"Complicatedism"

[sangom]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Digambara jains reject the Shvetambara story. Already mentioned that in post 281.

So-called brahmin followers of Mahavira and Buddha did not leave any historical note, such as an inscription, about their parentage.


Went thru the source provided. As it happens with wiki, the source (p.17 of Dowson's book) is misquoted, misrepresented, used as a fake reference to peddle one of those favorite brahmin theories (that buddha was a vedic brahmin).

Not just p.17, the whole book says nothing about Buddha being a descendent of Angirasa through Gautama.

Please provide which of "our ancient texts" state as a historical fact that Buddha was an Angirasa through Gautama.

Already wrote on Gautama and Angirasa here.

Anyways, seems to me if Kabir had gotten very famous, a bunch of brahmins claiming to be his followers wud have entered the kabirpanthi fold. Eventually we wud have a brahmambara version that kabir was of brahmin embryo origin (very important), but transferred into a mochi lady's womb by a miracle (by the power of 'brahmin' rishis), born for the very purpose of propagating so-called 'vedic' dharmashastra rules (especially among mochis who reject brahmin dharmashastra rules).

Sounds hard or hurtful? Well this is how it is for Buddhists and Jains who are forcibly called hindus, of vedic brahmanical religion.

Palindrome,

There is already a story on similar lines about Sant Kabir.

I am reminded, again and again, of a character in one famous Malayalam Novel "AnavAriyum ponkuriSum (the elephant-sweeper & the golden cross)". AnavAri Raman Nair is of the habit of boasting that any pregnancy in his small village is due to himself. One day someone tells "Pankajam is pregnant" and true to his wont Raman Nair claims "atu njammaLA (I am the reason)". But it transpires that Pankajam is the name of the newly acquired temple elephant!

I feel there is no harm in claiming that all religions have emanated from hinduism or the vedic religion as defined by Shri Jaykay 767, but we should not end up making atrocious claims like AnavAri; that's all.

 

[sangom]

I think you are putting this in another way. I remember you had said earlier that islam will take over all lands or something like that.

If I remember right I had said that Muslims all over the world desire a Pan Islamic world. But I am sure that with the efflux of time all our present gods, vedas, scriptures, philosophies etc., will vanish from the face of the earth and this is true of all other religions also. The only point is that our lifetime is just a wink as compared to the infinite reach of Time or kAla.

We may be able to learn some lessons from studying whatever little is known today, about the extinct religions.

 

[sarang]

No axe to grind?

From the abstract:

"As the lay devotees were ignored, Buddhism started losing the general support from the community. Subsequently the brahmins took advantage of the situation and deepened the rift between the common people and Buddhist practitioners. They also manipulated the contemporary rulers to withdraw their support from buddhism and help in revising existing brahminism."

Then the muslims took over and converted them (forcefully or willingly). The author puts all the blame on brahmins and brahminism. He concludes that modern hinduism is a restatement of ancient buddhism.

Anyway buddhism has vanished from other lands - china, korea, and fast declining in USA despite high immigration of buddhists.

It is like what the investigating officer will claim in a murder case "The butler did it".

Dear Sri Sangom Ji,

You said in post # 296:


Please read this:
CONTRIBUTING FACTORS FOR THE DISAPPEARANCE OF BUDDHISM FROM INDIA | ANKUR BARUA - Academia.edu

This throws some light on the reasons why Buddhism declined in India and more importantly the attitude of Guru Shankara towards Buddhism. This is from a reputed academic scholar, wit no axe to grind.

Regards,
KRS

 

[sangom]

Funny; One's, jeevatma's, karma, good or bad, will come back to the same jeevatma. How I wish, my bad karmas are inherited by some other soul ( I have a list), and someone's good karma is attached to me.

My personal stock index may go to zero, means, I am freed from further transactions and reach moksha, or swells and I am tempted to invest more and more, forever tied to the exchange.

