nara was active there, am I right, Nara?

Saidevo, I have never been a member of that forum, but I do find some of the posts I had made in my poorvashrama )) in some other forum appearing there, I don't know how.

Cheers!

 

[suraju06]

Dear Sri suraju Ji,

Just for the record:

1. Sri Sangom Ji's above cited post was made on 19-03-2011 at my local time 3:46 AM.
2. My post announcing the Labeling rule was announced on 19-03-2011 at 9:29 PM.
3. Your response to Sri Sangom Ji, that violated this rule was on 20-03-2011 at 11:37 AM, and after you have posted a response that did not label.

YOURS CAME MUCH LATER AFTER THE RULE WAS ANNOUNCED, WHILE SRI SANGOM JI'S POST CAME BEFORE I ANNOUNCED THE RULE.

In the future, please do not question the moderator's neutrality, saying things that somehow are supposed to show that I am partial towards some members.

KRS.

[/QUOTE]

Dear Moderator,
This is to correct the obvious mistakes that have kept into the record:

1. Sri Sangom Ji's above cited post was made on 19-03-2011 at my local time 3:46 AM.

-- The date and time may be a little different But I do not have any corrections here. It is indeed a fact that I responded to Sri Sangom's post after some hours had gone by. That was by choice. So no mistakes in what you have posted.

2. My post announcing the Labeling rule was announced on 19-03-2011 at 9:29 PM.

The time and date according to what I see here for the above post from you is post #565 time 7.59 p.m date 20-3-2011 and not what you have stated above. I do not know how this mistake crept into your post.

3. Your response to Sri Sangom Ji, that violated this rule was on 20-03-2011 at 11:37 AM, and after you have posted a response that did not label.
YOURS CAME MUCH LATER AFTER THE RULE WAS ANNOUNCED, WHILE SRI SANGOM JI'S POST CAME BEFORE I ANNOUNCED THE RULE.

My post was uploaded by me as post #577 on 20-3-2011 at 8.15 p.m. Sri Saarangam had even commented about my post at 10-38 p.m on 20-3-2011 vide post #576. It is a different story that my post #577 was meanwhile deleted and thus Mr. Saarangam 's post itself appeared as #576-it is still there- (in which he had questioned the propriety of my post #577!! Yes 576 speaks about what is said in 577!!!). So my post when it was posted did not have the benefit of knowledge of your post banning group names.This is the truth contrary to the record you have created now.I am posting this only to correct the records which you are creating. This is not to challenge you in any way or to prove anything to you. Obviously your computer is following a different date and time line in a different country and that is why some confusion. But then I am at a loss to understand how there can be mistakes within a given time line/dateline.Cheers.

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Nara. That forum harvested many posts from Yahoo groups. I also found a number of my old postings from 2001 and on there. That is how I landed there. I was searching for one of my old posts in google.

Later I joined there and became an active member.

We kept to our own practices/specializations.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri suraju06 Ji,

Just to clarify - the times I have posted are my local time, which is 11hours 30 minutes behind yours.

Does not matter about the time. The computer sequentially numbers the posts and when a post is deleted, the numbers are resequenced, with the deleted posts not having a sequence # anymore. So, your post indeed was numbered #577 when you posted. I have deleted two posts after that between my instruction post #565 and yours, so Sri Saarangam's post that would have been #578, was resequenced to #576.

So, there were 12 posts between my post and yours and as I have said, adequate time between the two. I do not know whether you have read my post. Anything subsequent to my post, I consider is in violation if it does not conform. Sorry.

Regards,
KRS

Dear Sri suraju Ji,

Just for the record:

1. Sri Sangom Ji's above cited post was made on 19-03-2011 at my local time 3:46 AM.
2. My post announcing the Labeling rule was announced on 19-03-2011 at 9:29 PM.
3. Your response to Sri Sangom Ji, that violated this rule was on 20-03-2011 at 11:37 AM, and after you have posted a response that did not label.

YOURS CAME MUCH LATER AFTER THE RULE WAS ANNOUNCED, WHILE SRI SANGOM JI'S POST CAME BEFORE I ANNOUNCED THE RULE.

In the future, please do not question the moderator's neutrality, saying things that somehow are supposed to show that I am partial towards some members.

KRS.

Dear Moderator,
This is to correct the obvious mistakes that have kept into the record:
-- The date and time may be a little different But I do not have any corrections here. It is indeed a fact that I responded to Sri Sangom's post after some hours had gone by. That was by choice. So no mistakes in what you have posted.

The time and date according to what I see here for the above post from you is post #565 time 7.59 p.m date 20-3-2011 and not what you have stated above. I do not know how this mistake crept into your post.

My post was uploaded by me as post #577 on 20-3-2011 at 8.15 p.m. Sri Saarangam had even commented about my post at 10-38 p.m on 20-3-2011 vide post #576. It is a different story that my post #577 was meanwhile deleted and thus Mr. Saarangam 's post itself appeared as #576-it is still there- (in which he had questioned the propriety of my post #577!! Yes 576 speaks about what is said in 577!!!). So my post when it was posted did not have the benefit of knowledge of your post banning group names.This is the truth contrary to the record you have created now.I am posting this only to correct the records which you are creating. This is not to challenge you in any way or to prove anything to you. Obviously your computer is following a different date and time line in a different country and that is why some confusion. But then I am at a loss to understand how there can be mistakes within a given time line/dateline.Cheers.[/QUOTE]

 

[KRS]

As per my posting yesterday, 24 hours have passed and I am closing this thread.

Regards,
KRS