The Middle Kingdom Wallas

Re: # 157

I think Islamic invaders were primarily responsible for extinguishing Buddhism in India. As someone pointed out, Buddhist viharas would have been the most prominent and visible targets to an invader looking to destroy signs of idolatry. Also, an alien invader might have had trouble distinguishing between Buddhism and Hinduism, given their similarities, and may have targeted the Buddhist minority, thinking they were striking at the heart of the majority religion. Even today, Hinduism and Buddhism are intertwined in Nepal; in China and Japan also, it is hard to distinguish between Buddhism and Confucianism and Shinto respectively.

In addition, Buddhism was probably the ``idolatrous`` religion the invaders were most familiar with - most of them (Ghaznavi, Ghori) were Turks, and many Turkic tribes were Buddhist before they became Muslim. I might be mistaken in this, but doesn`t the word ``But`` (as in ``But-shikan``) derive from ``Buddha``?

re: post 181
I apologise for the abusive language in my last post. I feel bad i ever wrote that post.
Sridhar

re: more about this scoring system
I think this scoring system tells us a lot about the Paki mentality: if u do not like somebody, give them a good score. I saw a program on TV about Bollywood and Lollywood (or whatever is left of it) putting up a show in Dubai (for Lux). The comperer was full of praise for Pakis. Why not? It was their show. Then i learnt something. The choreography, and design was all done by Indians. They did not take any credit nor any credit was given them. Typical Paki style.
I personally say fukc the Chowk. It is time to move on.
Sridhar

rsridhar:
the day I see store sign ONLY in hindi (devnagri)[north] and in Malyalam/telugu(south) will be the day I will accept this ``roots`` mantra.

The question is: Are there roots in plastic plants?

Lot of anger? if one is not capable of getting angry even now, then I hold his/her birth suspect (illegitimate)

re: Scoring by the Chowk staff
The Chowk scoring link has this to say about scores:
``Points are given for insightful, informative, interesting, or at least funny (as in witty not jackass) responses``

It is one thing for Chowk Staff to be biased but they should at least make sense.
Tahmed gets a score of 3 (# 161) for just agreeing to my post and Dost Mittar gets a 4 for asking a question from Kabuliwallah. Latter`s interacts have been, BTW, impressive.
Looks like Chowk Staff has some predetermines scores for each interactors.
Anyway, i am not bothered but just intrigued just as DM is.
Sridhar

re:#175 by echoboom
Looks like u are angry at a lot of things.
History has never been kind to India, yet most Indians do not harbor illwill against others. What u see and hear in Chowk is not even a representative sample of India.
India is perhaps rediscovering itself in a new mould. In a new set up, you have to be a different kind of player to survive. I definitely see a new zeal for learning and moving upwards at least among the middle class. There is nothing wrong in ``westernising`` but i wish people do not forget their roots.
Sridhar

dost-mittar:176
Yaar gradepoint average 4.0 hai aur 1.0 sey discussion?

You wrote:
[So, while it is good to take pride in what`s good in one`s past, there is nothing wrong in learning from others where they have excelled in comparison with us. ]

and I had written (#172)
(I have always maintained that one should NEVER embrace any influence at the expense of any other.)

So your # 176 is redundant, tautological, superfluous, & repetitive.

We excel at adopting and embracing the WORST of any ``civilisation``. We are Ghulaams, you are chUmaars for a REASON! We are spat upon & sneered at EVERWHERE around the globe for a reason. We enact to be goraa-saab, we look pathetic in our attempt to look modern. Read E.M.Forester and look in the mirror he shows us--and he was one of our very few genuine friends.

It would have been a bit more effective if you had said : Hindoos instead of ``associated with the religion of the majority``

If you had said Muslims & Christains instead of ``even their conversion to more egalitarian faiths``

etc etc.
Take pride dost--Unsecularise! Declare yourself OPENLY and get lumped or dupmed. NEVER ever weigh options, sit on the fence, try to be at two places at one time, live a lie & enact and forget where one misplaced Truth. Those who are destined to conquer and rule do not have such attributes.