It definitely is funny, especially when most people have been brain-washed to think firmly that the "I"ness continues even after death, across countless births. Papanasam Sivan's song saying,

எடுத்த ஜனனம் எண்ணியெண்ணித் தொலையாது
இரங்கி மகிழ்ந்து தேவரீர் வேணுமென்று
கொடுத்த மானிட ஜன்மம் வீணாகுதே

(eṭutta jaṉaṉam eṇṇiyeṇṇit tolaiyātu
iraṅki makiḻntu tevarīr veṇumeṉṟu
koṭutta māṉiṭa jaṉmam vīṇākute)

But if this be true then why is it that the world over, there is hardly any remembrance about the previous janma, even hazily, just as a living person of 80+ will be bale to recall his childhood? Obviously, the "I" or jeevAtmA does not continue beyond this birth.

But our sages and Acharyas must have known human nature well and so they wanted to put the responsibility squarely on each one of us; that was why they talked about jeevAtmA so that you & I will feel at least some amount of regret and repent for the past karmas at least when misfortune befalls. Even so, you will see that Indians are one of the most corrupt people who cannot be trusted. Consider what would have happened if the truth were told? People would have been completely irresponsible and might have thought on the same lines as you do!

 

[sangom]

If the aztecs say so, one must accept. Unfortunately they have been silenced. Perhaps if the vedic community too is silenced by any means, one has to accept whatever imho fraternity shouts.

Is it not this what the Braboosters are saying - Trojans and Jews plus brahmins invented all religions from the vedas?

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Dear Sri Sangom Ji,

You said in post # 296:


Please read this:
CONTRIBUTING FACTORS FOR THE DISAPPEARANCE OF BUDDHISM FROM INDIA | ANKUR BARUA - Academia.edu

This throws some light on the reasons why Buddhism declined in India and more importantly the attitude of Guru Shankara towards Buddhism. This is from a reputed academic scholar, wit no axe to grind.

Regards,
KRS

Dear KRS,

Reputed author or not, he is repeating the same myths about buddhism, quite contrary to evidences found in various suttas or the buddhist society.

May I recommend to you

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

It is quite a long article. I shall quote from it, when time permits.

 

[kkumar29]

Mr. Sangom,

Just a small correction. the passage you have quoted is from "திருவடி சரணம் என்று நான் நம்பி வந்தேன்" by Gopalakrishna Bharathi, in Kamboji.

K. Kumar

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Jaykay767 Ji,

Extensive historical evidence? Wow! Okay, I give up. Thanks.

Regards,
KRS

Dear KRS,

The one sentence is – all religions come from the Trojans/Brahmins/Jews.

If you read my post, you will find extensive historical evidence. In short, Valmiki Ramayana & Homer Illiad Troy are the same war. Winners write Ramayana, Losers write Troy.

Shaivites are Ravana followers, Vaishnavites are Vibishana followers. Brahmins & Jews are the descendants of these Trojans who wrote the Vedas, Manusmriti, testatment, Bible, Koran etc..

Cheers,

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Sarang Ji,

This is a well researched academic article with citations. If you don't agree with it's conclusions, please find a similar research paper that supports your view and post it here. Thanks.

Regards,
KRS

No axe to grind?

From the abstract:

"As the lay devotees were ignored, Buddhism started losing the general support from the community. Subsequently the brahmins took advantage of the situation and deepened the rift between the common people and Buddhist practitioners. They also manipulated the contemporary rulers to withdraw their support from buddhism and help in revising existing brahminism."

Then the muslims took over and converted them (forcefully or willingly). The author puts all the blame on brahmins and brahminism. He concludes that modern hinduism is a restatement of ancient buddhism.

Anyway buddhism has vanished from other lands - china, korea, and fast declining in USA despite high immigration of buddhists.

It is like what the investigating officer will claim in a murder case "The butler did it".

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri கால பைரவன் Ji,

Thank you for posting this. No, I have not read this before. Let me get back to you on this, after I read it.

The paper I have posted is a research article, with cited sources to buttress their conclusions.

Regards,
KRS

Dear KRS,

Reputed author or not, he is repeating the same myths about buddhism, quite contrary to evidences found in various suttas or the buddhist society.

May I recommend to you

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

It is quite a long article. I shall quote from it, when time permits.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri sangom Ji Sir,

The highlighted portion below, that ascribe qualities to Allah is why He is not Nirguna.

I was pointing out this, because, I think that comparing different concepts from different Spiritual/Philosophical systems to ascribe values compared to one from another, has flaws of reason.

