Sharing
experience.
Workshop
on Cultural Buddhism.
........
Bhante
Suniti:
The
workshop on Cultural Buddhism was a great experience of hearing
different views on Buddhism and cultures from academics and
activists, especially from students. "Only the Buddhist can talk
on Buddhist" did not happen here. The workshop gave a chance to
each and everyone who have even a single thought about Buddhism. Here
the message was spread that anyone who is not Buddhist are also open
to speak, learn, understand the principles of Buddhism without
restrictions. I felt that was the best of it. The critics were also
welcomed, who showed us (Buddhist practitioners) the path to think on
new lines which are required. I thanks the organisers for initiating
such a great dialogue by bringing together the Buddhist
activists and academicians from different parts of India.
.....
Vijaya
Maitriya:
The
open discussion like this was very good. A detailed discussion on
Buddhism and Ambedkar to be happen in the Sree Sankaracharya
University of Sanskrit, Kalady, is indeed a bold attempt. This shows
there some people around to act daringly. Personally I enjoyed
discussions on Buddhist archaeology of Kerala, by amature
researchers, though I missed many points due the deliberations in
Malayalam language.
.....
Chanda
M. Bagde:
This
was my first experience of hearing on Buddhist culture of Kerala, as
an outsider. I am very much impressed by the freedom allowed to
express different opinions. Organiser's statement that it is the
sufferings of people that motivate them to think about cultural
Buddhism seems to be catching.
..........
P.
Madhu:
i
am writing this from sights of unbearable heart choking scenes of my
mother's suffering. i understand the importance of the great master
understood all our suffering like none other. that was a daring
compassion unmatched in human history. he can't be limited to any
nation, religion, philosophy, or even to any species.. his
understanding has no match to the understanding of any divinities we
know. it is pure compassion far far beyond i may be capable of
understanding it in my births may be till end of the cycle. that
greatness is yet to be captured. arguments of identity politics &
evidences towards its claim & using buddha for that .. i think is
a too small step ..yet great... though far little than a drop
compared to ocean. yet, understanding our existential limitations i
apprecite the good intended initiative of sasi & friends.
...........
Ajay
Sekher:
Really
enlightening learning experience on the whole way of life called
cultural buddhisms in plural. The workshop revealed that there are
multiple and divergent buddhisms in the present within a region
aiming for liberation and social transformations of various sorts at
various micro locations of culture. The cliched questions
raised from some stock quarters also reveal that infiltration and
internal blast strategy is still practiced by elitist groups who are
antagonized by the movements at the bottom. There is a sustained need
to continue such annual conferences related to cultural buddhisms in
Kerala in particular. It could be a great cultural, epistemological
and ethical struggle for survival in the current contexts of Sanatana
Varnasrama Dharma and its various avatars.
.........
G.
Anandaraj:
The
Navayana Cultural Buddhism: Neither Buddhist nor Ambedkarist
(Abstract)
Hegemony
is leadership or dominance, especially by one state or social group
over others. As a part of the academia, I can’t accept any sort of
hegemony. The Navayana or Cultural Buddhism presented here is chiefly
aimed at countering the Brahmanical hegemeony to establish the
Buddhist hegemony. The Navayana is a glorified and mystified Buddhism
and Pseudo-Ambedkarism meant to suit some political leanings. It
should be rejected in the following academic and historical grounds.
It is against Dr. B. R.
Ambedkar’s pure academic purports.
It denies the basic texts and
tenets of Authentic Buddhism of the 4th Councils and
Pitaka Texts.
It is against the historical
Buddhism, which was purely a missionary religion based on the first
mystical man-God, Gautama Buddha. A missionary religion seeks its
growth and propagation just by denying the others.
PART 1
Cultural Buddhism goes
against Baba Saheb Ambedkar
Most of the presentations,
especially Dr. Rajesh Karnkal’s sought to the Aryan Invasion theory
to refute the Brahmanical hegemony, which is totally against Baba
Saheb.
First Objection: True
Ambedkar on Aryan Invasion Theory.
I would like quote an eminent
Dalit columnist Chandra Bhan Prasad to my justification.
Time we learnt true
teachings of Baba Saheb:
I had thus, in my very
childhood, an introductory lesson on Ambedkar. Three images formed in
the mind when I thought of him:
A man who drafted the India’s
Constitution.
Author of Arya-non-Arya
thesis.
A person who re-igniter the
dhamma chakra.