To be a master is a state of mind and NOT ownership or possession.

---

echoboom#172:

No civilization is all good or all bad. There has been a lot of good in our civilisational past - lofty philosophers, metaphysicists, spiritualists, music, arts, architecture, poets and writers. But it is also the civilisation which produced the worst form of apartheid in the society. That apartheid is rightly associated with the religion of the majority but it is so overpowering that even their conversion to more egalitarian faiths could not get them rid of that apartheid mentality.
It also produced a divided and, if I may say so, a cowardly society, which could never defend itself against any two-bit fortune seeker with a handful of soldiers. So, while it is good to take pride in what`s good in one`s past, there is nothing wrong in learning from others where they have excelled in comparison with us.

Chowk staff:
These scores do not make any sense. How come some excellent posts by kabuliwallah and sridhar get a score of 1 while my relatively insignificant ones get a score of 4?

rsridhar:174

The day both India and Pak rediscover their common roots, there will not be any more enmity left.

There is no enmity EXCEPT by that perpetuated by the Ba Ba Blacksheep Brahmins on either side of the border.

rsridhar!

Have you ever analysed the word CIVIL WAR? What is so civil about a war. It would have been an oxymoron, if it was not in the master`s language. It would have been tragic if it was not in the lexicon of the ones whose dundaa we so much relish up our Hinoo-Muslim-Sikh arses. It would have been very comical if that dundaa today stuck out of the goraa-saab`s arse if he had used a phrase like CIVIL WAR when he came begging at our doorsstep.

You see rsridhar, the CIVILISED world has never ever indulged in CIVIL WAR. Dynastic wars YES! Fights for the throne YES! Usurpations YES. In this game of making/ becoming king queens the perpetrators were extremely indiscriminate and fair. They retained the best soldiers and the best soldiers went where money was the best--like today`s code-coolies.

But today those who have the nerve to call themselves CIVILISED and have the gall to teach spread and enforce their `CIVILISATION ` have all went through upheavals & bloodshed which has been unprecendented not so much by bloodspilled but by the sheer STUPIDITY and BARBARITY of these Cannibals ( They are the ONLY group who have been cannibals--research! research!)

Britain: Cromwell--CIVIL WAR
US--CiVIL WAR: extermination of ``red Indians``; mennonites, mormons, blacks & so many others. andStill at it.
Russia..Civil WARFrance--CIVIL WARSpain--Civil WAR.. & before that extermination of Muslims & Jews 15th century.

Now pray tell me why has not Rome, Greece, Iran, China, India, Egypt [old CIVILISATIONS ALL] never induldged in any CIVIL WAR: meaning where the CIVILIANS & not the uniformed ones were killing each other]. Partition ``RIOTS`` ( if some gora-goo-chaater smirks in defence of the  here) also occured when the Farangis were emptying their bowels in India]

It would not rob me of any pride I have in being a Muslim as well as a Pakistani to concede that India with all its warts and moles IS still the best governed & one of the most CIVILISED places on earth. This I am saying despite the hangups you Indians have to appear to look good by relentlessly disrespecting Pakistan & Islam ( & never ever uttering anything good about them). Doing this post-47 bhadraas and bhaboots (I`m sure you know the meanings) for the Toot-Ung has somehow made you people a psychopath. Get over it, Islam & Pakistan will ALWAYS be there because the idea it is NOT landbound or earth-anchored.

Pakistan is a separate nation. No matter how much ``we-are-one`` you say, once a country is separate, it is S-E-P-A-R-A-T-E.  Are sattellite channels, videos, cricket, and kanjaRR-exchange not sufficient to prove that ``yes-we-are-one`` when it comes to baighairtee & bayhaayee.Even Nepal, B hutan, Sikkim, Manipur, and Sri-Lanka won`t appreciate such odd-hour tele-marketing.

