Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 56

Thread: Why is Buddhism More Accessible in the US

  1. #21

    Re: Why is Buddhism More Accessible in the US

    Quote Originally Posted by jignyAsu View Post
    You mean in western academics? That's bad. We also have documented histories of how Jainas and Bouddhas collaborated with kings and actively plotting against the Hindus. This is seen in both Vaishnava/Shaiva history throughout the India. Also, we have Buddhist/Jain version of Ramayana, mahabharata etc displaying our worshiped ones as lusty and violent. Right from Adi Shankara times we hear how the Buddhists used to spend lifetimes denouncing and bad mouthing Vedas - not just philosophically refuting them. However, the impression of Buddhists in the west is that all of them have always been like Gautama Buddha - ever peaceful, meditative, doing good to even evil.... :-)

    Not that I want them to be portrayed in bad light but how come negatives about only Hinduism manage to reach western academics? I guess all this comes back to links to Hollywood etc, sited by members above.

    And by saying "academic scholars of India" have well understood it - do you mean Indian scholars or western academic scholars who study Indian history? Do students in west get to read this version?
    Oh, no, the Buddhist and Jain activities against Hindus (and against each other) are also covered. No community is completely innocent. Maybe in the popular imagination, but not in serious scholarship. By "academic scholars of India" I mean people teaching in universities whose field of expertise is India, regardless of whether the individuals in question are "western" or Indian. Ethnicity is not really relevant here. It's a matter of training and having a degree from an accredited institution.
    "One who makes a habit of prayer and meditation will easily overcome all difficulties and remain calm and unruffled in the midst of the trials of life." (Holy Mother Sarada Devi)

  2. #22

    Re: Why is Buddhism More Accessible in the US

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffery D. Long View Post
    No community is completely innocent.
    Dr. Long,

    I agree.
    Last edited by Sudas Paijavana; 12 October 2013 at 09:15 PM.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    bhUloka
    Posts
    250
    Rep Power
    358

    Re: Why is Buddhism More Accessible in the US

    Quote Originally Posted by jignyAsu View Post
    You mean in western academics? That's bad. We also have documented histories of how Jainas and Bouddhas collaborated with kings and actively plotting against the Hindus.
    I wouldn't necessarily say that Jaina and Bauddha kings actively plotted against Hindus; however, there was a certain degree of oppression and/or conflict which occurred among the Hindu and nāstika groups and all three groups occasionally provoked conflict. However, I agree that the crimes of Hindus are often over-exagerrated in comparison to others; for example, most people know about the Hindu king Puṣyamitra Śuṅga's burning of Bauddha sūtrāni, but very few individuals (including Indologists) know about the banning of Hindu yajñāḥ by the Bauddha king Harṣavardhana or the death threats made against Tirunāvukkaracar by the Jaina Pallava king Mahendravarman.
    Quote Originally Posted by jignyAsu View Post
    This is seen in both Vaishnava/Shaiva history throughout the India. Also, we have Buddhist/Jain version of Ramayana, mahabharata etc displaying our worshiped ones as lusty and violent.
    I don't know about the Rāmāyaṇam, but regarding the Mahābhāratam, in the Jaina version of Śrī Harivaṃśa-purāṇam, Vāsudeva (Śrī Kṛṣṇa) is depicted as being sent to naraka (actually, it may have been talātala, I can't remember) and hence needed to attain mokṣa by taking the advice from (and following the path of) the 22nd Jaina Tīrthaṅkara, Neminātha. The fact that they (the writers of the text) could insult svayam-bhagavān in such a manner exemplifies nothing but īrṣyā, yet the authors of the nonsensical "retelling" of the text nonetheless referred to themselves as arhantāḥ (). Also, Śāriputra and Ānanda (two of the earliest Bauddha bhikṣu-s) are often portrayed by Indologists as "egalitarian" in comparison to the casteist or "Brāhmaṇical" Hindus, yet they don't mention how the aforementioned bhikṣu-s viewed the Pāśupatāḥ/Rudra-worshippers living north of Magadha before the influx of the Licchavi-s or the establishment of the Malla kingdom (in what is in present-day Nepāl) as subhuman and banned their practices, which can be considered anything but "egalitarian."
    Quote Originally Posted by jignyAsu View Post
    Right from Adi Shankara times we hear how the Buddhists used to spend lifetimes denouncing and bad mouthing Vedas - not just philosophically refuting them. However, the impression of Buddhists in the west is that all of them have always been like Gautama Buddha - ever peaceful, meditative, doing good to even evil.... :-)
    I may be incorrect, but wasn't the Bauddha-saṅgha relatively more hostile to the pūrva-mīmāṃsā scholars than to the advaitin-s? One example is how they excommunicated and humiliated Kumārila Bhaṭṭa for what they perceived as betrayal.
    Quote Originally Posted by jignyAsu View Post
    Not that I want them to be portrayed in bad light but how come negatives about only Hinduism manage to reach western academics? I guess all this comes back to links to Hollywood etc, sited by members above.
    And by saying "academic scholars of India" have well understood it - do you mean Indian scholars or western academic scholars who study Indian history? Do students in west get to read this version?
    I assume most westerners probably know very little about Ancient Indian history unless they research it themselves; even then, I highly doubt they would actually be passionate enough to care about the social and/or religious interactions which underlie the actions of these rulers. In addition, many students (in both the East and West) are not encouraged to examine primary source documentations, but are instead expected to regurgitate information, which can be problematic insofar that an author of the textbook in question may subconsciously apply his/her own biases when examining the history (even though some scholars are trained to overlook their possible biases).
    Last edited by Jaskaran Singh; 12 October 2013 at 10:57 PM. Reason: ñ wasn't showing up
    படைபோர் புக்கு முழங்கும்அப் பாஞ்சசன்னியமும் பல்லாண்டே
    May your pA~nchajanya shankha which reverberates on the battlefield, last thousands upon thousands of years...
    http://archives.mirroroftomorrow.org...anchajanya.jpg