A few years back, I found out,
much to my chagrin, that I had been taught a wrong lesson. The lesson
we had learnt was that we (the Dalits) the non-Aryans had been
invaded, tormented and enslaved by the caste-Hindu upper caste who
were Aryans. Ask any Dalit today (a Dalit with doctorate on Dr
Ambedkar and/or a Dalit school dropout) aviyt Dr Ambedkar’s Aryan
invasion theory and most will tell you that Baba Saheb was right when
he talked about the Arya invasion theory. But how much truth is
there? In his book Who Were the Shudras Vol 7, Dr Ambedkar
dismisses the Aryan race with absolute contempt. On page 85, he
concludes by saying (while dismissing the Aryan race theory) that:
The Vedas do not know any
race referred to as the Aryan.
There is no evidence in the
Vedas of any invasion of India by the Aryan race and its having
conquered the Dasas and Dasyus who were supposed to be natives of
India.
There is no evidence to show
that the distinction between Aryans, Dasas, and Dasyus was a racial
distinction.
The Vedas do not support the
contention that the Aryans were different in colour from the Dasas
and Dasyus.
In the same book (page 86), Dr
Ambedkar writes:
“Enough has been said to
show how leaky is the Aryan theory expounded by western scholars and
accepted by Brahmins. Yet, the theory has such a hold on the people
that what has been said against it may mean no more than scotching
it. Like a poisonous snake, it must be killed.”
On page 100, Dr. Ambedkar
writes: “In the face of the discovery of new facts set out in this
chapter, the theory can no longer stand and must be thrown on the
scrap heap”
It is a real puzzle that Dr.
Ambedkar’s followers believe in the Aryan race theory which he
himself rejected. To him, Aryan is a linguistic term and not a term
for race. Worse still, Dr. Ambedkar’s followers believe that it was
Dr. Ambedkar himself who propounded that Aryan race theory!
Source: The Pioneer,
Sunday, 14 April 2013, Chandra Bhan Prasad (a Dalit, bor
September 1958) is an Indian journalist and political commentator. A
frequent writer on Dalit issues he also acts as an advisor to the
Dalit Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (DICCI).
Second objection: True
Ambedkar on the disappearance of Buddhism.
“The disappearance
of Buddhism from India has been a matter of great surprise to
everybody who cares to think about the subject and is also a matter
of regret. But it lives in China, Japan, Burma, Siam, Annam,
Indo-China, Ceylon and parts of Malaya-Archipelago. In India lone, it
has ceased to exist. Not only it has ceased to live in India but even
the name of Buddha has gone out of memory of most Hindus. How could
such a thing have happened? This is an important question for which
there has been not satisfactory answer. Not only there is no
satisfactory answer, nobody has made an attempt to arrive at a
satisfactory answer. In dealing with this subject people fail to make
a very important distinction. It is a distinction between the fall of
Buddhism and decline of Buddhism. It is necessary to make this
distinction because the fall of Buddhism is one, the reasons for
which are very different from those which brought about its downfall.
For the fall is due to quite obvious causes while the reasons for its
decline are not quite so obvious.
There can be no doubt that
the fall of Buddhism in India was due to the invasions of the
Musalmans. Islam came out as the enemy of the “But’. The word
‘But’ as everybody knows is an Arabic word and means an idol. Not
a many people however know what the derivation of the world ‘But”
is. ‘But’ is the Arabic corruption of Buddha. Thus the origin of
the word indicates that in the Moslem mind idol worship had come to
be identified with the Religion of the Buddha. To the Muslims, they
were one and the same thing. The mission to break the idols thus
became the mission to destroy Buddhism. Islam destroyed Buddhism not
only in India but wherever it went.
Before Islam came into being
Buddhism was the religion of Bactria, Parthia, Afganistan, Gandhar
and Chinese Turkestan, as it was of the whole of Asia. In all these
countries Islam destroyed Buddhism. As Vincent Smith points out:
“The furious massacres
perpetrated in the many places by Musalman invaders were more
efficacious than orthodox Hindu persecutions, and had a great deal to
do with the disappearance of Buddhism in several provinces (of
India)”.
Not all will be satisfied with
this explanation. It does seem inadequate. Islam attacked both
Bramhanism and Buddhism. It will be asked why should one survive and
the other perish. The argument is plausible but not destructive of
the validity of the thesis. To admit that Bramhanism survived, it
does not mean that the fall of Buddhism was not due to the sword of
Islam. All that it means is that, there were circumstances which made
it possible for Bramhanism and impossible for Buddhism to survive the
onslaught of Islam. Fortunately for Brahmanism and unfortunately for
Buddhism that was the fact.” (The Decline and Fall of Buddhism, 5th
Chapter of Revolution and Counter-Revolution, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar).
