tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999544138771922515.post3835571562520965742..comments2023-07-11T03:44:58.641-07:00Comments on bouddhayaanam: POST-WORKSHOP DISCUSSIONspiritual dissenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12926865981755522489noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999544138771922515.post-42192781849721281142015-04-18T19:54:34.719-07:002015-04-18T19:54:34.719-07:00Thank you Sasi Sir for reviewing my critical write...Thank you Sasi Sir for reviewing my critical write-up on the workshop proceedings of "Cultural Buddhism". Kindly note these points from my part, in contrast with some of your end-notes....<br /><br />**1) "Anandaraj’s allegation that the workshop on cultural Buddhism has been conducted with a hegemonic intent is misrepresentation of what has actually taken place."<br />Why it was a misrepresentation?<br />You answers:<br />"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."<br />My clarification:<br />a) It was not an allegation, both in legal and non-legal terminology. It was an assertion with eyewitness and solid reasoning. I circulated the pamphlet in the second day only. I, after participating all the sessions, intervened in the last session of the first day itself with 11 questions only based on the actual proceedings of the day. Nobody answered my queries. In the 2nd day, detailing the same queries, I presented the matter-typed to the participants and resource persons there; only because there was no time allowed to me to present the paper, of course due to your busy schedule. <br />Therefore, <br />My write-up (not pamphlet) represent the two day workshop's actual themes. If it was a real continuation of 2 years discussions my paper also represents that debate too. And if my paper is a misrepresentation of the 2 years discussions then the workshop failed to be a so called continuation. Any body can cross-check the three sources: 1) the 2 years discussions' proceedings on-net and published. 2) the 2 day workshop's proceedings 3) My critical write-up and decide the actuality behind allegation and misrepresentation. <br /><br />2) "Nowhere has it been proposed as something called ‘Navayana Cultural Buddhism’." <br />As a part of the current academic fashion of 'Cultural Studies' we can thought of some cultural Buddhism. But, most of the presentations at the first day used and emphasized the word Navayana. As a whole, the papers almost echoed nothing but Navayana of the Maharashtriyan politics. If you need I would quote the presented papers....<br /><br />3) "The sufferings of 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...."<br />You think Buddhism can be presented against these problems. My paper stands against this conviction. Because theoretical and historical Buddhism never did against these, because it born out of a man-God and sectarian association of his disciple monks....<br /><br />4) "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." <br />No. Because,<br />a) All the presenters scolded Brahmanism as a praise to Buddhism. Over all, thus, unfortunately, a non-academic and irrational approach prevailed over the whole workshop. But I think, with the solid proofs from the Pitakas, that Buddhism is none other than perverted Brahmanism. If Brahmanical hegemony of Buddha's times is a historical fact, then, we can surely say as in my writ-up that ... "These and the like show Brahmanical hegemony is accepted in Buddhism."......<br />Yes, now I withdraw here to give place to more genuine academic discussions. <br /> <br /> ** The letters in bold-italic are from Sasi Sir's mail....<br />Acharyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07212107242404847800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999544138771922515.post-22419547898854061722015-04-13T11:29:27.072-07:002015-04-13T11:29:27.072-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Acharyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07212107242404847800noreply@blogger.com