To start with, I would humbly suggest that the concept of 'idolatry' are totally different from the Abrahamic religions to Hinduism in general and Advaitha in particular.

What is considered in 'idolatry' in the Abrahamic religion are the idol figures that do not go anywhere beyond them - a golden bull that was worshiped was nothing but a just a golden bull.

Because the concept of a Nirguna Brahmin is hard to grasp for many folks, Advaitha worship came up with the idea of Ishwara and incorporated the traditions of Purva Mimamsa in to worship.

Each system is different and apparently works for the followers of each.

Regards,
KRS

Shri KRS,

While Allah might have been a "saguna" godhead in pre-Islamic Arabia, the Quran does not describe His gunas. On the contrary, Muslims are forbidden to do any idolatry. The only characteristics of Allah, which man talks about are that Allah is the creator of the universe, and the judge of humankind, his uniqueness, all-merciful quality and omnipotent. The Qur’an declares "the reality of Allah, His inaccessible mystery". Since advaita allows the worship of saguna brahman in many forms, I feel Islam, by prohibiting idolatry, Allah is a better form of nirguna brahman.

 

[Raji Ram]

......... the passage you have quoted is from "திருவடி சரணம் என்று நான் நம்பி வந்தேன்" by Gopalakrishna Bharathi, in Kamboji. ..........

Yes Sir. Here is the full song. This is from NandhanAr chariththiram.

ராகம்: காம்போஜி
தாளம்: ஆதி

பல்லவி:

திருவடி சரணம் என்றிங்கு நான் நம்பி வந்தேன் தேவாதி தேவா நின் (திருவடி)

அநுபல்லவி:

மறுபடியும் கருவடையும் குழியில் தள்ளி வருத்தப்படுத்த வேண்டாம் பொன்னம்பலவா நின் (திருவடி)

சரணம்:

எடுத்த ஜனனம் கணக்கெழுதத் தொலையாது- இரங்கி மகிழ்ந்து தேவரீர் வேணுமென்று

கொடுத்த மானிட ஜன்மம் வீணாகி போகுதென் குறை தீர்த்த பாடுமில்லையே

அடுத்து வந்த என்னை தள்ளலாகாது அரஹராவென்று சொன்னாலும் போதாதோ

தடுத்து வந்தருள சமயம் கோபாலக்ருஷ்ணன் சந்ததம் பணிந்து புகழ்ந்து போற்றும் (திருவடி)


Enjoy this song - upto 4mts 20secs in this video:

Sri.U.Srinivas-Mandolin-Thiruvadi Charanam

 

[palindrome]

You must asked this thousandth time. You better ask a shudra whether he wants to become a brahmin. If you believe in the adage - when there is a will ther is a way - perhaps he may find a solution.

What gives you the right to call anyone a shudra (slave)?

Asked you earlier, please clarify, do you think you are some sorta brahmin who gets to refer to others as slaves? If you think you are a brahmin, please specify which grouping of iyer or iyenger you belong to, i may be able to shed some light on your so-called origins (though it may not be what you imagine it is).

And for your contention, let me be clear on this. After understanding what dharmashastras are about (simply violence), what vedas are about (all those fights between devas and others), i don't think anyone (in their right mind) wants to be a brahmin. People are cleaver enough to use their discerning mind, pick what is good (for chanting or listening), represent that only, and leave the rest. As regards atharva or tantricism, it survives amongst former shudras.

Maybe you should find the will or the way to accept what you represent is either imperfect or dislikable for others. So it is for you to find a solution what you want to do next. Hijacking other religions and claiming them to be vedic will not help; when they (buddhism and jainism) represent the very antithesis of vedic (esp in terms of representing ahimsa, nonviolence towards all living beings).

 

[sarang]

A simple question makes you throw up when there is no need. It was you who was always referring to shudras in your posts.
If you say there are none, then say the question does not arise.
If you ask someone who accepts he is one then ask him whether he is willing to become a brahmin. If his response is yes or no, the question is answered.
If being in a service industry makes one a slave then all call centre/IT/customer support employees are to be labelled as slaves, which is laughable.
It is the inferiority complex that is to be overcome. I am sure all are proud of their caste and family traditions.
As usual you are lost in your own verbose out pour.

What gives you the right to call anyone a shudra (slave)?

Asked you earlier, please clarify, do you think you are some sorta brahmin who gets to refer to others as slaves? If you think you are a brahmin, please specify which grouping of iyer or iyenger you belong to, i may be able to shed some light on your so-called origins (though it may not be what you imagine it is).

And for your contention, let me be clear on this. After understanding what dharmashastras are about (simply violence), what vedas are about (all those fights between devas and others), i don't think anyone (in their right mind) wants to be a brahmin. People are cleaver enough to use their discerning mind, pick what is good (for chanting or listening), represent that only, and leave the rest. As regards atharva or tantricism, it survives amongst former shudras.

Maybe you should find the will or the way to accept what you represent is either imperfect or dislikable for others. So it is for you to find a solution what you want to do next. Hijacking other religions and claiming them to be vedic will not help; when they (buddhism and jainism) represent the very antithesis of vedic (esp in terms of representing ahimsa, nonviolence towards all living beings).

 

[sarang]

I will post on topics of interest to me; will not be sent on a wild goose chase to educate others.
The paper is researched in the sense he has done literature survey of papers carrying the same view and has quoted what others have said. There is no original idea based on any new source or data in that paper.

It is a selective 'review of papers supporting his view'.

Dear Sri Sarang Ji,

This is a well researched academic article with citations. If you don't agree with it's conclusions, please find a similar research paper that supports your view and post it here. Thanks.

Regards,
KRS

 

[KRS]

Okay Dear Sri Sarang Ji.

I have highlighted a sentence from you,below.

Please let us know what other 'papers' that exist in support of your view.

It is very easy to dismiss history. One can not run from it. But at the same time, one has to understand history within the context of those days' mores.

So when people say that the Brahmins attacked Buddhism then, I have no problems accepting it as a fact, without drawing any conclusions based on today's mores. Brahmins were the the safeguards of Hinduism then and I have no issues with them trying to preserve the traditions with whatever allowed practices that existed then. I am sure the other religions tried to do the same.

The problem crops up when we do not acknowledge this truth. We need to acknowledge the reality - that which started as an idealistic system, viz. the Varna system, has morphed in to a caste system, which by the way worked fine for a long time, because of an agrarian hamlet society, and does not work in the modern world.

We can move forward as a community, if we acknowledge this. Let us also understand that any constructive criticism directed towards us in goodwill, should not be viewed as 'attacks' on our community. More than that, it is time to cast away the caste identities and embrace all Hindus as our brethren, and understand how the caste system put our brothers in a deep diasadvantage vix-a-vis the modern world.

Having said this, I also totally reject the ideas of those who blame our community as wholly responsible for the current caste mess. I do not agree with the quota system - I think it saps valuable limited resources without achieving it's objectives, while creating new victims.

Just my pov.

Regards,
KRS

I will post on topics of interest to me; will not be sent on a wild goose chase to educate others.
The paper is researched in the sense he has done literature survey of papers carrying the same view and has quoted what others have said. There is no original idea based on any new source or data in that paper.

It is a selective 'review of papers supporting his view'.

 

[palindrome]

This statement is patently wrong.

For interested readers with unprejudiced mind, I suggest the article below:

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Also a word on sadhus. Sadhus, whether they are jains (yatis) or buddhists (bikkhus) or hindus (sadhus/ parivrajakas) generally do not come under any caste. However it does not mean there is no caste/varna system in any of these religions.

May I recommend to you

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

It is quite a long article. I shall quote from it, when time permits.

I shall wait for you to quote from the article. However, in the meantime I have downloaded and read thru the article in the past hour.

Here there is a big difference between varna and jati (occupation), and the way these terms relate to a Buddhist society, versus a Brahmin dharmashastra model.

Not just from Y.Krishan's paper, but it is an established fact that during Buddha's time social constructs existed, whether it be Jati, Kula, and Gotra.

Gotra is just exogamy, prevalent in tribals to this day, and not a construct exclusive to certain people. Plus, gotra in Buddhist context is spiritual, psychological and intellectual, or at best maybe linked to vamsa or a clan. Kula is specifically a clan. Jati is an occupation. A potter (jati) may belong to sakya kula or gotra. He is not a shudra slave of the brahmin dharmashastra model who must be violently kept subjugated into slavery.

Herein, we are concerned about the context of Varna, which differs in brahmanism versus, buddhism / jainism. Especially in 2 ways -- presence of violence and prevention of mobility across varnas (in brahmanism), versus classification based on inherent proclivities and mobility across varnas (in buddhism and jainism).

That Buddha accepted anyone into the Sangha is undeniable. To whatever extent possible, Buddha and Mahavira addressed and improved the underprivileged.

There are 2 things we must remember - One, Buddhism dwindled bcoz their monks got materialistic and greedy, something which Buddha cannot be held responsible for. Two, good many brahmins entered Buddhism. In view of this it becomes necessary to differentiate the actions of Buddhist monks (and their writings) and what the Buddha himself did / represented.

We must also be clear on what the Buddha says. In hindu puranas, there is a tendency to put words into the mouth of a god; just to establish a point. So comparing the context and comparing against other accounts may be necessary.

Having said so, I must say Y.Krishan's is an excellent paper. Just some observations from Y.Krishan's paper -

(1) Y.Krishan's info is restricted to what was available in his time (he was born in 1922, the paper was published in 1998). He thinks jati and varna are the same -- this imo is the root cause of his misunderstanding of jati in buddhism context.

(2) The author thinks Buddha's explanation of jati 'by birth' automatically means something unchangeable or endorsing the brahmin dharmashastra type of jati. This is his gross misunderstanding. In all explanations it is pretty clear Buddha holds inherent proclivities (coming out of purvajanma karma) a determinant of vocation (kammana) a person pursues. It does not mean a person cannot change an occupation. It does not mean persons of certain occupations cannot become part of sangha or pursue spiritual studies. Buddha does not endorse violence or subjugation into slavery. The brahmin dharmashastra model, on the other hand, fixes an unchangeable jati (occupation) by birth; gets a shudra to have a contemptible name (for easy recognition); and uses violence to keep shudras subjugated into slavery.

(3) I found it comical Y.Krishan suggests Buddha in the Vasetta Sutra was explaining the historical genesis of castes as propounded in the Purusasukta of the Rigveda.

(4) Y.Krishan has totally misunderstood the context of Buddha's preachings on blood purity although he seems to understand the message, that members of the four varnas, Brahmanas, Ksatriyas, Vaisyas and Sudras, could lose their caste identities in present life, that is before death, only on joining the Sangha. (Nice way to propagate Buddhism, knowing well that such a point wud become popular amongst the underprivileged).

(5) The author has misunderstood the word 'dharma'. The sentence "deeds conducive to the ruin of the dharma" does not mean dharma of brahmin dharmashastras. It refers to the buddhist dharma of following buddha's teachings.

(6) The author describes caste system of Srilanka to put forward his theory that buddhism endorsed caste system. The Sinhalese also kill, opposite to what the Buddha taught. If the followers do not follow something, Buddha and Buddhism cannot be held responsible for it.

(7) The author describes caste system of Nepal and Tibet, again, to put forward his theory, that buddhism endorsed caste discrimination. Juxtaposing caste with varna, or creating occupation exclusivity, is an endemic feature of the subcontinent. Any number of Buddhas could not have eliminated it. Only shift into new/secular occupations of present-day will remove those inequalities. Back then, a society depended on certain occupations to survive. The biggest difference is the use of violence to subjugate in brahmin dharmashastras.

I would place Ramanuja in the same category as Buddha and Mahavira. All 3 of them did the best they could, given the circumstances of their time, without a bloodshed revolution, to improve the lives of the underprivileged. These leaders cannot be held accountable for the actions of their followers, or for the writings/interpretations, their followers produced for self-benefit.

The key points what Buddha did are:

(1) Asked rulers to oversee equal distribution of wealth among laborers and slaves, and consider all their citizens as sons and daughters. An opposite of brahmin varna model, where a slave has no right to wealth and is despised.

(2) Introduced a doctrine prohibiting trafficking of slaves.

(3) Admitted anyone of any caste and gender to the sangha.

(4) Gave a chance to any varna, to shed former identity as brahmana, kshatriya, vaishya, shudra; and enter the sangha. A point followed by Buddhist universities which admitted students of any caste. This is opposite of brahmin varna model, where slaves had no right to pursue spiritual studies or an education.

(5) Preached everyone of brahmana, kshatriya, vaishya, shudra are Manushya Jati, and not different by blood, descent, race, tribe. Said the terms are only occupational appellations or labels of occupational groups. (Different from brahmin dharmashastra concept).

 

[palindrome]

A simple question makes you throw up when there is no need. It was you who was always referring to shudras in your posts.
If you say there are none, then say the question does not arise.
If you ask someone who accepts he is one then ask him whether he is willing to become a brahmin. If his response is yes or no, the question is answered.
If being in a service industry makes one a slave then all call centre/IT/customer support employees are to be labelled as slaves, which is laughable.
It is the inferiority complex that is to be overcome. I am sure all are proud of their caste and family traditions.
As usual you are lost in your own verbose out pour.

The only thing people evince interest is in temple pujas. So there maybe people who want to study agamas and become temple priests. But nobody would ever want to be a smarta. Knowing well what violence brahmanical literature represents, nobody wants to be a brahmin, to the best of my knowledge, in known circles.

Your comments might please your likes, but in what manner guys like use the term shudra, is pretty much clear to everyone else, at least to the best of my knowledge, in known circles.

Instead of indulging in potshots and making vague comments, please respond specifically to this:

"do you think you are some sorta brahmin who gets to refer to others as slaves? If you think you are a brahmin, please specify which grouping of iyer or iyenger you belong to, i may be able to shed some light on your so-called origins (though it may not be what you imagine it is)."

 

[sangom]

Mr. Sangom,

Just a small correction. the passage you have quoted is from "திருவடி சரணம் என்று நான் நம்பி வந்தேன்" by Gopalakrishna Bharathi, in Kamboji.

K. Kumar

Dear Shri Kumar,

It is my mistake and I am really sorry for it. Thank you for the correction.

 

[sangom]

I shall wait for you to quote from the article. However, in the meantime I have downloaded and read thru the article in the past hour.

Here there is a big difference between varna and jati (occupation), and the way these terms relate to a Buddhist society, versus a Brahmin dharmashastra model.

Not just from Y.Krishan's paper, but it is an established fact that during Buddha's time units of social constructs existed, whether it be Jati, Kula, and Gotra.

Gotra is just exogamy, prevalent in tribals to this day, and not a construct exclusive to certain people. Plus, gotra in Buddhist context is spiritual, psychological and intellectual, or at best maybe linked to vamsa or a clan. Kula is specifically a clan. Jati is an occupation. A potter (jati) may belong to sakya kula or gotra. He is not a shudra slave of the brahmin dharmashastra model who must be violently kept subjugated into slavery.

Herein, we are concerned about the context of Varna, which differs in brahmanism versus, buddhism / jainism. Especially in 2 ways -- presence of violence and prevention of mobility across varnas (in brahmanism), versus classification based on inherent proclivities and mobility across varnas (in buddhism and jainism).

That Buddha accepted anyone into the Sangha is undeniable. To whatever extent possible, Buddha and Mahavira addressed and improved the underprivileged.

There are 2 things we must remember - One, Buddhism dwindled bcoz their monks got materialistic and greedy, something which Buddha cannot be held responsible for. Two, good many brahmins entered Buddhism. In view of this it becomes necessary to differentiate the actions of Buddhist monks (and their writings) and what the Buddha himself did / represented.

We must also be clear on what the Buddha says. In hindu puranas, there is a tendency to put words into the mouth of a god; just to establish a point. So comparing the context and comparing against other accounts may be necessary.

Having said so, I must say Y.Krishan's is an excellent paper and I am going some other papers now.

Just some observations from Y.Krishan's paper -

(1) Y.Krishan's info is restricted to what was available in his time thinks (he was born in 1922). He thinks jati and varna are the same -- this imo is the root cause of his misunderstanding of jati in buddhism context.

(2) the author thinks buddha's explanation of jati 'by birth' should automatically mean something unchangeable or endorsing the brahmin dharmashastra type of jati. This is his gross misunderstanding. In all explanations it is pretty clear Buddha holds inherent proclivities a determinant of vocation a person pursues. It does not mean a person cannot change an occupation. It does not mean persons pursuing certain occupations cannot become part of sangha or pursue spiritual studies. Buddha does not endorse violence or subjugation into slavery. His doctrine is whatever vocation (kammana) comes about is due to purvajanma karma. This is a benign model. The brahmin dharmashastra model, on the other hand, fixes an unchangeable jati (occupation) by birth, gets a shudra to have a contemptible name (for easy recognition), uses violence to keep shudras subjugated into slavery.

(3) I found it comical Y.Krishan suggests Buddha in the vasetta sutra was explaining the historical genesis of castes as propounded in the purusasukta of the rigveda.

(4) Y.Krishan has totally misunderstood the context of Buddha's preachings on blood purity although he seems to understand the message, that members of the four varnas, Brahmanas, Ksatriyas, Vaisyas and Sudras, could lose their caste identities in present life, that is before death, only on joining the Sangha. (Nice way to propagate Buddhism, knowing well that such a point wud become popular amongst the underprivileged.).

(5) The author has misunderstood the word 'dharma'. The sentence "deeds conducive to the ruin of the dharma" does not mean dharma of brahmin dharmashastras. It refers to the buddhist dharma of following buddha's teachings.

(6) The author describes caste system of srilanka to put forward his theory that buddhism endorsed caste system. The Sinhalese also kill, opposite to what the Buddha taught. If the followers do not follow something, Buddha and Buddhism cannot be held responsible for it.

(7) The author describes caste system of nepal and tibet, again, to put forward his theory, buddhism endorsed caste discrimination. Juxtaposing caste with varna, or creating occupation exclusivity, is an endemic feature of the subcontinent. Any number of Buddhas could not have eliminated it. Only shift into new/secular occupations of present-day will remove those inequalities. Back then, a society depended on certain occupations to survive. The biggest difference is the use of violence to subjugate in brahmin dharmashastras.

I would place Ramanuja in the same category as Buddha and Mahavira. All 3 of them did the best they could, given the circumstances of the time, without a bloodshed revolution, to improve the lives of the underprivileged.

Palindrome,

I am not a subscriber of Jstor. Can you send a copy to me by e-mail please? Thank you.

 

[palindrome]

Palindrome,

I am not a subscriber of Jstor. Can you send a copy to me by e-mail please? Thank you.

sending sir

 

[Jaykay767]

Dear Sri Jaykay767 Ji,

Extensive historical evidence? Wow! Okay, I give up. Thanks.

Regards,
KRS

Dear KRS,

I thought you would be more interested to know given your association with Jewish family.

Pl refer my earlier post on our true origins to understand this in detail.

Almost all the events in Ramayana match those in Troy. Only 1 war in the entire world is fought on a lady which is the Tamil King – Narasimhavarman vs Kannada King – Pulekeshi II. In all the 3 stories – one group claims the lady is kidnapped, the other says, she fell in love & ran away !!

There are both Greek & Aramaic (Language of the state of Israel) inscriptions on the Ashoka Pillars. Kannada is written in Egyptian inscriptions. Etc..


Cheers,

 

[sangom]

The only thing people evince interest is in temple pujas. So there maybe people who want to study agamas and become temple priests. But nobody would ever want to be a smarta. Knowing well what violence brahmanical literature represents, nobody wants to be a brahmin, to the best of my knowledge, in known circles.

Your comments might please your likes, but in what manner guys like use the term shudra, is pretty much clear to everyone else, at least to the best of my knowledge, in known circles.

Instead of indulging in potshots and making vague comments, please respond specifically to this:

"do you think you are some sorta brahmin who gets to refer to others as slaves? If you think you are a brahmin, please specify which grouping of iyer or iyenger you belong to, i may be able to shed some light on your so-called origins (though it may not be what you imagine it is)."

Palindrome,

Excuse me for this frank post.

I am a smarta by birth. I do not think being a smarta is so degrading, though I am not clear how smartas have become such anathema in your view. Also what are the violences represented in brahmanical literature? Do you think such kind of violence goes on among brahmins in general or among the smartas at least, even today? Don't you think the vaishnavas also were smartas before they embraced vaishnavism?

I agree that the term "shudra" was pejorative before Independence and brahmins in TN used to denote NBs by this term for the sake of convenience, perhaps (I don't know.) Possibly the lower castes were serf-like also then. But Independence has changed all those social equations and today any person belonging to any caste can become the President of India even.

But Brahmins as a caste, is separate. Just as a brahmin cannot become a paraiah today and get an SC certficate legally, because Paraiah is also a caste name. The law of the land does not recognise the Shudra varna any more. What is relevant today are castes; and nobody with a modicum of worldly knowledge and right mind will be interested in becoming a brahmin, legally. But this does not mean that all such people are motivated in such refusal by the violence in brahmanical literature, etc. It is just that brahmins are the least preferred caste today in the eys of law and the constitution, if it may be said so.

Still, I think no brahmin/smarta will lament his birth as such brahmin/smarta just as no pariah/pallan will today lament his birth in that caste. The latter have much to gain from the political dispensation today whereas the brahmins have the satisfaction of having made significant contributions to the fields of knowledge and preservation of the vedas through millennia by oral transmission which was the main task of brahmins.

Thus, there is today no reason for bad blood between a B and an NB. All are equal not only in the eyes of law but also before the divine dispensation; if any NB learns the Vedas and mantras and is willing to take up the job of temple priest, he should be allowed to do so. But, ironically, attempts in Kerala by Nambudiris to train the lower castes (including SC) and make them priests has miserably failed because of opposition from the NB people themselves. So, these trained NB priests have been absorbed against white collar jobs in the Devaswom Boards.!!

This is food for thought; what makes the NBs insist on a priest of brahmin lineage?

 

[கால பைரவன்]

There are 2 things we must remember - One, Buddhism dwindled bcoz their monks got materialistic and greedy, something which Buddha cannot be held responsible for. Two, good many brahmins entered Buddhism. In view of this it becomes necessary to differentiate the actions of Buddhist monks (and their writings) and what the Buddha himself did / represented.

This is the sort of prejudice that I had talked about before here.

There are people who seek to propagate that anything bad has brahminical origin and anything good is non-brahminical. As JK said, there are thousands of forums who peddle such theories. It is sad that one gets to see such postings even in this forum.

It is convenient and highly prejudical to talk about "brahmin lineage" when it suits one's argument but oppose them when it does not suit one's argument. Then why all the hue and cry when JK talked about brahmin lineage of buddhist monks and jains.

When there is considerable doubt even today about even when exactly Buddha lived, how can one be exactly sure of what, in buddhism, represented exactly buddha's words and what represented that of the monks. Within the monks, how can one be sure that varna related arguments are put forth only by erstwhile "brahmin" monks. These are all arguments of a biased mind.

The suttas from which Yuvraj Krishna quotes are buddhist scriptures only. They have been buddhist scriptures for the past several centuries. To understand whether buddhism supports varna/caste system, one cannot selectively pick and choose what one wants from these scriptures.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

The author describes caste system of srilanka to put forward his theory that buddhism endorsed caste system. The Sinhalese also kill, opposite to what the Buddha taught. If the followers do not follow something, Buddha and Buddhism cannot be held responsible for it.

(7) The author describes caste system of nepal and tibet, again, to put forward his theory, buddhism endorsed caste discrimination. Juxtaposing caste with varna, or creating occupation exclusivity, is an endemic feature of the subcontinent. Any number of Buddhas could not have eliminated it. Only shift into new/secular occupations of present-day will remove those inequalities. Back then, a society depended on certain occupations to survive. The biggest difference is the use of violence to subjugate in brahmin dharmashastras.

It has been claimed here repeatedly that every other social system other than the varnas whether the jatis or castes were not rigid, but mobile and there were no superior/ inferior notions etc etc. It has been repeatedly claimed that buddhist society or jain social organizations did not have rigid birth based system.

Yuvraj's paper dispels these myths. His argument is persuasive because he not only quotes from buddhist scriptures which provide evidence for justifcation of varna/caste system in buddhism but also has analyzed organization of buddhist societies in various regions. If those societies were flexbile, why we find outcastes in buddhist soceities. Clearly they would not have wanted to remain as outcastes. To come around now and say that "brahmin" varna model was juxtaposed on those flexible buddhist societies is not an acceptable argument, IMO.