workshop on cultural Buddhism:
quick responses and exchanges.
For the theme-note and responses sets 1-4,
www.bouddhayaanam.blogspot.com
..........
46. Paneer Selvam:
The main reason for the emergence of Buddhism is te casteism and
rituals which predominated Hinduism. The fact is that Vedic religion practised
the casteism which cannot be denied. To say that there was no caste and varna
deteriorated into caste and to say that it was based on division of labour and
not colour is not at all acceptable. Even for the argument sake if we allow
this, we have to see how it is used in the present context. To say that
everything was perfect and now everything has deteriorated cannot be an
argument because it has to be how it is meaningful to me or to you. Such
arguments only show the drawbacks in Hindu religion and it will not save the
religion. What we need is a religion with a human face where everybody is
included and participation of all and not for selected few. Of course all
religions have this problem. Hindus who convert themselves to Christianity also
carry their caste with them. I was under the impression that at least in
Buddhism there is no caste. Recently one Bikku told me that even in Buddhism,
caste is prevalent. This means that the purpose of Buddhist philosophy/religion
is lost. This perhaps gives us the idea that the best way is to come out of
religion, any religion for that matter. It has to be noted that Buddha rejected
the infallibility of the Vedas and priestly supremacy. He worked for the social
equality among people. This also shows that there was no soical equality among
the people during Vedic period.
In Tamil literature we find reference to Buddhism in Sangam
literature. The Chinese pilgrim Hieun Tsang (650 AD) refers to the presence of
sthupi in Pandiya Nadu. Buddhism was prevalent during the period of Tamil
literature Silapathikaram (3 AD) and Manimekalai (5 AD). In the Theravada
Buddhism the number of Buddhas was restricted. The Pali texts say that there
were six Budhhas before the advent of Gautama Buddha. But the Buddhavamsa
refers to 24 Buddhas. The Sukhavati-vyuhas, a Mahayana text refers to 81
millions Buddha. Buddha is also regarded as avatars. In the contemporary
period, it was Ayothee dasa Pandithar, whose centenary is celebrated this year,
is mainly responsible for making the Buddhist movement in Tamil Nadu more
popular. Once an Advaitin, he was dissatisfied with the Hindu practice, he
worked for the re-emergence of Buddhism in Tamil Nadu.
One important question that arises here is this: Is Sankara
responsible for the exist of Buddhism in India? This is the question raised by
Prof. Daya Krishna in the journal of ICPR. If Sankara is responsible, then is
there a major difference between them. Sankara is known as “pseudo Buddha”.
(See TM.P Mahadevan’s book, Gaudapada. The introductory part is important to
see how Sankara has borrowed many concepts from Buddhist tradition). If a
pseudo Buddha can become a dominating figure in Indian philosophical tradition,
sidelining all other philosophical traditions and schools where did the
“genuine” Buddha go? Can a tradition vanish like this? Can we say that the
Advaitic culture has swallowed Buddhist culture?
………..
47. Ajay Sekher:
Prof Paneer Selvam has touched upon some of the key issues related
to the erasure of Buddhism in south India, especially under caste and Vedic
Hindu Brahmanism. It is also highly relevant to discuss the revival of Buddhism
in Tamilakam through Ayotheedasa Panditar and the dalit neo buddhist movement
in Tamil Nadu, as he has aptly pointed out on the centenary of the great dalit
leader. A comparison with Kerala's neo buddhism in the 1920s and 30s led
by Sahodaran and Mitavadi would be inevitable in this regard. Also cross
connections could be established with reference to Ambedkarism and the 1950s
Marathi Neo Buddhist conversions that culminated in Nagpur Deeksha Bhumi, and
still producing repercussions.
.........
48. S. N. Chaoudhary:
Prof. Paneer Selvam has rightly put
the problem with which I fully agree.Hence,Buddhism died a natural death in
India with this fraternal embrace.
.............
49. K. R. Remesh:
While
Bouddha India flourished, Sankara India perished.
For about
500 years after Buddha, Buddhism was a religion of Dharma. There was no
discrimination. After that period there started devotion and it became
Mahayana-Buddhism. It continued up to AD 500. During this period also there was
no discrimination. Then came Vajrayana-Buddhism. This Buddhism and Tantric
Brahmanism where identical. Slowly Brahmanism engulfed Buddhism.
There was
no discrimination in Dharma. In Bhakti also there was no discrimination. In
Tantric Brahmanism there was only discrimination. They destroyed Dharma and
established Tantrism. Slowly Tantrism became sorcery in their hands. Such
sorcerers divided the society in to castes and sub-castes. It was very easy for
Muslim invaders to conquer such a divided society. Thus India perished. Everybody
say that Sankara’s Vedanta is a philosophy of unification. But Brahmins were
using that philosophy as mask for their sorcery.
........
50. Ajay Sekher:
50. Ajay Sekher:
The destruction of monuments like
Nalanda was done by mistake by the raiding Islamic militia. Brahmanism also
played the covetous mediating role in such erasures of Buddhist Stupas and
Viharas by invaders from west Asia. Ambedkar has also pointed out the various
reasons and processes of this catastrophe in the Rise n Fall of Buddhism in
India. Thus it cant be as reductionist and simple as the note here but a
highly complex and conjectural problematic involving Brahmanical cheat n
usurpation.
...........
...........
51. Athena:
I do not know if my western culture perspective has any
value to you, but to me the above argument looks an argument for who is
responsible for giving us Protestantism? Martin Luther gets a lot of credit,
but he is not at all to be credited for the equality we came to enjoy. Our
equality seems more a will of the people, and plenty of them were killed in the
struggle over the division of classes the west had.
It really troubles me that your arguments seem to think the Hindu casts system is something totally different from the master/slave relationships of the west. I think the argument should be one of human nature, and the shared reasoning for why some are masters and others are slaves. To say Europe did not have a slave population is just wrong. A serf was a slave. It really doesn't matter the a slave was sold as human, and the serf was sold as part of piece of land. Nor the caste system institutionalized the division of people. It is all human nature acting out, and justifying the exploitation of humans with religion.
However in the west, barbarians had a strong tradition of freedom and a tradition of war, and they did not take to being made slaves peacefully.
.....
Interesting to see things in a context of social organization, possible enforced by political power, and consumerism which is a free market and may not exactly have the same religious meaning for everyone. I have several Buddhas because they are pleasing to the eye and remind me of peace and happiness, without having a greater religious meaning. I have had Hindu pictures, without thinking of myself as Hindu. I have Egyptian and Aztec art that also had religious meaning in the past. It so different when we think of these matters as art and commercialism, or social order and politics.
It really troubles me that your arguments seem to think the Hindu casts system is something totally different from the master/slave relationships of the west. I think the argument should be one of human nature, and the shared reasoning for why some are masters and others are slaves. To say Europe did not have a slave population is just wrong. A serf was a slave. It really doesn't matter the a slave was sold as human, and the serf was sold as part of piece of land. Nor the caste system institutionalized the division of people. It is all human nature acting out, and justifying the exploitation of humans with religion.
However in the west, barbarians had a strong tradition of freedom and a tradition of war, and they did not take to being made slaves peacefully.
.....
Interesting to see things in a context of social organization, possible enforced by political power, and consumerism which is a free market and may not exactly have the same religious meaning for everyone. I have several Buddhas because they are pleasing to the eye and remind me of peace and happiness, without having a greater religious meaning. I have had Hindu pictures, without thinking of myself as Hindu. I have Egyptian and Aztec art that also had religious meaning in the past. It so different when we think of these matters as art and commercialism, or social order and politics.
………
52. K. R. Remesh:
Mythri of Buddha and Brotherhood of Islam.
It was Buddhism that prevailed in Islamic countries
before the origin of Islam. The great Bamiyan Buddha Statues proclaim this
fact. The famous Thakshasila (Taxila) university was in present Pakistan.
It was mythri and karuna that Buddha taught as the
reason for Ahimsa. This mythri became the brotherhood of Islam. Muslims also
say – parama karunikanaya Allahu. Here we can see karuna also.
..........
53. Ajay Sekher:
In Kerala Muslims
call Allah the merciful as Padachavan the creator and constructor with an
accent on the designing and sculpting part of it though the visual imaginary is
taboo. This is a unique form of address using a pro visual and sculptural
signifier. In Kerala the Muslims and Christians are often called Boudhar and
Mapila. There is a Christian chronicle called Bouddha Charitram. Mapila
is often elaborated as those who are initiated into the realm of the ethical
way or enlightened Marga. They also use Pali words like Pally, Pallykoodam,
Achan, Pattam, Kathanar, Kappiar etc. The uses of ceremonial Kudam or Urns and
Umbrellas or Kuda by both the sects also are relics of the Buddhist legacy.
………..
No comments:
Post a Comment