CULTURAL BUDDHISM –
RESPONSES: set-2
19. Argo
Spier:
…there is a big ‘danger’
to your Buddhism ‘chat’. I give you here a quote from Carnap, ‘… the WAY (of
discourse) chosen by the meta-physician is such that it give rise to the
suggestion the metaphysical is something which it is not at all, viz., a
descriptive theory’. This implies that the discussion about Buddhism should not
be about ‘what it is or its cultural accomplishes but about HOW to discuss it.
Or really, you should discuss ‘the way how to discuss it’ first before you get
to the discussion ABOUT it.
------------------------------
20. K. G.
Poulos:
I was
carefully following your note and the responses. You have raised an issue
relevant to us today. But let us not, in our enthusiasm, miss the focus.
Reference to Kalady etc. will only help us to loose the game. Buddhism was a
force in Kerala from the time of Asoka. After the advent of vedic way of life,
it was forced to move to the margins. By 10-12 centuries (CE) the vedic culture
could banish it from the mainstream discourses. Yet it continued to be a living
tradition in our life by providing alternatives, especially to those belonging
to the lower strata of society. It provided parallel streams in education
(remember Pallikkuutam is from Buddhist Palli-vihaara), Health (Ayurveda- Velan,
Mannaan Kaniyan and those who practised popular medicine) and many other areas
of our day today life. There would not have been an Itty Achyutan, a Kumaran
Asan, a Sreenarayana Guru or a K R Narayanan had the Buddhist practices not
continued to influence Kerala's social and cultural life. My point is that our
studies should cover these areas also.
21. M.
Gangadharan:
It is
probable that paddy cultivation in midland Kerala was started by Budhists who
came down from the mountains in the east where they might have reached for trade
in spices. This might have happened in the 3rd century A.D. The Dalits of
today, who came down from the mountains with the Budhist leaders, were taught
the ways of using the land between the hills (vayals) in the midland after
draining the excess water on the marshes there. They were also taught the
technology of setlled grain cultivation known till then only in the
Gangetic valley. This cultivation which flourished till the end of 6th century
A.D. might have been taken over by the Brahmins in early 7th century who entered
Kerala from north through east coast. Some tribal groups of the eastern
mountains might have been used by the Brahmins to take over the grain
cultivation using force when necessary. These groups were given the high social
position of the Nayars and were given martial training to protect the Bramin
intersts. This explains the presence of Budhist influence among the Dalits
today.
All
this at present is only conjecture. Properly guided reaserch only can show
whether the conjecture can be accepted as authentic history.
-----------------------------
22. Ajay
Sekher:
This is a response to M.
Gangadharan’s note on paddy cultivation and Buddhism in Kerala. Linguistic
archeology and toponymy provides vital evidences proving that paddy cultivation
and pepper/spice harvesting and trade were initiated by Buddhist missionaries
not as late as 3rd century AD as he points out, but as early as
3rd century BC the time of Asoka. There is a variety of Kara Nellu
(upperland paddy seed) called Pallyal. Another upper land variety of paddy is
called Mundan/Mundakan seed. The Vayal or fields are called Mundakan Padam. The
common affix Munda(k)n clearly denotes a shaven egg head. This was the practice
of the Sramana monks that you still find in Palani and Tirupati both Buddhist
shrines before the Middle Ages. They were often called by the people as Mundans
in Kerala. There are still domiant Avarna and Syriian Christian families with
Mundan or Mundassery as their household name. Place names like Mundur, Mundery,
Mundatikodu, Mundamatam, Mundamukham, Mundakayam…and so and so forth scattered
throughout Kerala are linguistic evidences of Mundans or the monks and their
prolonged settlements with cultivation. These places are also known for paddy
cultivation even today. Then Chiras and Thodus, ie; bunds, reservoirs and canals
used for paddy field cultivation and for draining marshes are also associated
with Mundans as in Mundan Chira and Mundan Thodu. Like Kavu
(Sangharamas),Ambalam (Sanghatirthas); like thePipal and the Banyan the wetland
eco system and upland irrigation/dewatering low land cultivationin Kerla are
also a clear Buddhist legacy and a whole way of life; that is why the Avarnas
and dalits in particular carry forward this ancient culture and life struggle.