  4. #24

    Re: Why is Buddhism More Accessible in the US

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaskaran Singh View Post
    I may be incorrect, but wasn't the Bauddha-saṅgha relatively more hostile to the pūrva-mīmāṃsā scholars than to the advaitin-s? One example is how they excommunicated and humiliated Kumārila Bhaṭṭa for what they perceived as betrayal.
    They not only excommunicated and humiliated him, but attempted to murder him by throwing him from the top of a high building, an attempt which the great Vedic scholar nevertheless survived.
    "One who makes a habit of prayer and meditation will easily overcome all difficulties and remain calm and unruffled in the midst of the trials of life." (Holy Mother Sarada Devi)

  5. #25

    Re: Why is Buddhism More Accessible in the US

    Pranam-s,

    Doctor Long, do you remember when Ashoka (after converting to Buddhism) not only still continued to eat meat (he basically just lowered the amount of animals that would be slaughtered) but also slaughtered a group (I believe to be called) Ajivikas/Ajavikas/Ajivakas? Isn't that not only the first incident of Buddhist on Hindu violence, but the first attested violence between the two groups? Or, was that a Jaina group?

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    bhUloka
    Posts
    250
    Rep Power
    358

    Re: Why is Buddhism More Accessible in the US

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffery D. Long View Post
    They not only excommunicated and humiliated him, but attempted to murder him by throwing him from the top of a high building, an attempt which the great Vedic scholar nevertheless survived.
    I've heard that legend before, although I wasn't sure whether it was historical or was rather an analogy meant to illustrate the eternality of the Veda-s. Perhaps it functioned as both.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sudas Paijavana View Post
    Ashoka (after converting to Buddhism) not only still continued to eat meat (he basically just lowered the amount of animals that would be slaughtered) but also slaughtered a group (I believe to be called) Ajivikas/Ajavikas/Ajivakas?
    There's no requirement for vegetarianism in Buddhism, although slaughtering an entire group of people due to a distasteful depiction of Buddha is extremely adhārmika and goes against Hindu, Jaina, and Bauddha beliefs. In a sense, he was so fanatical in his affiliation with Bauddha Dharma that he went against the teachings of Śākyamuni Buddha regarding mettā/maitrī. Considering the fact he was only a superficial "follower" of Theravāda (a.k.a. Hīnayāna) Buddhism, I think must have ignored the following verse from the Karaṇīyamettāsuttam which talks about how one should treat other beings with the same care that a mother treats her child:

    माता यथा नियं पुत्तमायुसा एकपुत्तमनुरक्खे।
    एवम्पि सब्बभूतेसु, मानसं भावये अपरिमाणं॥
    Quote Originally Posted by Sudas Paijavana View Post
    Isn't that not only the first incident of Buddhist on Hindu violence, but the first attested violence between the two groups? Or, was that a Jaina group?
    I thought that the Ājīvakā were not only considered nāstika, but also considered to be closely related to the samaṇa/śramaṇa religious movement as the founder, Gosāla, was heavily influenced by Nanda-vaccha, who in turn was influenced by the Jaina Tīrthaṅkara-s. Pāṇini describes them as a heretical school which denied that people could escape their fate and felt that it was pointless to try to do so (in a sense, they were highly deterministic). If they classify as "Hindus" according to you, then what does it mean for a sect to be considered as nāstika?
    Last edited by Jaskaran Singh; 13 October 2013 at 01:29 AM.
    படைபோர் புக்கு முழங்கும்அப் பாஞ்சசன்னியமும் பல்லாண்டே
    May your pA~nchajanya shankha which reverberates on the battlefield, last thousands upon thousands of years...
    http://archives.mirroroftomorrow.org...anchajanya.jpg

  7. #27

    Re: Why is Buddhism More Accessible in the US

    Jaskaran Singh,

    You highlighted the wrong portion. This can be easily cured by highlighting the portion that you initially should have highlighted instead:

    Quote Originally Posted by Sudas Paijavana View Post
    Isn't that not only the first incident of Buddhist on Hindu violence, but the first attested violence between the two groups? Or, was that a Jaina group?
    ...to which you could have simply answered:

    "No, the ones that you are talking about were, in fact, related to the Shramanic traditions, and was an example of Nāstika on Nāstika violence rather than an example of Nāstika on Hindu violence"...