PART 11
Cultural Buddhism goes
against the basic texts and tenets of Authentic Buddhism.
The
Buddhist canons are formed out of the 4 historical councils of
Buddhist monks respectively Rajagriha, Vaisali, Paliputra and
Kashmir. The Pitaka texts have been finalized by the four council
through the process of sankachattayanam or thorough
inspections and recitations by and in the Sanghas. Thus, there is no
scope of any interpolation in them, as Dr. Rajesh proposed. Later in
the modern days the three major sources of editions of these texts
have been collected and finalized by authentic men relying solely on
Buddhist traditions. If there any problem still exists with the
Buddhist texts, the vibrant sectarianism of mutually quarrelling
Buddhist groups is the single reason. As Henry Hackman (Buddhism as a
religion) points out no Brahmanical renderings of Buddhist texts
are so far available, but Brahmanical writins are available in
Buddhist traditions. Thus the only reliable source extant now on
Buddhism is the Pitakas. They expose that Buddhism in its inborn
nature was against Sudras, Dalits and women. Let me provide some
hints therein.
Buddhism
of Buddha going against Sudras and Dalits.
I
use here the Caryapitaka and Jatakas of Khuddaka Nikaya of Sutta
Pitaka and Nidana Kathas of Vinaya Pitaka.
The oldest Buddhist monks are
of two kinds: Brajman parivrajakas and Anna-titheeya parivrajakas.
The first from Brahmin clans and the rest from kshatriya and Vaisya
clans. The first Buddhist council was conducted at Fajagriha by the
499 men of different places who have direct linkage with Buddha
including his son Rahula. And among them 25 were the disciples of
first lineage. Among the 25 not a single man was a non-Brhamin.
Among the rest of 499, no man is from other than the first three
varnas. When upali, a prime Buddha disciple was questioned by a
Vaisya man he along with Ananda and Kasyapa simply answers that
“thus spake the lord!!” These and the like show Brahmanical
hegemony is accepted in Buddhism.
Buddha himself says that he
is the 25th of the 26 Buddhas. The first was named
Dipankura Buddha, the last Maitreya Buddha. All the 24 previous
Buddhas were from Brahmin Kulas.
Now, here, an interpretation
is possible that the Brahmin word means only the wise and not a
caste. But, the Pitakas resist this interpretation. Buddha answeres
in the nidana Katha, why had he not born in the Sudra varna and
out-castes. “Buddhas not only on such castes which could be able
to lead the then societies. So they should not be born out of
Brahmin or Kshatriya Kulas”. (What does navayana say about the
Buddha who not yet came?) These sort of casteic sayings are found in
all the Buddhists canons. Also same was said about the bodhisattvas.
(Buddhist Studies, Vimala Charan Law, Chapter 4).
Buddha ruling against Women
Just consider the 8 laws
specially made for women monks, astonishingly we could find that
Buddhism in its roots is against women and promotes Gender
discrimination. These laws are evolved when Gautami, te step-mother
of Buddha herself approached Ananda to include them too in the
Sangha. The 10th Khandaka Chullavagga of Sutta says that a
full night discussion between Buddha and Aanda occurred and the 8
Garudharma resulted. At the end of the secret discussion Buddha
remarked: “O, Ananda, if the renounced women had not been given
permission to enter the Sangha to live according to the injunctions
of Tathagata at your request, the holiness of my creed would surely
last for more 1000 years. And no, it would last hardly to 500 years.”
Let us consider few laws.
The First Law: a Bhikkuni,
even she had completed 100 years after the Upasampata (a kind
of limited membership) she should stand up when Bhikku, even if he
may of a single day experience, enters the gathering.
The Third Law: Upasota
(a Confession during every 14 days) is must for women in lieu of
their possible mental and physical mistakes.
The Fourth Law: Pavarana
(in 14 days interval) is to be done by the women monks strictly in
the presence of male monks.
The Seventh Law: A Bhikkuni
can neer scold or ridicule a Bhikku at any instance.
The Eighth Law: A Bhikku can
make a Bhikkuni disciplined and not vice versa.
And finally Buddha declared:
“In any life of Buddha, a female birth is impossible. Only with a
fore-skinned penis like a sword in its case, a Buddha could be born.”
The Buddhahood is highly
impossible than Brahminhood.
Many of the scholars
here said that all are eligible to become Buddhas simply by adopting
Navayan. But Buddha himself negates this simplified Buddhahood. Dasa
paramis – Ten essential virtues are needed to attain Buddhahood
ranging from Dana to Upekha. To accomplish each one 30 births are
needed. Then 30x10+300 Brahmin or Kshatriya lives have to be passed
on to attain the tushitavasta the exclusive condition of
Buddhahood!! However, even in a suspected portion of Manusmriti
anyone can attain Brahmin birth by 7 consecutive human births.
Connection of Buddha with
the Vedas
Buddha says that he
has taken the 10 essential virtues of Dana, Sila etc. From his study
of the Vedas in previous births. Then how could he deny study of the
Vedas in the current birth of Gautama. In the first Khuddaka text
itself a strange story appears that Buddha was directed by Brahman to
preach Dhamma among people. Before that he hesitated to preach among
common people for the single reason that he has achieved the
Buddhahood painfully. Devadatta, the cousin of Buddha, who was a
scholar of the Vedas made “Dasavattuni” – 10 things avoided by
a Buddhist leader, like meat and liquor which are against Vedic
injunctions.
PART 111
Cultural Buddhism goes
against historical Buddhism
Violence on Buddhism
Dr. Rajesh’s hypothesis of
Ppusyamitra’s murdering of Buddhist monks is unhistorical.
Pushyamitra Sunga (185 BCE to 151 BCE) has been recorded as being
hostile to Buddhism, burning Sutras, Buddhists shrines and endorsing
the massacre of monks. Although such issues remains disputed, Belgian
historian and Hindu scholar Koenraad Elst writes:
“The story is in fact
given in two near contemporaneous (2nd
century AD) Buddhist histories, the Asokanvadana and the Divyavadana;
the two narratives are almost verbatim the same and very obviously
have a common origin. This non-contemporary story (which surfaces
more than three centuries aften the alleged facts) about
Pushyamitra’s offering money for the heads of Buddhist monks is
rendered improbable by external evidence: the well-attested
historical fact that he allowed and patronized the construction of
monasteries and Buddhist universities in his domains, as well as the
still-extant stupa of Sanchi. After Ashoka’s lavish sponsorship of
Buddhism, it is perfectly possible that Buddhist institutions fell on
slightly harder times under the Sungas, but persecution is quite
another matter.”
Buddhist historian Etienne
Lamotte has observed: “To judge from the documents, Pushyamitra
must be acquitted through lack of proof.” (“Popular
Controversies in World History: Investigating History’s Intriguing
Questions”, by Steven L. Danver, P.98, isbn = 9781598840780).
These are to be considered as
the main causes for the disappearance of Buddhism around the world:
White Huns,
Muhammad Bin
Qasim,
Mahamud of Ghazni,
Muhammad of Ghor,
The Mongols,
Timur (Tamarlane),
Persecution by Muslims and
conversion to Islam.
Violence by Buddhism
Violence
by Buddhism refers to acts of violence and aggression committed by
Buddhists with religious, political, and socio-cultural motivations.
A popular misconception of Buddhism is that it is among the religious
traditions least associated with violence, but there is a robust
history of Buddhist-related self-flagellation, suicides, torture, and
wars. Within the monastic traditions alone, there are over sixteen
hundred years of Buddhist violence in Asia.
(http://en.wikipeda.org/wiki/buddhismandviolence).
At
last I would like to draw your attention to a revolutionary approach
towards Buddhism, keeping all these facts in mind: and that is
Critical Buddhism.
Critical
Buddhism is a branch of Japanese Buddhist scholarship which aims to
reform Buddhism through critical examination of its practices and
philosophy. Many individual schools of Buddhism are criticized by
other practitioners as spiritually insincere or not attached to the
original teachings of the original Buddha, including Soka Gakkai, the
Nichiren Shoshu, the Dhammakaya Movement, and participants in the
Dorje Shugden controversy. The navayana or cultural Buddhism
presented here may have some brilliant future if it turns its fresh
eyes on to this Critical Buddhism.
I
submit this piece of academic writing to the pleasant and peaceful
mind of scholars assembled here to say something differently to
reject the mainstream history and ideology for the sake of common
good to all the downtrodden classes of mankind.
.........
P.
K. Sasidharan:
Anandaraj’s
allegation that the workshop on cultural Buddhism has been conducted
with a hegemonic intent is misrepresentation of what has actually
taken place. The actual event of the two-day workshop had been in
continuation of the online pre-workshop discussions for about two
years. The specific theme-paper of the workshop was widely circulated
in advance, and the same was forwarded to Anandaraj, along with
common invitation and updated responses. Unfortunately, the above
criticism, which he circulated as pamphlet among the participants in
the workshop hall does not seem to inform the ideas shared by the
theme-note and the followed discussions. Most of the participants
have experienced the workshop as a platform for articulating
different, and rather contradicting, ways of understanding the idea
of cultural Buddhism. Besides being an exploration into heterogeneous
expressions of Buddhist culture, the idea of cultural Buddhism was
also presented with a methodological presupposition of imbibing
Buddhism as a liberating ideology, which suits for the present-day
world. Its conceptual and practical feasibility are the points of
contention. Nowhere has it been proposed as something called
‘Navayana Cultural Buddhism’. So the pamphlet seems to miss the
target. From the point of the proposed idea of cultural Buddhism, the
Navayana or Neo-Buddhism was also viewed as yet another form of
religious Buddhism. Cultural Buddhism wants to seek the possibility
of creating a Buddhist ideological space where one could make use
Buddhist ideas, even while being a non-Buddhist religious
practitioner, to engage with existential crises and cultures of power
and violence. This being the thrust of the present exploration, the
allegation that cultural Buddhism is meant for countering Brahmanical
hegemony in order to establish Buddhist hegemony is simply a
misrepresentation. Of course, Brahmanism forms one of the major
points of analysis as casteism continues to work as the most
important factor of social sufferings in India. There are also many
other factors which cause sufferings, namely, neo-liberal economic
exploitation, cultural imperialism, racism, ethno-centricism,
national chauvinism, religious fanaticism, consumerism, greed,
violence, discrimination, hypocrisy, state centric power politics,
totalitarianism, eco-destructive developments, and many others. It is
by keeping the possibilities of creative engagement with all such
sources or conditions of human sufferings in view that the idea of
cultural Buddhism is considered here. No doubt that it has its start
off with a strong critical engagement with long and wider traditions
of Buddhism. So it goes without saying that such a reconstruction of
Buddhism may not be possible from the premise of a Buddhist monolith,
which is projected as authentic and historical. Although uninformed
about these thematic problems, Anandarajan’s pamphlet has to be
engaged with rigour, and factual details are to be scrutinized.
...........
P.
K. Sasidharan:
P.
A. Pouran’s remark (Blog post No: 94) that ‘weak therapies’
like Buddhism are inadequate to fight common man’s ills caused by
globalisation, privatisation, liberalization, tourism, etc., is a
very significant input in continuing the discussion on the viability
of cultural Buddhism. Because, such a blunt rejection of any
political implication of Buddhist ideas vis-a-vis the
challenges against the threats posed by contemporary socio-economic
orders seems to lead the discussion directly to the problem of
seeking justification for the reconstruction of Buddhism as cultural
Buddhism. Pouran has a definite suggestion that people should be
mobilized to put up ruthless fight against those ‘evils’.
However, he does not seem to be worried about whether the ruthless
fighting would cure the ills or make them worse. If to think
historically, the question how far it would be realistic to call for
such heroism today becomes very pertinent. In other words, we need to
think to what extent the presumed ‘strong therapies’ had/have
been strong in history. Unlike earlier convictions, one may not be so
innocent or gullible today to embrace the cause of revolutionary
social transformation programmes inspired by the modern or scientific
ideologies like liberalism, democracy, socialism, nationalism, and
communism. Nor it is credulous to conceive that any sort of
militarist or terrorist policies (including the state or economic
terrorism) would be able to bring peace and well being for common
man. Analysis of the conditions that defeated those strong therapies
themselves reveals that they cannot be in a position to counter the
maladies in existence. That is, the context in which the so-called
strong therapies have become reinforcing source of maladies can no
longer be overlooked. Perhaps, the significance of Buddhist ideas
might be seen in relation to the context of such an analysis of
conditions in which social maladies are getting generated and
reinforced day by day. If the so-called strong/hard programmes are
proved to be failure (weaker; to be precise) why should there be an
unrealistic glorification of apparent heroisms? If strong remedies
are found to be part and parcel of a complex vicious circle of power
and violence, why should we go by some preconceived dichotomist
notions of strong and weak programmes? Is there any alternative
strong therapy other than those available in the market? Are they to
be made use sans any rectification of their corruptions? Are the
perceived weak/soft therapies really soft by all means? Is it
possible to trace some elements that are potentially strong in the
weak? Are they useful, at least, for the purpose of further
strengthening or rectification of the strong ones, if not to replace
them? It seems we are only left with the option of learning things
with a longer historical perspective. The attempt for a
reconstruction of Buddhism in the form of cultural Buddhism seems to
have emerged from such a predicament. The present exercise of
learning from the Buddhist cultural legacies is, thus, meant for
reinventing the Buddhist perceptions of human sufferings and
liberation.