Mundans are also locally called Bhutatans in some places after the demonizing
discourse initiated by Brahmanism. Bhutatan Kettu in Periyar is another
distinguishd work of ancient engineering and irrigation regulator/canal system
developed by the Buddhist monks. This impossible work astonished the Brahmanical
groups that they initiated a slur that it is a work of the demons or Bhutatans.
Places associated with Bhutam or Putam or Putan are also deviant forms of
Buddhan as in Putan Kuti or Putan Pandi. Kutan is also a rural form of Putan or
Buddan in Kerala as in Kutan Kulangara, Karumady Kutan or Kutanellur. Linguistic
archeology and studies on local history and minor histories associated with
place names and toponyms provide greater details and insights into the erased
and buried realities of our past. The pioneering works of V V K Valath, N M
Namburi, K Sugatan, P O Purushotaman… are going to be vital in the near
future.
-----------------------------
23. 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.
-------------------------------
24. C. Rajendran:
Mr. Ajay’s letter makes
very interesting reading. I would also like to invite your attention to the term
Palli found profusely in place names of Kerala. Ajay could mention the
contributions made by N. M. Namboodirialso which I think are valuable in
reconstructing the Buddhist past. The popularity of Naganandam, a play with
Buddhist motif of Ahimsa, penned by the Buddhist friendly Harshavardhana may
have something to do with Buddhism in Kerala as Itsing pointedly refers to this
play being staged in Buddhist Viharas. May be Chakyar, also be a Buddhist story
narrator, as the similarity with the term Sakya suggests, and also as pointed
out by many scholars…Ajay refers to Sabarimala- does the saranam signify
Buddhist legacy?
-------------------------------
25. T. S.
Girishkumar:
Here, at this moment, let me make a distinction (temporarily though
for functional reasons), between Buddha, and Buddhism as it is often spoken. Let
me treat it as Philosophy and not religion, though it is often treated as one
and the same through a mistake as I see it. Another thing what is interesting at
once is, that this question comes from a University named after Sankara, where,
it makes one travel through time to see how Sankaracharya becomes intimately
involved with Buddhism, and then, Buddha himself. India and what is
Indian, becomes the substratum to whatever discussions done in Philosophy; and
Buddha and Buddhism is not an exception, the Upanishadic philosophy remains
inescapable to discussions on and in India, and to isolate Buddhism from this
bearing, to think in terms of some thing like culture which is more complex
shall be daring. Let complexities not confuse, let confusions not become
celebrations to speak of something big as unknown to presume it as something big
because of its unknowability.
Nonetheless, to initiate discussions shall be doing philosophy, not to contemplate of what can be the outcome, doing is philosophy and not counting on what may come out of it.
Nonetheless, to initiate discussions shall be doing philosophy, not to contemplate of what can be the outcome, doing is philosophy and not counting on what may come out of it.
------------------------------------------
26. P. Madhu:
Certainly, we escape from the dimension of ‘inner’ world when we
restrict our questions to culture & history! – It appears that we assume as
if that (inner tradition- interiority) does not exist – (do historians &
culture theorists recognize an inner dimension to human life?- mostly they
assume it to be constituted by external calculations!) Ironically, Buddha
represents that ‘inner tradition- interiority’(Of course that inner tradition is
not ‘philosophy’, ‘metaphysics’... it is not even religion.. it is inner
authenticity! Our thinking- especially academic thinking- long before lost track
of such an authenticity!- for us there are only ‘interactional games’- no
authenticity beyond it! )
The problem with this sort of discussion is that it is committed to
the external only– culture history aspect! That restricts us from understanding
Buddhism. This restriction pre supposes a lot! What it hides is a tremendous
lot- what it projects is merely- our aspiration to project ourselves to external
world as radical! This is a methodological bottleneck! Such discussion will take
an interesting dimension- but not an authentic dimension. Here we will discuss
about a ‘Buddhism’ existing out there having some historical role with some
other cultural forms existing out there!....
Another important dimension such discussion misses is the
epistemological beauty of Buddhism. What existed out there culturally as
‘Buddhisms’ – hardly has any connection with its epistemological
sophistication... it is like ‘popular-marxism’ disconnected to the Marxist
epistemology! Buddhist epistemology- is incomparably path-breaking & richer
than Marxist or that matter any other western epistemologies... That dimension
cannot be brought in when we concentrate on historical or cultural forms of
Buddhisms!
---------------------------------------------
27. A.Kanthamani:
When you propose to take us through 'cultural' imagery of Buddhism,
with a view to reconstruct the said imagery, it is not so much clear why should
you denude the 'religious side' to make it convenient to turn to the 'cultural'
side. May be you want to score on the cultural side, but then the question
remains: why can't you allow the retention of the ideological side and consider
its relevance to the contemporary world. Nothing seems to be lost. Why should
you insist that only the cultural image matters sans religious image?
Since nothing seems to be lost, the onus remains on you to define what exactly
you mean by 'cultural Buddhism'. Buddhism as such savours contemporary milieu
without a blush, and if so what is the fun in singling out the cultural for a
deep investigation. Of course you feel a liberating moment but it is not
altogether sanguine. I suggest that you reframe your question as: is Buddhism as
a religion as well as an ideology relevant to the world at large? The simple
answer is that it is so. It must be so even without the pruning. You are not
averse to history after all. Culture must include history and it is always
better not to succumb to prejudices.
I think I have been severe in my criticism. As Professor C. Rajendran insists that we start with a definition. I should agree with him. Anyhow I will not hesitate to appreciate if you turn a good leaf. With a lot of encouragement.
I think I have been severe in my criticism. As Professor C. Rajendran insists that we start with a definition. I should agree with him. Anyhow I will not hesitate to appreciate if you turn a good leaf. With a lot of encouragement.
---------------------
28. P. K. Sasidharan:
I feel that what we understand as culture includes religion and
spirituality. Since culture includes all that human activities and imaginations,
the idea of cultural Buddhism does not denude religious Buddhism. If we go by
religious Buddhism, there is all chance of giving an impression of being
exclusive with certain superiority claims over other religions, in a competitive
world of religious diversity and conflicts. Scholars are there to hold that
Buddha’s teachings are more than religious as well as theoretical. The cultural
expressions that have been inspired by Buddha’s thoughts do not seem too follow
a specific philosophy or religion. Since the domain of culture is characterized
by conflicts of interests and competitive ideologies, what seems to be more
appropriate for the present day world is to seek possibilities for better
arguments and visions suitable for engaging with problems of the time, from
Buddhist cultural expressions, including Buddhist religions. I appreciate your
rephrasing of the question of debate. It may be giving a specific twist to the
discussion. That way it is well and good. As I said earlier, when Argo Spier
proposed another version, different ways of thinking on Buddhist cultures are
to
be welcomed. To be sensitive towards Buddhist cultures seems
important. Is it a theoretical or political imperative?
------------------
29. M. Dasan:
Nice to know that it is generating debates.. Let us continue. Buddha
emphasized the need to be critical of his own precepts. So why not we? The need
is not to revive Buddhism. It is not at all possible. The experience has shown
that it too had many divisions. Can we at least follow the major precept not as
religion but as a way of life? Anyway let all those who are interested in,
assemble and listen to each other. I will be one of those.
---------------------------
30. U. Jayaprakash:
During the British Period in India, to become a follower of Buddhism
was not only a matter of being political but also cultural. It was political
because, the opting for Christianity became a matter of opting a higher status
and means of living in order to avoid Hinduism. It was cultural in the sense
that it alone provided an alternative social set up based on hierarchy. Thus
opting Buddhism was considered as a matter of imbibing the spirit of renaissance
(awakening or enlightenment) that emerged out of societal crises then prevailed.
However, when the Indian Constitution and Parliamentary Democracy became a fact,
the question of having a revolutionary alternative social set up became
unimportant.
----------------------------
31. P. K. Sasidharan:
It is interesting to get some insights on Buddhist consciousness
prevailed during the colonial period. It needs to be traced further.
--------------------------------