    Jus' sayin', Jas...
    Last edited by Sudas Paijavana; 13 October 2013 at 02:38 AM.

  8. #28

    Re: Why is Buddhism More Accessible in the US

    Jaskaran-ji is correct (and impressively knowledgeable, if I may say so) in essentially everything he has posted here.

    I am unsure if the story of the survival of Kumārila Bhaṭṭa is authentic or a later legend, but is certainly a prominent feature of the popular lore on his life.

    In terms of Aśoka's persecution of the Ājīvikas, I must confess that I had never heard of this. I have been given to believe that Aśoka's many cruel acts (including the murders of his brothers as rival claimants to the Maurya throne) all preceded his battlefield conversion in Kalinga, and that after that he became a highly dharmic fellow. But this may all be based on biased Buddhist accounts which depict him as the ideal chakravartin.

    Interestingly, Aśoka's father, Bindusāra, was an adherent of the Ājīvika philosophy. His grandfather, Chandragupta Maurya, was a convert to Jainism. But all of these people were somewhat pluralistic in their adherences. Chandragupta's Jainism did not prevent him from having a close advisor who was a Brahmin (the famous Kauṭilya, or Chanakya).

    The Ājīvikas, as Jaskaran-ji has explained very well, were not Hindus or Jains, but a now-extinct śramaṇa group akin to the Jains and the Buddhists, and their founder was a contemporary and a rival of both the Buddha and Mahāvīra. They were apparently more numerous at one point than either the Jains or the Buddhists. They are depicted as adhering to an extreme doctrine of fatalism (niyati-vāda). But recent research suggests that their doctrine was actually very close to that of the Jainas, the chief difference being that, whereas Jainism teaches that one can both expel the karma currently adhering to one's jīva and prevent the influx of further karma, the Ājīvikas held that one can only prevent the influx of further karma. One must simply wait for one's current karma to ripen, and that will happen whenever it happens (hence the imputation of fatalism). This is the only way to make sense of the fact that they practiced very strict asceticism, like the Jains. Why practice asceticism if it has no bearing on liberation? It would be to prevent the influx of further karmas.

    This group was not hunted to death by Aśoka, but continued to exist until the 10th century CE, by which time their numbers had dwindled greatly and they merged with the Digambara Jains of southern India.
    "One who makes a habit of prayer and meditation will easily overcome all difficulties and remain calm and unruffled in the midst of the trials of life." (Holy Mother Sarada Devi)

  9. #29
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Age
    29
    Posts
    1,088
    Rep Power
    1128

    Re: Why is Buddhism More Accessible in the US

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffery D. Long View Post
    In terms of Aśoka's persecution of the Ājīvikas, I must confess that I had never heard of this. I have been given to believe that Aśoka's many cruel acts (including the murders of his brothers as rival claimants to the Maurya throne) all preceded his battlefield conversion in Kalinga, and that after that he became a highly dharmic fellow. But this may all be based on biased Buddhist accounts which depict him as the ideal chakravartin.
    This story comes from Buddhist accounts actually. There is a tendency among historians to paper over the faults of Ashoka and Akbar.
    Akbar's massacre of 30,000 Hindu non-combatants after a battle is likewise ignored.
    namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
    tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||

    Om shrImAtrE namah

    sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu


    A Shaivite library
    http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary

  10. #30
    Join Date
    January 2013
    Age
    43
    Posts
    327
    Rep Power
    601

    Re: Why is Buddhism More Accessible in the US

    Great points from everyone. Learn new things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaskaran Singh View Post
    I may be incorrect, but wasn't the Bauddha-saṅgha relatively more hostile to the pūrva-mīmāṃsā scholars than to the advaitin-s? One example is how they excommunicated and humiliated Kumārila Bhaṭṭa for what they perceived as betrayal.
    Yes, I was just referring to Vedas bashing from their side which used to pain all Hindus in general.

    I was only afraid of this...
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaskaran Singh View Post
    an author of the textbook in question may subconsciously apply his/her own biases when examining the history (even though some scholars are trained to overlook their possible biases).
    But this thing put me at ease ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffery D. Long View Post
    Oh, no, the Buddhist and Jain activities against Hindus (and against each other) are also covered. No community is completely innocent. Maybe in the popular imagination, but not in serious scholarship. By "academic scholars of India" I mean people teaching in universities whose field of expertise is India, regardless of whether the individuals in question are "western" or Indian. Ethnicity is not really relevant here. It's a matter of training and having a degree from an accredited institution.
    because the academics is not (yet) onesided.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Buddhism without Beliefs Critiqued
    By Sahasranama in forum Buddhism
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09 January 2012, 03:28 PM
  2. God in Buddhism
    By shian in forum Buddhism
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 19 October 2011, 10:40 PM
  3. Yoga and Buddhism (differences)
    By Bob G in forum Yoga
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04 March 2008, 02:48 AM
  4. Refutation of Dr. Naiks Exposition of Buddhism
    By Vajradhara in forum Islam
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07 April 2006, 04:21 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •