Tuesday, December 17, 2013

TOWARDS CULTURAL BUDDHISM -1


How do we go about when we hear the English expression ‘Buddhism’? It seems to be hardly the case to make sense it in any other way rather than its popular connotations as religion and philosophy. Both are usually taken to be corresponding expressions of the Sanskrit words Dharma and darsana respectively. If so, can we have a different way of signification of ‘Buddhism’ other than in the sense of Buddhadharma (religious Buddhism) or Buddhadarsana (philosophical Buddhism)?  This question seems to be pertinent in the context of conceptual ambiguity that prevails in the ways of characterizing Buddhism in relation to Buddha’s own teachings and   the cultural traditions inspired by Buddha. The obscurantism of Buddhism becomes so much apparent when it is being subsumed under the so-called Hinduism. Even though religious Buddhism had its very long successful run in India, in the glorified discourse of Hinduism, Buddhism appeared to have only a self-defeatist stature. While what is said to be the tradition of philosophical Buddhism seems to have got its historical and theoretical credentials, estimation of its contemporary viability (arguments for its ideological imperativeness) appears to be insignificantly lesser and obscure.  Seemingly the cultural space for Buddhism in India today is simply a vacuum.  Nevertheless, its disguised presence seems to be so pervasive and vibrant, despite untold mutilations and disfigurements. A two-pronged strategy of appropriation and dejustification of Buddhist practices has hard on its way. Religious and philosophical significations of Buddhism do not seem to make much appeal for seeking justification for its popular inheritances and legacies. This might call for alternative ways of signification of Buddhism. Cultural Buddhism may be historically and politically viable form of signification.    
The divergent forms of cultural practices that are considered to bearing the traits of some kind of Buddhism appear to have been made frozen in such a way they get assimilated by what they want to challenge. Viewed from the context of cultural history of the Indian sub-continent, the conceptual frames of religion and philosophy seem to be inadequate to accommodate the divergent streams of cultural practices having distinct engagements and challenges. Hence we may propose here a more inclusive characterization of Buddhism, which could be having a more encompassing range of signification for embracing the entire cultural dynamics related to all that what can be termed as Buddhist traditions. Considering all that practices that are categorized as Buddhist Philosophy or Buddhist Religion as forming part of different aspects of cultural dynamics within the Buddhist traditions, a more liberal and non-freezing kind of signification of Buddhism could be categorized as ‘Cultural Buddhism’ 

Monday, December 2, 2013

CULTURAL BUDDHISM- RESPONSES: set-5



For responses sets 1 to 4, kindly visit www.bouddhayaanam.blogspot.com
---------------------

55. S. Chandramohan:

Here are two poems on Budhist History of Kerala that is hidden:

Lynched God

 Purged from the annals of history
 vestiges being excavated of
 fallen, broken, desecrated idols
 entombed in violent memorials like Pokhran-II.

 Tales of a great soul
 lost in translation
 from Pali to Sanskrit
 scores of viharas
 spiritually usurped
 by vedic hymns.

 Bullets from saffron terrorists
 burned Bamiyans holes
 in pages of medieval Indian history
 tales of the vanquished race
 erased from the fables agreed upon.

 People of our race seek refuge,
 in a lankan island,
 like Chiang Kai Shek's defeated army in Taiwan.

 He used to meditate in
 three posters
 Padmasana, Abhaya, bhumisparsa
 but before lynching
 he lined up to the guillotine in Pranama posture.

 He descended down
 into the collective conscience of a
 a society as just one of the zillions of deities
 without a capital first letter
 India has become Brobdingnag for him,
 the miniature Gulliver among saffron gods and goddesses.

 In Malaysia
 he occasionally gets his due
 in a giant prostate deity
 as giant Gulliver in the land of Lilliput.

 His autobiography
 diluted
 divided
 deviated
 now sold as saffron history textbooks
 twice born editor
 refused to acknowledging the ghost writer.

 First global Indian
 almost has an NRI status now.


History repeats"
In my room,
I sit on my island nation
bed
and watch my room flooded with newspaper
clippings on
Khairlanji
Kilvenmani
Dharmapuri
............................................................
In circa 1473
I sit on a cliff
the only island nation
un engulfed
in a tsunami
of saffron conquests...
partially burned pages of labyrinths
broken vessels
desecrated idols
blood stained maroon rags
rise sporadically to the surface
like sudden recovery
of a forgotten memory.
----------------------------- 

56. Argo Spier:

A short comment on the input of S. Chandramohan – poetry as tool to uncover history


Lynched God

 Purged from the annals of history
 vestiges being excavated of
 fallen, broken, desecrated idols
 entombed in violent memorials like Pokhran-II. 4

 Tales of a great soul
 lost in translation
 from Pali to Sanskrit
 scores of viharas
 spiritually usurped
 by vedic hymns. 6

 Bullets from saffron terrorists
 burned Bamiyans holes
 in pages of medieval Indian history
 tales of the vanquished race
 erased from the fables agreed upon.

 People of our race seek refuge,
 in a lankan island,
 like Chiang Kai Shek's defeated army in Taiwan. 3

 He used to meditate in
 three posters
 Padmasana, Abhaya, bhumisparsa
 but before lynching
 he lined up to the guillotine in Pranama posture. 5

 He descended down
 into the collective conscience of a
 a society as just one of the zillions of deities
 without a capital first letter
 India has become Brobdingnag for him,
 the miniature Gulliver among saffron gods and goddesses. 6

 In Malaysia
 he occasionally gets his due
 in a giant prostate deity
 as giant Gulliver in the land of Lilliput. 4

 His autobiography
 diluted
 divided
 deviated

 now sold as saffron history textbooks
 twice born editor
 refused to acknowledging the ghost writer. 7

 First global Indian
 almost has an NRI status now. 2


History repeats"
In my room,
I sit on my island nation
bed
and watch my room flooded with newspaper
clippings on
Khairlanji
Kilvenmani
Dharmapuri 9
............................................................
In circa 1473
I sit on a cliff
the only island nation
un engulfed
in a tsunami
of saffron conquests...
partially burned pages of labyrinths
broken vessels
desecrated idols
blood stained maroon rags
rise sporadically to the surface
like sudden recovery
of a forgotten memory. 13


TOTAL 59 = 5 + 9 = 14 = 1 + 4 = 5
Masculinity, a boy!



Getting to the bottom of poetic conveyance one has to depart from the mere cognitive and try to incorporate a deconstruction method that allows the use of the same 'poetic license' as which the poet has worked with when she/he wrote her/his 'message' or poem. The following is a quick analysis of the text/poem now in front of us using this in-orthodox method. I will concentrate on the 'meaning' that the 'poet' wanted to convey to the reader and the 'where and scope' of her/his poem and then I will dare the audacity of reciprocating to the poet as her/his 'reader'. Unfortunately I do not have the time to explain exactly 'how' I achieved the results. I also am NOT describing the process of deconstruction here although this too is part and parcel of the communication package and discourse between writer and reader and is important. It may become apparent though in the comment.

The poem is masculine (the number 5) and contains a hidden symmetry of 25 + 1 + 25 verses. Proof of this is the neat 'bracket verses' used by the author/poet, the first and last verses and the number of verses, 59. The source of the author/poet's thought is to be found within this domain. These 2 verses (first and last ones in the poem) forms one sentence which may contain a fact or not. Be what they may, they have the distinct quality of marking off the 'domain' in which the 'message' (the text or poem) is to be placed.

It says =
Purged from the annals of history of a forgotten memory.

In a symmetry the middle 'hinge verse' deviding the the two contrasting 'parts' contains always the 'key' to the 'message'. It is such a prominent place in a poem and a poet knows this instinctively and uses it unconciously. In the text/poem too the middle-verse in it is specific and clear in its indication.

It says =
In Malaysia.

What the author/poet is trying to convey to the reader of her/his poem is that she/he wishes the reader to understand that she/he is writing about 'something' within the 'scope' of 'Purged from the annals of history of a forgotten memory in Malaysia.' and/or has relevance to it.

The two 'images' (parts) of the symmetry are not as one would expect it to be, 2 clear 'mirrors' with the second one mirroring the first one exactly in content, rhyme and rhythm. It's as if there is a haze over the second mirror. This may be an indication that the author/poet is not so sure about the 'message' he wishes to convey. And/or that he doubts whether she/he her/himself is part of the 'forgotten memory in Malaysia'. The symmetry is cluttered, ugly and almost such as what can be referred to as 'immature'. This may be a trick used by the author/poet or just plain weakness in poetic expression on her/his behalve. The author/poet is writing not IN the 'time scape' of the 'occurrences' but seems rather to wish to be placed in that 'time scape. There is a lot of stress on her/his (own personal) effort to communicate with the reader in the text/poem. The author/poet is therefor writing 'outside' the 'time' he describes and pushes hard to have the reader think otherwise. This influence and has bearing on credibility. As also the use of 'colonial' and specific cheap references that strengthens such a conclusion influenbces the credibility. The question whether she/he indeed deals with Buddhism here becomes rather questionable. Re the time when the text/poem was written - the text/poem refers to western concepts such as guillotine (a French word that became established only since the French Revolution - 1789 to 1799) and Gulliver in the land of Lilliput (the popular Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift that was written in 1726 and amended 1735, earlier than the Revolution (Why the progression into the past?) The text/poem was therefore written after 1799 and a first evaluation may be that it was written by a 'student of history flirting with the western history and the purged annals of history of some forgotten memory in Malaysia'. Why does she/he do it? When did the story of Gulliver reached India? And the word 'guillotine'? Probably only in the mid-twentieth century. The text/poem is in its original language, namely English. It contains 20th century schoolbook alures. This too makes it disputable whether it is a 'Buddhist text', a 'Buddhist poem' and/or a text actually dealing with Buddhism at all. Saying this is in no way making a suggestion that the meaning of the text/poem is to be diluted to an insignificant piece of writing. The mere fact that it is posted here as a commentary to the topic at hand, the 'heritage of Buddhism', makes it valuable and worth it to attend to. Its only that we now know 'where' it comes from and that we have some small insight in what the 'scope' of it may be.

Three strong verses however, almost hidden, in the text/poem seem to specify the locality or 'range' of poetic expression (ref. next paragraph for more re this) more precisely and give a better clue as to what this text/poem is about. The verses become noticeable because of their strong solid cast, alliteration and invisible rhyme. Also because they differ so completely with the rest of the verses and forms such a sharp contrast to the relaxed mode of the first mirror, one can expect the unite to be an encryption of some sort and that the author/poet have unconsciously used to 'hide' her/his 'real' message in.

diluted
divided
deviated

These three verses refer to an 'autobiography' Whose? Buddha's? No, to the author/poet's own 'biography' … written by himself, his 'autobiography'. That is, she/he refers to her/his 'poem'! Yes, it is an encryption! I am sure of it. The author/poet is not writing about the 'Purged annals of history of a forgotten memory in Malaysia' no, she/he is writing about her/his own poetry and saying that it is diluted, divided and deviated. This is what one can call the 'locality of the poet', the where she/he is 'located' in his own poetry and 'the where' of this 'location' in the general body of the Poetica Universalis, the history of poetry and/or the history of the meaning of the history of poetry. The text/poem before us is an 'art-historical' statement about locality and NOT a statement about Buddhism as such. This seems to be an obvious conclusion. The author/poet 'deviates', 'divides' and 'dilutes' Buddhism deliberately to use it to research his own locality and she/he tells us this in this strophe:

 His autobiography
 diluted
 divided
 deviated
 now sold as saffron history textbooks
 twice born editor
 refused to acknowledging the ghost writer.


The theme of the 'Purged annals of history of a forgotten memory in Malaysia' is just the setting for her/his dramatic dialogue and communication with the reader. Is the author/poet from Kerala or Malaysia? What is the relationship between Malaysian and Keralian Buddhism? The issue is about the 'where' she/he 'stands' with her/his own poetry. The 'storyline' of the text/poem is merely the 'setting' in which she/he hopes to encounter the reader. In these 3 verses the 'focus' (Greek word for 'oven' or 'furnice' and a concept used by Alchemists when they make 'gold') is prepared for 'historic' meeting between the reader and writer. And the text/poem matures and reaches the 'transformational' and magical middle-distance in the 'process of preparation' = 'creation', art indeed in these three verses. Reader and writer meet each other squarely there (in the middle of the poem). In the diluted, divided and deviated text/poem (indeed the text/poem IS like this) the author/poet presents a single and small space for her/him and the reader (these three verses) to have their secret connubial get together (licit or illicit) and to share in the collective mystic of the communicate. Poetry is the place where 'gold' is made (in the Alchemist/poet's focus). Its also the 'trading zone' for it. (Isn't this what Buddhism is also about? The making and trading of 'gold'? Nirvana or Samedi?) Amidst the rubbish and clutter of diluted verses and in a very unbalanced symmetry the author/poet reveals the secret of his locality. And in her/his revelation she/he becomes the ghostwriter who is 'refusing to acknowledging the ghost writer' (a double encryption). The reader must acknowledges the author/poet, is what theis is about. The poet seeks recognition. To put it bluntly - the text/poem is about the author/poet her/himself and NOT about the 'history' she/he seems to be flaunting. The 'history of forgotten memory' is only the first level and smokescreen.

The text/poem is a lovely wink at the reader and may in a strange way develop to achieve some acknowledgement.

Not to go into too much detail anymore, this text/poem may spark a discussion as to whether poetry is a 'usable tool' to excavate some of the heritage of Buddhism in Kerala, India (Malaysia?) Re the issue whether it is a 'Buddhist poem' one should compare it to the following poem by an anonymous Buddhist monk from Medieval times. The comparison may reveal clarity - clarity is what Buddhism always strives for, whether in India, Malaysia or elsewhere, not complex hidden symmetries with secret revelations of poetic souls and encryption. (*P.S. The text/poem we discussed above is written by a man but out of respect for the author/poet and the reader of this I do not wish to show a gender bias. It seemed necessary. In the poem below the gender issue completely evaporated, a sign of when poetry really has magnitude. Less is more! I also leave the discussion whether the text/poem is a poem or mere text open as this is irrelevant to the point I am trying to make.)

'...Lying, thinking
Last night
How to find my soul a home
Where water is not thirsty
And bread loaf not a stone
I came up with one thing
And I don't believe I'm wrong
That nobody,
But nobody
Can make it out here alone.'
- Autonomous Buddhist Monk, 16th Century A.C.
--------------
57. Argo Spier

Post Script to 'Poetry as a tool to uncover history'

It need to be noted that I have dealt with the text as a whole for various reasons: Firstly because it is presented as a 'unit of communication' by the poster of it. Secondly, because the theme 'history' runs through both of the what you called two poems. And thirdly, because this isn't a  forum to discuss poetry. To engage in 'language archeology' (in the case of poetry it is 'myth archeology' or psychiatry I suppose) one works with texts as they are presented to you. 

Concerning the 'two' poems: I do not agree with the poster that the text contains two poems. It contains actually 3 poems and there is also indication that two author's and three editors were involved in creating the text. The last 'editor' is the one who placed the two author's work together in its present form. The 'first poem' contains two poems - one that has the allures of being a poem and one that is still in the making. That's why the 'mirror' of the symmetry is so hazed. The 'second poem' may be viewed as a standalone and be dealt with it in this way.

A poem is not a poem because someone writes it and then claims it to be a poem. The reader in his act of reciprocation and with his effectively entering the space of middle distance of the scope of the poem, confirms when there is a possibility of it being a poem. A poem is a 'thing' that isn't a thing and it just surfaces in the work of authors. Poetry has a different set of 'rules' than 'ordinary' language. One should view it as 'organic living stuff' that gets born from the collective unconscious of a culture. The (so-called) poet is merely the tool for it; the tool to shape it in a specific language. Or the fool who is sensitive enough to 'pick up the vibes coming from the 'great collect.'

There is indication in the text that the last part of the document, the so-called 'second poem' has a source outside the English language. The date mentioned in it however is fake but there may be a time laps between the 'two' poems. 


58. K. Babu Joseph:

I think Buddhism can be regarded as a philosophy of extended existence spanning several life-cycles. One need not agree with the Buddha's concepts of self, dharma, karma, rebirth and final attainment of bliss to be able to appreciate his ethical pragmatism in promoting universal love. He was an environmentalist par excellence, as revealed by his overflowing kindness to flora and fauna. The emphasis on the self or the individual rather than the group or the collective is peculiar not just to him but to all so-called holy persons. It is a marketing technique aimed at cultured persons as well as charlatans.

-------------------------------

59. Ajay Sekher:


The very reason for selecting Buddhism or post Buddhisms of various sorts in the contemporary world (from cyber buddhism to womanist buddhism in the US as in bell hooks) for academic discussion in the present is part of a political emergency.  The imminent danger of pseudo majoritarian Hindutva pro-fascism is forcing the academia and media to probe alternative and indigenous modes of democratic and ethical philosophies and praxes that people can relate to; culturally and politically. As Ambedkar invoked the Buddha to develop his own path of Indian enlightenment and an indigenous model of social democracy and inclusion, the intelligentsia in the world and India in particular are politically and ethically engaging with this whole way of life and struggle that challenged and critiqued caste and Brahmanism as early as BC 6th century in north India.

 A critical understanding of Buddhisms is possible only through a deconstruction of Hindu Brahmanism and de-linking from the Meta-referential structure of Hindutva and Brahmanical ethos.  The neo buddhist movements in western India and the new dalit movements in Kerala have shown that the people at the bottom are able to engage with the philosophy and praxis of the compassionate one even after 2500 years in their own local, ingenious and plural ways.  Buddhism was able to came back to its land of birth from where it was completely erased by the 14th century by caste Hindusism through genocidal violence and bloody persecution; because of its deep cultural roots and ethical legacies in the whole way of life of the people or the subaltern (literacy, health care, self defense traditons abound...). As Ambedkar prudently pointed out the outcasts of India, the Avarnas are heirs to this egalitarian and ethical traditions that resisted internal imperialism of caste and Varna and the hegemony of the Vedas.  It can not be reduced to any "identity politics" but a realisation of historic facts and cultural realities by the excluded and marginalized people at the bottom.
De-locating Buddhisms from these cultural grass roots and the people; and their whole way of life and struggle against cultural elitism, ethnic supremacism and hegemony proper is socially reactionary, politically anti democratic, culturally hegemonic and epistemologically violent. Intellectuals imbibing Savarna social values who de-link Buddhism from the people and their lived realities in the past, present and future (if possible) are serving the hegemonic purpose of defusing the political and ethical edge of Buddhisms as counter hegemonic practices and alternative visions or liberative ideologies/world views.

 Teravada was defeated like this by disengaging it with the basic teachings of the Buddha and making it more "abstract, detached, liberal and philosophical" along with the personified abstractions of Boddhisatvas and sub deities in the iconological realm.  In this regard the intervention of Nagarjuna and other Mahayana scholars proved to be politically fatal as far as the grass root level life engagement of Buddhism was concerned.  Any attempt for such disengagement with the cultural politics and cultural history of Buddhisms, its still living and breathing roots, though buried/erased; and a celebration of the Buddha as a universal philosopher and a cosmic messiah need not be radically critiqued and checked for the purposes of the people and their lived realities.  Because the history of Buddhism in India proves that Tathagata who denied the very existence of God and the spirit was made into a God by the Mahayana school and Hindu Brahmanism was able to absorb it easily through Vajrayana practices ensuing this paradigm shift.  Thus the politics, ethics and cultural history of buddhisms in India are vital and inescapable in any academic debate on Buddhism proper or its disguised minor manifestations all across Asia and the world today.

------------------------

60. P. Madhu:

Here I respond to some of the claims made by Dr.Ajay Shekar:
 Non/anti-identitarian & non/anti-narcissist position in Buddhist thought is quite obviously prevalent. The egalitarian premise of Buddhism comes from its anti-narcissist position and not vice versa.  
Now the problem raised here is whether the name ‘kalady’ to be linked to the identitarian position of birth place of one particular historical Sankaracharya or is it to be understood as reminding the  practice of relic reverence for those perceived to be enlightened- as such relics are available elsewhere too.
There are many kaladys in Kerala & Tamilnadu... and similar such relics all over India—and places following similar practices- these have to be understood to be monuments of non-narcissism that represent all enlightened irrespective of their name, form or historical roles and even irrespective of the religious identities of the enlightened – as the enlightened do not belong to identity realms... such is the claim of many spiritual masters/scriptures irrespective of the argumentative traditions/ belief systems/ spiritual practices they ascribed to these masters.. Indian spiritual traditions/cultural practices liberate the realized from identities once they were recognized with... Since India is a land of unresolved paradoxes- the contrary also can be true.
Of course there can be political motives among people who tend to illegitimately own up the relics. Exactly, that is problematized in this discussion. 
Recognising this politics does not amount one to be overzealously labelled as “savarna” anti-dalit, pseudo-majoritarian, fascist, anti-democratic, brahminist, hegemonic and epistemologically violent- etc. etc.

That which influenced Buddha & Buddha’s influence has never gone. That was existing before, that existed through Buddha & bodhisattvas & the same still has its continuing influence in spiritual realm. Of course, it has its sustained influence in social thinking too.
 Buddhism as a religion could not continue- in India –probably because, it was never a religion. Had it continued, it would have been certainly something far different from what we imagine. Also, where ever Buddhism survived- and later labelled as religion, we hardly see its goodness! However, if we see its goodness it is not merely because of Buddism, but because of other conditions that sustained the distinct life world and Buddhism along with it! Look at Christianity, what it has to do with Jesus? Even it’s claimed positive characters hardly anything to do with Jesus or early Christianity! Needless to say its imperial, ant-ecology, capitalist modes have no links with Jesus.
However, Buddha still survives in non-buddhists in blue jeans. (Buddha in blue jeans is title of a book). In India innumerable orders of guru traditions were there- they all get transformed, disfigured, mixed with other orders & common people had a different way of absorbing them. “if you see Buddha on the road- kill him” is a zen adage ( there is a book bearing this as title too).  Buddha himself was unhappy about the sanga even in his life time- it is said even he was not hopeful of its continuation.
Buddha’s was a spiritual order. Spiritual orders flourish, decline, spread invibly, modified other orders, gets hybridized. In the Buddhist terminology, it is reborn in other orders. Its figurations cannot be satisfactorily explained by any conspiracy theory. Further, the ‘conspirators’ we identify in terms of “brahminism” “Hinduism” or “Hindutva” are modern theoretical constructs. With these constructs we make a new assemblage of history. These assemblages may be useful. But, they are interpretations and not truths. Historians and historiography are aware of this. Historians, I think, already have methods to bust such mythologies. Certainly, the construct “Hinduism destroyed Buddhism” does not stand as a valid history. Making such statement does not reduce one to “Brahmin-fascist”! No foreclosure  is good in academic thinking. It may be too much of a claim if one says that except one version the rest of thinking as in-egalitarian .
 ‘Faith’ represented by endogamic religious entity is a new marker of identity- not an ancient form of identity- so drawing a history based on religious identities hardly can be justified clearly with available data. Such production of history- will always suffer- as plenty of contradictory data is available. It appears culturally public ‘faith’ or religions appears to be  ecclectical – and continues to be so. The name ‘Hinduism’ is actually given as a label to such a larger eclectics of multiple religious, ritual practices & faiths. Yet we have no neat history that marks groups of people as ‘Hindus’ and others as ‘buddhist’ and few others as jain… all these are modern classification. Of course, there were multiple argumentative traditions. There were also multiple guru-parambaras –of eclectic faiths- or orders invented by gurus from their experiences! It has to be kept in mind, guru parambaras are not usually scriptural!  Hence any construct of  neat religious history of one religion pitching against the other- even after attempted by colonial historiographers could not last, as plenty of evidences are against such expediency.
Do historians really claim, “Theravada was defeated like this by disengaging it with the basic teachings of the Buddha”- I don’t think they do. How can one say ‘boddhisatvas and sub deities in the iconological realm’ is not part of Buddhist practice- while they are quite obviously prevalent in history? The relics we still we see are the relics of such enlightened beings later became deities! That is how what started as Buddhism looks later as ‘Hinduism’ defying stereotypes of both these constructs.
Nagarjuna beautifully strengthened anti-narcissist in his Mulamadhyamakakarika. That is a resource for anti-narcissist thinking. Any ones peruses his work can certainly benefit in developing rich methodological insight. He challenged essentialisms and their consequences logically. Still it can be a resource for non-narcissist egalitarian thinking.
Vajrayana is the least ‘brahminical’! Buddha & bodisatvas were reluctant to teach doctrines- rather they were guiding through techniques- which is still prominently there in zen practices. Lot of such techniques were shared between Kashmiri shaivism & Buddhism of north east. Indeed, tantric techniques are so much anarchic- ‘brahmanic’ orders found it difficult to accept. All the brahmanic taboos were radically made sacred in tantric techniques. Some of them are known as ‘left-hand path’! Most of the  techniques were techniques of de-programing one’s narcissus! They were techniques followers practiced to realize the void, sunyata. The ‘left-hand-path’ tantric forms of practices are radically anti castiest! A keen examination of vajrayana- would let us know it is not a link between “Buddhism” & “Hinduism”!

BOUDDHA-JAIN ROOTS IN KERALA


BUDDHIST CONTACT BETWEEN KERALA AND JAPAN - B. R. P. Bhaskar



For what it's worth, let me narrate experiences of mine which may have some relevance in the context of this discussion.
While on a visit to Japan in 1959, I met K V Paul, whom C Kesavan mentions in his autobiography "Jeevithasamaram". He was a senior colleague of Kesavan at a school at Palakkad where  he had taught for a while before plunging into politics. He has written in glowing terms about Paul and before going to Japan I collected Paul's address from him. Paul had married a Japanese and settled down in Kobe as a businessman. I travelled to the city to meet him. He asked me what was the Japanese method of paddy cultivation, which was being promoted by the Govt of India at the time. I pleaded my ignorance about agrarian practices and said I presume that is the method followed in Japan. Where do you think the Japanese got it, he asked me. I again pleaded ignorance. He told me the Japanese method of paddy cultivation was exactly what was being done traditionally in Kerala. He claimed the Japanese were of Kerala origin. He pinpointed their place of origin as Thiruvilvamala, his own place. I asked if the Japanese are not supposed to be the product of the mixing of two streams of migrants, one from Malaya region and the other from Korea? Where do you think the Koreans came from, he asked. According to him, the Koreans too were of Kerala origin. I did not take Paul's claims seriously. A few months after the encounter with him in Kobe I was in the Asiana section of the library of the University of the Philippines and found there a small book titled Culture of Korea published by the Korean Association of Hawaii in 1901. Korea was under Japanese occupation at the time and the Koreans received little support for their struggle for freedom from the Japanese yoke as most people thought the Koreans are no different from the Japanese. The book carried a note by Dr Singman Rhee, who was president of the Korean Association of Hawaii, saying it was being published to give the world an idea of Korea's culture which was distinct from Japan's.. When I picked up the book Rhee was the President of South Korea.
I flipped through the pages of the book and found this sentence under the heading Language: "The Korean Language belongs to the Dravidian group of languages spoken in the south of India."
The Japanese language is said to have affinity with Tamil. According to Japanese tradition, the first Japanese work of grammar was written by a Buddhist monk from India, who introduced in it elements from the grammar of Indian languages. Foreign scholars have pointed to similarities between Tamil and Hebrew on the one side and Tamil and Japanese on the other. I don't think there will be any academic studies on these subjects in India.  Hindi-Sanskrit votaries will not want any studies which may show that Tamil had links with West Asian and East Asian languages which go back to an earlier period than that of the Indo-European languages. The Dravidian politicians do not want any studies that may establish links with other groups as it will explode the myth that the Dravidians, unlike the Aryans, sprang up on Indian soil.

Saturday, November 23, 2013

METAPHORICAL REDUCTION OF KALADY : S. RAJU

There are different tenors in the analysis of the past that counties to the present. The most general way to classify them is the following: 1. one can move from past to present; 2. one can move from the present to the past (history of present). It appears from the title of your write up that you are more proximate to the second one. The suggestion seems to be that you start from the present day cultural location of Kalady and trace back its relationship with Buddhist culture, Buddhist path, Buddhist thoughts …………… through Sankaracharya. Though both ways 1&2 deal with time, transmission, transformation, continuitty & discontinuity etc they have different political imperatives. Your attempt, I feel, is not so much to contemplate on Buddhism per se, but to recognize how ‘it’ is pervasive and prevail across the taken for granted social categories/distinctions such as caste-class hierarchies. You are thinking about ways in which the icon of Buddha (especially in Kalady) got erased over time. You are alluding to the point that the place name “Kalady” refers to ‘foot prints of a guru or master’ or preacher. This in turn suggests that it is a reminiscence of relic worship. Perhaps, the question that crops up is the following: can one overlook the metaphorical reduction of Kalady to the Sankaracharya icon? More than this question there is yet another one; how such a metaphorical reduction erased the land marks of Buddhist traces/……. ? When one embark on the voyager from the banks of Periyar to ‘Buddha’/ Buddhism/ Buddhist culture, (path, thought…) one has to anticipate the roaring waves of conceptual and category slippages. I am sure that you have in your mind not so much the ‘historical Buddha’ but the Buddha in action and the Budddha dis-activated. And the Kalady overshadowed or over-lit to the extent of blissful blindness. 
The multiple usages such as Budhist path, Buddhist thought, Buddha vada (Buddhist argument), Buddhist religion, Buddhist culture etc. reveal that you are not taking any deterministic or stoic stand. This is intellectually quite comforting for there is no whip; moreover, such multiple usage gives room for capturing the heterogeneity and multiplicity.     
I understand from your Note that Sankaracharya is a veda-anthi(vedanti) and resonate well with the idea that Sankaracharya is a cypto-Buddhist. If this is so, the philosophical/theoretical voyage from Kalady to non-historic/non-transcendental Buddha through Sankara opens up fresh routes for contemplation.  


HETEROGENEITY OF THE BUDDHIST TRADITION : K SATCHIDANANDAN

I agree that we need not confine ourselves to a single approach or method in the seminar. The 'real' 'historical' Buddha is hard to reconstruct, except from the hagiographical accounts and mediated dialogues  and unauthenticated texts including Dhammapada. Ultimately the Buddhas who work in history and society are   constructs with their own socio-political implications, like the Brahmin Buddha and the Dalit Buddha , the meditating Buddha and the acting Buddha, the egalitarian Buddha and the transcendental Buddha, the philosopher's Buddha and the poet's Buddha ,not to speak of all those Zen constructs where Buddha intervenes in every human act, all of which , as Devika points out, need not necessarily be pitted against one another as there are several strands running parallely  among them. Perhaps we need to look at: 1. the links between the available texts and  practices (impositions too)2. the social role that the imagined ways of Buddhism have played in different historical(ideological- epistemological-ontological) contexts.3. The relevance of some of these constructs to our own time and our struggle for another world, call it Walter Benjamin's Messianic world if you will. 

POLITICS OF CULTURAL BUDDHISM: AJAY SEKHER

The very reason for selecting Buddhism or post buddhisms of various sorts in the contemporary world (from cyber buddhism to womanist buddhism in the US as in bell hooks) for academic discussion in the present is part of a political emergency.  The imminent danger of pseudo majoritarian Hindutva pro-fascism is forcing the academia and media to probe alternative and indigenous modes of democratic and ethical philosophies and praxes that people can relate to; culturally and politically. As Ambedkar invoked the Buddha to develop his own path of Indian enlightenment and an indigenous model of social democracy and inclusion, the intelligentsia in the world and India in particular are politically and ethically engaging with this whole way of life and struggle that challenged and critiqued caste and Brahmanism as early as BC 6th century in north India.

 A critical understanding of buddhisms is possible only through a deconstruction of Hindu Brahmanism and de-linking from the Meta-referential structure of Hindutva and Brahmanical ethos.  The neo buddhist movements in western India and the new dalit movements in Kerala have shown that the people at the bottom are able to engage with the philosophy and praxis of the compassionate one even after 2500 years in their own local, ingenious and plural ways.  Buddhism was able to came back to its land of birth from where it was completely erased by the 14th century by caste Hindusism through genocidal violence and bloody persecution; because of its deep cultural roots and ethical legacies in the whole way of life of the people or the subaltern (literacy, health care, self defense traditons abound...). As Ambedkar prudently pointed out the outcasts of India, the Avarnas are heirs to this egalitarian and ethical traditions that resisted internal imperialism of caste and Varna and the hegemony of the Vedas.  It can not be reduced to any "identity politics" but a realisation of historic facts and cultural realities by the excluded and marginalized people at the bottom.
De-locating buddhisms from these cultural grass roots and the people; and their whole way of life and struggle against cultural elitism, ethnic supremacism and hegemony proper is socially reactionary, politically anti democratic, culturally hegemonic and epistemologically violent. Intellectuals imbibing Savarna social values who de-link Buddhism from the people and their lived realities in the past, present and future (if possible) are serving the hegemonic purpose of defusing the political and ethical edge of buddhisms as counter hegemonic practices and alternative visions or liberative ideologies/world views.

 Teravada was defeated like this by disengaging it with the basic teachings of the Buddha and making it more "abstract, detached, liberal and philosophical" along with the personified abstractions of Boddhisatvas and sub deities in the iconological realm.  In this regard the intervention of Nagarjuna and other Mahayana scholars proved to be politically fatal as far as the grass root level life engagement of Buddhism was concerned.  Any attempt for such disengagement with the cultural politics and cultural history of buddhisms, its still living and breathing roots, though buried/erased; and a celebration of the Buddha as a universal philosopher and a cosmic messiah need not be radically critiqued and checked for the purposes of the people and their lived realities.  Because the history of Buddhism in India proves that Tathagata who denied the very existence of God and the spirit was made into a God by the Mahayana school and Hindu Brahmanism was able to absorb it easily through Vajrayana practices ensuing this paradigm shift.  Thus the politics, ethics and cultural history of buddhisms in India are vital and inescapable in any academic debate on Buddhism proper or its disguised minor manifestations all across Asia and the world today.

Friday, November 22, 2013

CULTURAL BUDDHISM responses: set-4

45. Argo Spier:
Exploring the fringes of the cultural influence of Buddhism in contemporary society … in India, one unavoidably, at one stage or the other, will have to stumble upon the ambiguity whether Buddhism is a religion or not? And, when one approaches the cultural significance of Buddhism in present day society, whether one won't have to consider that it is a myth in its entirety? It may also be that Buddhism as such, based on myths, is merely the expression of the mythical consciousness of 'man through the ages'.

The idea of p k Sasidharan to have the discourse been associated with 'the taking of a voyage' is a super find. It evokes enthusiasm – ref. the enthusiastic participation of the commentaries – and it provides the needed relaxed atmosphere in which ALL ideas and research are welcome, appreciated and have less of a chance to force a priories that may hamper honest open research. Dr. A. Kanthamani's suggestion that the subtitle of the discourse be changed to incorporate the religious aspects of Buddhism may be an example of a hampering a priori. It suggests that Buddhism is a religion.

But to return to the suggestion that Buddhism may, in its entirety, be the result of myth working, such a consideration may alter perspectives as to the cultural heritage left behind by Buddhism.

In theology 'the time of myths' is past. This has been the case since the De-mystification by Bultmann (Germany) and Vergote (The Netherlands), in the 80ties, of the Christian New Testament, which contains the revelation of Jesus Christ. The De-mystification of the New Testament 'message' didn't devaluate the 'truth value' of the Christian gospel, on the contrary, it brought forth valuable insight and a 'new' understanding of the 2000 year old texts. What the myths used to say (in the past) can and must since their work be expressed differently in all religions or in the thought-of religions. Mythical consciousness needs the interpreting intervention of critical reason, for myths can run wild. And mythical stories – Siddhārtha Gautama, having the thirty-two major and eighty minor marks or signs of a mahāpurua, 'superman' and leaving the elderly palace to become enlightened under a specific kind of tree – can only be accepted as 'pointers' and with reservation. The French philosopher, Gusdorf, conceives mythical consciousness as the implicit, 'enlarged reason' spoken of by phenomenology. Explicit, critical reason is here not the enemy of mythical consciousness. On the contrary, it helps us.

Having said this, I am well aware of the complexity of tracing the mythical mind and its development through time. Moreover, the complexity to, say, with the traces found, make an evaluation of the cultural heritage in contemporary times.

One of the most valuable input into the itinerary of the 'voyage' now under way, is the remark of E. P. Rajagopalan concerning the archaeological potentiality of remnant contemporary words used in everyday contexts. Language archeology is a valuable tool. In this regard I can give the example of a recent history study that was done concerning the Medieval history of the Northern part of France, Normandy. The study dealt with the influence of the Viking influx to that part of the country around 1000 A.C. Before the study the Normand Vikings (from Norway) was seen as 'plundering colonialists'. After the study, and with the discovery of how many names of cities as well as words for cultural festivals contain Normand roots, and the use of language archeology, the understanding of the Vikings was fundamentally changed. Now (by many historians) they are conceived as 'well educated immigrants' having had a 'high cultural level of development'. It also became clear that their threat to the indigenous peoples living in 1000 A.D. in this geographic part of France, the present Normandy (even the name of the region refers to the Norman Vikings) was NOT one of De-civilization but in fact just the opposite. It was their ability to integrate into the higher political layers of the then social organization that was the problem. The violent ones were the indigenous population.

Is it not possible that the now positive evaluation of the cultural heritage of Buddhism may reshape itself into a negative one when exploring deeper into the psyche? An open and non a priori approach towards Buddhism and the incorporation of the possible influence by the mythical conscience of man – and the incorporation of the language archeology tool - may provide a totally new light on the cultural heritage and influence of Buddhism in India.

--------------------------- 
46. A.  Kanthamani:
I am glad that Sasi no longer uses 'cultural' as an adjective which was the thing I put to question. My question was what is cultural about it. The onus is to explain. Now he can escape my criticism. He is entitled to use the 'heritage’ or the ‘legacy where he is no longer bound by the Buddhism as we know it, which is inclusive of religion with an attendant credo (rites, rituals, doctrines, mysticism etc). It is open to re-read but not exactly the way Prof. Argo suggests: that would just be mimicking the west but he can 'contextualise'. He can raise a question what is relevant in the legacy for the contemporary world. He can liberate from the a priori imagery to go a posteriori (let me endorse Argo again). He cautions however about the 'complexity' . This is a good advice and he can proceed to unloosen the complexity in whatever way he likes. One interesting domain of this 'complexity' lies in its having been a religion in the past, but it needs re-evaluation of the particularity. Before this: is it not proper to assess the legacy in its generality: what relevance religion has to play in the contemporary world?  If this is too comprehensive, we shall consider each one particular imagery. Let me endorse Argo again: 'cultural heritage may reshape itself' may be, devolving itself into a 'negative imagery'. I hope he will agree with me to have a scientific evaluation over and above the linguistic. Hopefully a new 'baby' is born! I read all criticisms and open-ended remarks with interest: I learnt a great deal! 
---------------------
47. P. Madhu:

Buddha is a wonderful thinker who wanted to liberate us from our assumptions of ‘self’, past, future & culture. Culture for him is samsara! We reify it as samskara! Historians & many brands of social scientists even now got stuck with ‘time’ as past (history) or future (futurity- development-progress...) Historians have a bias towards past & locate present in the past & developmentalists, investors,... locate the present in the future... the ontology of present—historians seek in the past... but the world of investment escaping the academic dexterity of historians give the destiny of making present to the future by their investments and dreams...
Taken seriously Buddha had ideas that may absolve us from the identity disease and its consequences.
Below I give a methodological criticism – inspired by Buddha’s thinking (as i understood them!):
 The present, it is said, is historical. However, what we cannot be sure what history is.  Those which are projected before us as histories are nothing beyond the artworks historians produce. The present, it is said, is futuristic. Similarly, we cannot be sure what the future is. The projected futures are the aspirations of the current.
History is a futurization project irrespective of the historians’ interests or aims.  History happens as historians interpret past or present and lay a trajectory towards the futures influenced by the singularities of their academic system.  For some contingent reasons, most projects of history writings happened to be projects trim the pasts into limited ideal types of tapered future, a contribution towards a ‘global history’ of humanity.  The global history projected is as vicious as the ecology deprived of its diversity by the projections of power elites. An awareness of futures and pasts as multiple temporalities breaking out always from the presents would avert historians from sedating their subscribers towards a tapered future.
The ontology of present is not merely historical but also futuristic. However, it will be simplistic to say the ontology of our present existence is both futuristic and historical because neither there exist a factual history lying out there to be described in all its details nor a factual future whose trajectory is already laid. History and future are both discovered and invented.  The multiple presents hold multiple pathways of the pasts and futures which can be modified by presents as they come forth.  There are infinite histories and futures to be discovered or invented. The greater we understand the creative power of the multiple presents the lesser we would dare to limit the ontology of the present in terms of past or future.
Neither the pasts nor the futures are finished products. They are as unfinished as the presents are. Both futures and pasts are live temporalities as the presents are. In other words, pasts and futures are the extensions of the multiple-presents rather than determiners of the ontology of any monolith of the present. There exists no finished ontology of time to be described or to look ahead.  However, it appears to me, presents always have the power to enliven pasts and futures.
Time as history or future is the unbecoming temporized and presented as linear chunks of periods trajectories from past to future. The periodized chunks of temporalities adulterated with ideologies of convenience, histories and futures are projected.  The ontology of present is sought within the projected trajectories. The ontology of present to exist, there should be an ontology of the trajectory moving from the past to the future through present. The unbecoming is moment to moment disbandment of time rather than a trajectory being constructed from past to future. To be more specific, the disbandment is experienced by us as time. However, history is produced disregarding that history is imagined only through ideological constructs of temporalities and trajectories. The endeavour of history itself thus can be understood as projects essentializing time while time per se has no such order, trajectory or uniformity. Temporalities are understood by many thinkers as hetero-temporal, pluri-temporal manifold experienced through ideologies of mindscapes that are subjected to layers of ideological presuppositions.
The presentation and projections of history and future, seen from this perspective, is entangled within the ideological presuppositions almost in its entirety. Hence, seeking guidance either from history or future will be nothing better than getting entangled within the ideological muddle. Such a history or futurity has nothing liberative in them. Merely, they immerse their subjects into one or another bad faith. This poses a major problem to social thinkers and theorists. Social Scientists, I suggest, instead of producing history or future, could de-ontologize the history, future and the present. De-ontologizing history would require, de-essentialzing and de-ideologizing time.
How to go about de-ontologizing time could be a question arising now. One way to de-ontologize time as history or future is to expose the ideological syntagm within which the histories and futures are produced. Also we could expose the hetero-temporal, pluri-temporal and assemblage effects of time constructions. Yet another way is to examine the events and counter events torpedoing sets of constructed times and trajectories. The other way is to expose the unfinished character of time that never allows any finitude of past or future. Exposing the non-linearity, co-presents co-opting temporalities, anti-presents repelling temporal trajectories, exploring the processes of othering, demystifying continuities and many such research endeavors may let historians to make sense of time in its ever unbecoming nowness. The virtue of such orientations of history and future will be reminding its students of the ever unbecoming present. The virtue of scientific understanding of history or future is, I would say, to release time from the ideological clutches produced them.   
If we want to be fair to Buddha’s thinking we may have to de-ontologize  “culture” or “history” & “cultural history”! That will be a taking the discussion to a different level that getting clogged into identitarian reifications and freezing history and future into identity claims and counter claims!
---------------------- 
48. K. Satchidanandan

It will be interesting to connect / contrast these observations with Antonio Negri's ideas of the constitution of time and his constructions like Collective Time, Productive Time and Constitutive Time and what he calls Jetzt-Zeit or 'Now-Time'.

It will also be interesting to look at Buddha's ideas of self as flux, of the decentred, ever discontinuous subject  and his insistence on the absence of an originary as reflected by Subhuti in the Vagrakkhedika  (Diamond Sutra) which in conclusion says " Honoured of the Worlds! The Lord Buddha  did not formulate a precise system of Law or doctrine." This urges us to go beyond the idea of Buddh"ism" and of the Buddh"ist" religion that emanates from a misreading of the the Buddha who would not permit any precise systematization of what he had said  in negative terms: perfection as an empty name, not numbers of worlds but no numbers of worlds, not selfhood but no selfhood : also his looking at the body  as continually changing so that man is never the same for two consecutive moments. These ideas- that might appear Lacanian/Foucauldian to a post-Structuralist- may have profound implications for our understanding of the constitution and reconstitution of time as well as of identities.
------------------- 
49. P. Madhu:
I enjoyed Dr. Satchidanandan’s observation. I also appreciate Devika’s acknowledgement of “apparent shading between Buddhism and
the post structuralist critique of time” that  is , she says “quite well-noticed by now”. I wonder at the wisdom of a great vagabond monk- to have acquired a great wisdom that could only partially be achieved by the most respected academics after 2000+ years! I appreciate Prof. Sasi for bringing up the much needed thinking on Buddha. I found Dr. Satchidanandan’s caution that we need to appreciate ‘buddh’ist’ & not merely Buddhism!
To advance the argument & possible discussion further he brought Negri to focus. I hope that would let the argument further. Negri shows us the way to understand Marx in a matured way & proceed ahead. If contrasted, our scholars hardly show the mettle to be matured! In this context this paper available open may be relevant: http://projectlamar.com/media/Grosz-Bergson-Deleuze-and-the-Becoming-of-Unbecoming.pdf The paper is closer to what Dr. Satchidanandan wrote and what I observed in my earlier comments.
Buddhist thinking is deeply ‘anti-narcissist’. That gives a solid direction to thinking philosophy and social sciences. It appears to be social science may not be validated in future is it hesitates to take non-narcissist dimension. The degree of non-narcissism will be one of the criteria to assess the quality & methodological rigour of social science or philosophy! I would like that standard would gradually apply to all fields of expertise! This ‘essence’ of Buddhist  thinking lets it to come up again and again despite all historical efforts to suppress it in the past!
I doubt history- not because it is somebody else’s field- or I have some competition with some historian... History as it is problematized is a suspect within the field of historiography and it is too much outdated with the understanding of time, especially many of the new kinds of post-structuralist understandings. There exists no one-autheticated-post-structuralist-historiography. Many new means of historiographies are coming up. Some of them I mentioned in my earlier observations. If relevant to this discussions, we should discuss them ... as post structuralist methods are not totally alien to Buddhist thinking...
This discussion can branch out into many topics... of that one could be methodological discussion... that may help us to excavate the methodological biases that buried quite a lot of thinking by prematurely labelling them as non-scientific!...

---------------------------
  50. J. Devika:
I think we need to acknowledge that essentialising and de-essentialising time both have their politics. The apparent shading between Buddhism and the post structuralist critique of time is quite well-noticed by now and need not be necessarily pitted against attempts to essentialize time. I am sure we can gain enough self-distance from ongoing attempts that seek to
employ Buddhism as a tool for the latter -- just as we can use it as a tool to de-essentialise time. I don't think there is any true essence of Buddhism that we need to be faithful to. Also don't see why one of these projects has to be necessarily pitted against another. I am not convinced that these projects have necessarily good or bad effects either; without expanding
the field of analysis to examine the conditions under which such projects take shape and the effects they produce, no substantial insight that goes beyond fixities and binaries is bound to arise. The same applies to historical projects too -- as far as I know, post structuralist historiography is far more sophisticated and indeed demanding of painstaking inquiry than Madhu's account would have us believe!

------------------------------
51. P. Madhu:

The Buddhist epistemology has to offer something significant to the social scientific methodology. Especially, its idea of annicca or impermanence is worthy to be considered. That frees us from essentialist ideals of time and identity often cherished in social thinking- (even by the claimants of 'post-structural' understanding). Instead of essentializing time and identities, this helps us to understand them as 'live unbecomings'- even at odds with the pressures of facticities and 'immanence'! A milieu of culture, from this understanding is the melieu of that culture unbecoming- even over coming all pressures that may tend to retain it. So time happens! How things/ cultures/genders unbecomes ... over come stereotypes,...at a given conjecture.. would be the locale of study if the approach is taken seriously. This is an alternative because otherwise - what we see as history is identities, cultures & times reified...generating needless anger, hatred and deceive oneself as if such an anger were 'revolutionary' or 'progressive'! ... unbecoming is liveliness... unbecoming is over coming stereotypes, unbecoming is mindfulness.. unbecoming has hope in the methodology...this aspect has not there in most of the current constructions of 'post-structuralism'. They still have elements of narcissism, essentialisms, ideologies, premature labeling...I agree with Devika, of-course it has to be verified at field conditions

----------------------- 
52. K. Satchidanandan:
I agree that we need not confine ourselves to a single approach or method in the seminar. The 'real' 'historical' Buddha is hard to reconstruct, except from the hagiographical accounts and mediated dialogues  and unauthenticated texts including Dhammapada. Ultimately the Buddhas who work in history and society are   constructs with their own socio-political implications, like the Brahmin Buddha and the Dalit Buddha , the meditating Buddha and the acting Buddha, the egalitarian Buddha and the transcendental Buddha, the philosopher's Buddha and the poet's Buddha ,not to speak of all those Zen constructs where Buddha intervenes in every human act, all of which , as Devika points out, need not necessarily be pitted against one another as there are several strands running parallely  among them. Perhaps we need to look at: 1. the links between the available texts and  practices (impositions too)2. the social role that the imagined ways of Buddhism have played in different historical(ideological- epistemological-ontological) contexts.3. The relevance of some of these constructs to our own time and our struggle for another world, call it Walter Benjamin's Messianic world if you will. 
-------------------------
53. S. Raju:

There are different tenors in the analysis of the past that counties to the present. The most general way to classify them is the following: 1. one can move from past to present; 2. one can move from the present to the past (history of present). It appears from the title of your write up that you are more proximate to the second one. The suggestion seems to be that you start from the present day cultural location of Kalady and trace back its relationship with Buddhist culture, Buddhist path, Buddhist thoughts …………… through Sankaracharya. Though both ways 1&2 deal with time, transmission, transformation, continuitty & discontinuity etc they have different political imperatives. Your attempt, I feel, is not so much to contemplate on Buddhism per se, but to recognize how ‘it’ is pervasive and prevail across the taken for granted social categories/distinctions such as caste-class hierarchies. You are thinking about ways in which the icon of Buddha (especially in Kalady) got erased over time. You are alluding to the point that the place name “Kalady” refers to ‘foot prints of a guru or master’ or preacher. This in turn suggests that it is a reminiscence of relic worship. Perhaps, the question that crops up is the following: can one overlook the metaphorical reduction of Kalady to the Sankaracharya icon? More than this question there is yet another one; how such a metaphorical reduction erased the land marks of Buddhist traces/……. ? When one embark on the voyager from the banks of Periyar to ‘Buddha’/ Buddhism/ Buddhist culture, (path, thought…) one has to anticipate the roaring waves of conceptual and category slippages. I am sure that you have in your mind not so much the ‘historical Buddha’ but the Buddha in action and the Budddha dis-activated. And the Kalady overshadowed or over-lit to the extent of blissful blindness. 
The multiple usages such as Budhist path, Buddhist thought, Buddha vada (Buddhist argument), Buddhist religion, Buddhist culture etc. reveal that you are not taking any deterministic or stoic stand. This is intellectually quite comforting for there is no whip; moreover, such multiple usage gives room for capturing the heterogeneity and multiplicity.     
I understand from your Note that Sankaracharya is a veda-anthi(vedanti) and resonate well with the idea that Sankaracharya is a cypto-Buddhist. If this is so, the philosophical/theoretical voyage from Kalady to non-historic/non-transcendental Buddha through Sankara opens up fresh routes for contemplation.  
 -------------------------- 

54. P. Madhu:

Within spiritual traditions of India that which revered through relics are symbolic representation of realized atman or dhammakaya of any or all of the buddhas, shankaras, jainas- beyond name form and characters. The identities and historicities matter only for the non-spiritual realms of religiosities within the ‘inauthentic’ realms of historicity.
Spiritual realm is timeless- if we take the native field to which these relics belong. Hence, for a spiritually oriented reaching past from present or coming to present from past is immaterial.
Further, there exists no neat path either from past to present or from present to past because these routes always take various directions always from the present of various periodicity. I can imagine two forms of temporalities: 1. Timeless time 2. Timing time (nowness). Past (and sometimes future) represented by conceptualized by some forms of historicities are truth games– irrespective of their utility in the current.
 Histories as they are written are various permutations and combinations of assemblages- all of them are possible from the present! Histories, as they mature and become more authentic- they do not get stuck with identities rather they show us the genealogies and ‘truth games’ played out of identities.
 Thus, surprisingly, both history and spirituality cares least for the identity games and lets the pursuer beyond them! The histories and spiritualities are greatly resourceful in this respect! They are more of self-learning than something to do with incidents out there happened at some point of time- neither they are attempts to ‘straighten’ bent history! Neither an authentic historian nor a spiritualist would attempt straightening the time thus assumed to have bent!
 However, or those who are yet to be stuck with the cords of spirituality or authentic history identities matter! They play the game actively! – Many may not accept this statement!
Such attempts of time travels from present to past (or even travelling from past to present) do not actually straighten the ‘bent’ history or vouch for to which religion relics belong rather it lets us to the plane where we recognize the futility of such attempts. However, such an exercise is always excellent- as it lets us to strike with authentic history and spirituality, as if actually such authenticities exist!
Any serious student of varieties of spiritual discourses of India for ages would identify them as argumentative traditions and schools rather than religions as it is today. At the level of masters like Buddha, Sankara, mahavir, etc... they are different argumentative traditions which agree upon a lot and disagree upon a few other percept. In some cases the differences are merely linguistic or emphasis given to one aspect than to the other. Many of them agree ideas: 1. Samatva is their recommendation (samatva as internal equanimity) 2. They all agree upon Dharma 3. They all agree materiality has nonmaterial subtlety as their source- all matter & everything is from that common source- that is called ‘sunya’ or ‘siva’ or ‘brahman’- all are very closely synonymous- if one closely follows the discussions. They have differences, but those differences are not so significant to distinguish one totally different from the other. They differ at higher levels of their argumentations. All these argumentations had very contradictory social expression- because , social was taking its own dimension- responding to the life-politics.. . So that one cannot say one religion is rogue and other is an angel if we are truthful to the social interpretation of the past... However, we have the tendency to compartmentalize- watertight the past- & identities people having then extending from the politics of identity as it gets thickened in the current. A time that never was is frequently invented by all power centres.
Almost all  പൊതുധാരണ (public perceptions) are suspicious. That is a known fact! പൊതുധാരണ - it seems will be always like that. Academic ധാരണ (perception) I do not think is much different. As I have commented elsewhere- historiography is still hugely problematic as we have yet to come in terms with time and identities. Social Science academics is still naïve. Its discursive richness has not reached anywhere near the argumentative richness that was prevalent through various local thinking traditions. The problem is that our academics hardly knows the treasure of local thinking available. We just label them by one or another identity- and claim ourselves being ‘politically right’ for not having sufficient knowledge in them! We reinvent wheels- again and again, often, the new wheels reinvented are incomparably of poor quality. We are merely smart- any one points out this will be attacked with one or another label- often camouflaged as ‘politically right’! Knowledge production has become more of lobbied stuff than truthful or sincere enquires! Now we have some people lobby for Sankara some others lobby for something else! We may have to escape from obsessive compulsions of monumentalizations... As you point out every word, word combinations of “ബുദ്ധസംസ്ക്കാരത്തെ തുടച്ചുനീക്കി ഹിന്ദുമതമെന്ന് ഇന്ന് വിളിക്കപ്പെടുണ വൈദിക സംസ്ക്കാരത്തെ പുനസ്ഥാപിച്ച ഒരു യുഗപുരുഷനായ ആദിശങ്കരയുടെ ജന്മഭൂമിയാണ് കാലടി  (Kaldi is the birth-place of Shankara, who has replaced Hinduism as it is currently existing  removing the erstwhile Buddhism) are suspects... as the stories of St. Thomas & that of Cheran Chenguttuvan are suspects. Enlivening these suspicions I think will be a great process that may help us to ‘unbecome’ & de-narcissize.  Many of the ‘established’ ‘is’es are ‘is’nots! That lets our identities and consequent commitment to identity-fascisms questioned.
The misrecognition of  വാതം (argument) as  മതം (religion) I think has to be better understood. I think- people already know that- however, socially, മതം has become so deep routed- intrigued with everyday life politics മതം (religion) may not go. For identity intellectuals-  മതം (religion)  is an inevitable fodder to be chewed forever!

-------------------------