It won`t be unfair If you like to hit us hard on Kashmir issue, but please staying away from Baluchistan board would make you look more credible.

re: post # 163
``Buddha spoke of Brahminhood as a state one attained through good deeds and thoughts, not through birth, like Brahmins claim.``
Buddha spoke against prevailing ritualistic tendencies of brahmins as well as tendecy towards self-mortification of body to attain the goal of samadhi, all of which confused the masses. So, Buddha strove to bring the masses away from such practices which he deemed unnecessary and pointed to a middle path. Buddha did not abolish caste, nor did he speak against it simply because caste system was not well entrenched the way we know it today.

I quote from another source here ``Great religions of the world`` (by Rhys Davis and others)

(The Buddha, for instance, is sometimes said to have abolished caste. But we are entirely unwarranted in supposing the system we now call the caste system to have existed in its present form when Buddha arose, in the sixth century before Christ, in the valley of the Ganges. On the contrary, the key-stone of the arch of the peculiarly Indian caste organization--the absolute supremacy of the Brahmins--had not yet been put in position, had not, in fact, been made ready. And in many other details the caste system did not yet exist.)

(There was no organized church to attack. It was taken as granted, indeed, that the knowledge of the magic, the mystery, of sacrifice was confined to Brahmins, but the majority of the Brahmins, then as now, followed other pursuits. They were land-owners, officials, even traders. Many of them openly adopted, more of them were in favor of, the new school. And the new school itself was no organized body. No one, unless he actually became a member of Gotama`s order, as a considerable number of Brahmins actually did, had to make any break in his life, had to lose any social consideration, by following, in whole or in part, the party of reform.)

(There was no bar on the entry of untouchables and lower castes into the sangha. They were freely taught and there was no shame in eating food with them or from them. Tell me, can you say the same of Adi Shankara or other Brahmin reformers/teachers?)
I already said that caste system as we know it today did not exist during Buddhist times and so there was no question of caste tensions. Brahmins, though primarily teachers and priests, also spanned into other professions (see the book quote above).
Building of temples is a Dravidian concept which the settlers in the North borrowed. Vedic ceremonies and sacrifices were the way brahmins worshipped in those times. These ceremonies were elaborate, ritualistic, costly. Typically, if such a ceremony was conducted by a Chieftain or a King, the public (irrespective of caste) got invited and people, irrespective of caste, were fed and given gifts. There was no discrimination at least in intension.

Buddha deemed these rituals unnecessary. Poor people of those times were spending a fortune trying to please a zillion Gods (headed by Indra the head God). Buddha just said that all this was a waste and one had to turn inwards to conquere the enemies within to realise the Truth and Salvation.
While caste did not exist during Buddha`s time as we know it now, a thousand years later when Adi Sankara came on the scene, Caste was well established though still not so exploitative as it was to become later.
Let us now turn to Advaita as preached by Adisankara. Advaita is the pinnacle of hindu thought. It is Monism. That is, it preaches oneness of individual spirit with the Universal Spirit. There is no place for caste here. AdiSankara`s meeting a Chandala (legend has it that it was Siva himself in the garb of a Chandala to test him) and humbling of AdiSankara by the Chandalawas symbolic of the fact that God does not discriminate and that such discrimination exists only in the minds of people (one may read about AdiSankara at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Sankara) .
Caste system, in that sense, is not different from the Colonial discrimination as practised by the British when they ruled India or racism that existed once in USA or Slavery in Africa etc. It is the product of a mindset. That is why, even the Syrian Christians, who regard themselves as converts from Namboodri Brahmins, have created a whole world of exclusion, building their own churches, their own schools and excluding other christians from these. They also intermarry among themselves and never ever marry anyone from outside their fold. If religion could solve the problem, Syrinan Christians of Kerala would have shown everyone the way. One reason why low castes in the past did not convert to Christianity and Islam in large numbers is because their position in the social hierarchy did not change at all even after they converted. Worse still, they lost their original secure position in the caste and became outcastes, a case of ``dhobi ka kutta, na ghar ka, na ghaat ka``.
The most recent and world renouned propenent of Advaita philosphy was Ramana Maharishi. He was a brahmin by birth but he gave up his own religion (symbolically as throwing away the sacred thread) and became the greatest proponent of this philosophy. One may read about him in ``The Collected works of Ramana Maharishi`` written by Arthur Osborne, one of his disciples. His other well known disciple was Dr Paul Brunton who stayed with him for many years and learnt meditation and Advaita philosophy from him. (The search in Secret India by Dr Brunton).

(To this day, in the Balaji temple in Tirupathi, the Brahmins performing the puja cannot be physically touched, lest they become impure. How can your compare a religion like that with Buddhism? or Brahmins with Buddhist monks?)

Followers of mystical religion in general believe ( if you are a hindu, you should know this) that bad vibrations are passed on from one subject to other by touching. This is also the reason for saying ``namaste`` instead of just shaking hands that many followers of eastern religions do to this day (there are other symbolic reasons for ``namaste`` but i won`t go into that now). Brahmin priests in Tirupati perhaps follow this practice (as do priests elsewhere) for the same reason. There is no knowing the person touching or being in close physical proximity to the priest is a good or evil soul. So, this practice persists to maintain the sanctity of the worship.
Non-muslims are not even allowed to bring books of worship other than Qoran inside Saudi Arabia. No non-muslim can enter the Kaaba while anybody can visit Thirupati and other holy places in India (in some places, a non-hindu may need special permission from local authorities which is usually easily given). I see this as a greater form of discrimination. What have the Saudis to hide?
Do not confuse between the caste system which is a social evil with the religion itself. Most extreme forms of caste discriminations in Tamil Nadu today are practised by lower castes themselves, as Harimou would testify.
Buddhist monks did not live at a time when caste system got well established, so it is futile to argue that they did not practise caste. We are just comparing apples and oranges here. Caste system has existed in every society, only it is not so well entrenched and hierarchial as it is in India today. As i have already argued, legislation, globalization and empowerment of the poor will ultimately sound death knell for the caste system in India. This will happen albeit slowly.
Sridhar

re:#172 by echoboom
I, for one, agree with the sentiments expressed in your post.
If India and Pak were to reestablish contact with their ancient heritage and learn about them, they will be filled with a diiferent kind of pride. Today, both seem to revel in trying to prove who is better, not realizing they are offshoots from the same tree. Pakis revel in trying to prove their islamic credentials completely forgetting the fact that they belong to the Indic civilization while Indians are trying to prove that they have much in common with the West by rapidly westermizing themselves (bollywood being a prime example).
The day both India and Pak rediscover their common roots, there will not be any more enmity left.
Sridhar

dost-mittar:170
I am echoing somewhat the sentiments of echoboom, although he too is one of those he criticises, only in his case, the foreign knowledge and civilization he worships belongs to Arabia, Persia and Middle East instead of being slightly West.

---

dost:

what a calumny!

Even though you used the word `somewhat` you are still echoing your own predjudices.
Just to clarify and reiterate, I have always maintained that one should NEVER embrace
any influence at the expense of any other. It is the UTMOST jahiliyat to take pride in
claiming to be a Ba Ba Blacksheep and buttressing by saying `` jee mujhhay urdu nahin aatee, meiN nay aasaan urdu paRRhee hai naa``.

It is these jahils both in India and Pakistan, more in Pakistan--I frankly admit, who are the REAL curse upon our nations. China, Iran, Arabs, Germans, Japanese or ANY nation, other than these hash-browns from Asia, Africa, Carribreans, or South America, who take an immense pride in claiming to be the white-trash.

Your Follywood ( Mollywood?) is the prime example of such baighairtee for the world to laugh on you. Your Maharaja-service is the pride you take in becoming a servant in that dress to serve farangis, for a few dolaars more, Your Rajpooti dressed waiters in 5-stars shows you pride to welcome back the former masters, Your ``english`` writers ( Rushdicks etc) do not mind earning a few goraa chuckles and his nods of approval by a little pimping and prostituiting of ``Indian culture``.

Once India ( Pakistan) becomes the sonay-kee-chiRRyaa again ( golden-goose--the slaves did not even understand the gora-talk but knew english) it will be able, ready, and willing to invite ``foreigners`` (farngis) to come and rule over them. It is an anathema to those east of Indus to be without a foreign master. Such is their fate, so is their destiny.

There are not too many here , even among the ``proud`` but arrogant and haughty hindians
(they themselves are ashamed to call themselves hindus or sikhs) who have written & quoted as much about hindu and Indian history, music or culture than I have.


The propper name for Pakistan is GHULAAMISTAAN (Verdi miri, Ghulaami tiri--Farangi Zindabaad, Ghulaamistaan Paindabaad!)

The propper name for India is chUmaar-desh ( ChUmRRee jaae, dUmRRee naa jaey--Jai Chamaaristaan!)

re:#170 by dost-mittar
Thanks for your comments. I certainly will see if i can write an article on Buddha though i am not an authority on the subject. The book i referred to in my last post came in handy to write that post.
Sridhar

rsridhar#162

You seem to have read quite a bit on this period of Indian history, which I find intellectually the most fascinating one. Buddha was indeed one of many competing ideologues of that time, Mahavira being one of them. But my favourite was a guy [whose name escapes me at the moment] who argued that he will not accept anything unless it could be demonstrated even if it was in the vedas [which I beleive were accepted as a repository of all knowledge at that time and were not challenged even by Buddha]. He could indeed be called a materialist if not a hedonist.

What a pity? We spend so much time learning about Greek and Latin philosophy but so little on learning our own history. I am echoing somewhat the sentiments of echoboom, although he too is one of those he criticises, only in his case, the foreign knowledge and civilization he worships belongs to Arabia, Persia and Middle East instead of being slightly West.

If you have the time, it would be worthwhile turning some of these thoughts into an article for chowk.

re: #163 by kabuliwallah
``How could Buddhism not be a savior of low-castes, when the Buddha and his sangha preached compassion, peace and ahimsa? Wasn`t that what the low-castes needed? By all means, overwhelmingly it was a savior of the low-castes if it enabled them to live with respect and without fear.``

People do not seem to understand the period Buddha lived in. One may read about it in the book A History of Indian Buddhism: From Sakyamuni to Early Mahayana (by Hirakawa Akira and others)
1. (At the time of the Buddha, there were two primary classes of religious practitioners in India: the brāhmaṇas (or brahmins) and the śramaṇnas. The braāmaṇnas, representatives of the more traditional type of practitioner, were followers of Vedic religion who officiated at sacrifices. At the same time, they devoted themselves to seeking the Absolute through the study of a philosophy that identified ātman with brahman....)

(The second type of religious practitioner, the śramaṇa or ``person who strives,`` was a new type of figure not mentioned in the older Upaniṣads. He abandoned his home to lead a life of wandering and begging. Often he entered this way of life while young; there was no requirement that he pass through the other stages of life before becoming a śramaṇa. He devoted himself to controlling and limiting his desires, practicing yoga, and performing severe religious austerities in the forest to experience the Absolute or to escape death.)
All kinds of extreme beliefs prevailed which confused the common man. One of the Sramanas actually argued that since man was made of elements, if some one stabs a man with a knife, it only pierces the elements without any consequence as elements still remain untouched (no tears were shed on loss of life!).
Another group of practioners who had gained ground during Buddha`s time were called Ajivakas. Practitioners of this belief system said that since everything was fate, one should not even strive towards any goal and just take life easy. They attracted a lot of attention, criticism and followers! (not necessarily in that order).

2. (Religious practices at this time were also classified into two major groups: meditation and ascetic practices. Those who advocated meditation tried to realize deliverance through contemplation and quieting the mind. The ascetics tried to attain salvation by using ascetic practices to cut off the delusions that controlled the mind. In conclusion, by the time of the Buddha, Vedic religion had already lost most of its power to attract people, but no new religious authority had replaced it. In this age of religious ferment, many thinkers appeared, each seeking the Absolute within himself.)
One such was Buddha.
Why were his teachings so popular even among brahmanas and royalty (Kshatriyas; Ashoka became a buddhist later)?
While Brahmins were mired in sacrifices and austerities through self-mortification. A lot of people preached destiny. Buddhism came as a breath of fresh air as it preached a middle path, did away with the concept of destiny and stressed good moral living.
Again, from the same book:

(Because he believed that moral actions would make men happy and lead to a rich, productive life, Buddha constantly urged people to act ethically, to love each other, and not to kill. He preached that almsgiving led to happiness but stealing did not, and that speaking the truth led to contentment but lying did not. The Buddha`s teachings did not stop with morality. He taught people how to live rationally, how to free themselves from the contradictions and problems of everyday life.)

Did he ever say that brahmins are evil and that lower castes should give up Vedic religion and join buddhism? He would not be a Buddha if he did. He went beyond all that. Many brahmin intellectuals of the time realized the new force that his ideas were and embraced that force. As i already said, early canonical works were done by brahmins themselves.
So, what exactly were his teachings?
They dealt with human suffering, why it occurs and what can be done to overcome the sufferings (or dukha). Note that there is no mention of caste here. Anybody can undergo suffering and buddha said that, regardless of what one`s caste or class was, suffering happened only due to Four Noble Truths. This was also the topic of his first Sermon in Sarnath (deer forest which now has a Ashoka pillar and emblem that GOI proudly displays on rupeee notes and coins).
First truth that he preached was that there is suffering in the world.
The second truth dealt with the cause of sufferings where Buddha mainly emphasised on mental attitude that creates desires as the cause of suffering. Desire was likened to a thirst that can never be satisfied
The third truth dealt with how to overcome desires. And finally,
The fourth truth dealt with cessation of desires through right attitude (the Eightfold path)
Why buddhism eclipsed from India woud be a topic in itself but buddhism fell prey to same evils it sought to address: rituals, schisms within itself and onslaught of newer ideas including advaita.
Sridhar

kabuliwallah #156

`` I agree that Ambedkar`s theory might be one of many...but the fact remains that Buddhism became extinct in the land of its birth, while it flourished and continues to flourish outside India. What made it disappear in India? It cannot be as simplistic as Islamic invasion. It might have been the last straw, but the structure was eroding from much before. This story needs to be told and it is not just restricted to India. What happened to the Buddhist civilizations in Afghanistan, Central Asia? Were they all killed or converted? Someone must have escaped. Where did they go? That would be make for a fascinating story.``

Buddhism flourishes in areas east of India - Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and to a lesser degree in Korea, China, Japan. There are no adherents in Afghanistan, Central Asia.

The only conclusion to be drawn is that Buddhists being pacifist in nature were wiped by Islamic invaders. I am sure there are a lot of other minor factors that lead to the demise of Buddhists.

`` I think Ambedkar is paid only lip service in India, that too only during election time. He is treated more or less like the choorah who acted uppity. He deserves a lot better. He is one of the few Indians of his day who had the courage to call a spade a spade. The reason I think he chose Buddhism from all the choices available to him was because it was the only religion that did not have a hierarchy, theoretically or in practicality. I no longer believe in conversion for spiritual reasons, but I think Buddhism is the only religion where conversion is justified, because of the societal implications within Buddhism and without. Buddhist philosophy is not concerned with God or spirituality, but is more about common sense, a heavy dose of which Indians can benefit a lot from. ``

Ambedkar choose Buddhism because it did not have a connotation like Islam and Christianity. In those days Christianity was associated with the colonial power Britain.