Originally Buddhism was Vaishnavism

[Guest guest]

Pure Land Buddhism as Vaishnavism

Part Nine: Exposing the Historical Emptiness of Theravadin Buddhist

Claims

by Bhakti Ananda Goswami

 

So far I have stated that the Buddhist iconography of both the

Northern or Mahayana (with the Pure Land devotional tradition at its

core) and Southern or Hinayana (Theravadin or atheistic) schools is

the same. I have described seeing examples of this canon of sacred

forms from the earliest known Buddhist sites from Japan and Angkor Wat

Cambodia to Nepal and Sri Lanka, the proud `capital' of Buddhist

atheism. Furthermore I have stated that this symbology and

iconography is easily recognizable as deriving from Krishna-centric

Vaishnavism, as exemplified by the devotional cultus of Sri Krishna

(Hari = HRIH Dharma Kaya Amitabha) and Sri Baladeva (Sankarshan Vishnu

= Sambhogya Kaya Amitayus-Lokeshvara) at Their ancient Indian Center

of devotion in Vrindavana-Mathura. I have explained that authentic

(pure Pure Land) early Buddhism was a form of Krishna-centric

Vaishnavism, but that atheistic Buddhism has misrepresented itself to

the world as the original form of Buddhism. Because the Theravadin

Buddhist elite of Sri Lanka proudly proclaim Sri Lanka to be the

historical capital of Buddhist atheism (Theravada), and this claim is

not disputed in the Theravadin Buddhist world, I have very carefully

sought evidence to support this claim. Since the Sri Lankan

Theravadins themselves assert that their Buddhism first came to Sri

Lanka as part of the Indian Emperor Ashoka the Great's Buddhist

missionary effort, logically one should be able to understand the

`original' Buddhism of the island from gaining an accurate

understanding of the Buddhism promoted by Ashoka's missionaries. So I

carefully investigated the Buddhism of Emperor Ashoka, and here is

what I found. (Remember that the earliest archeological evidence of

Buddhist Sacred Art throughout both the Northern and Southern ranges

of Buddhism has striking commonalities with Vrindavana-Mathuran

Krishna-centric Vaishnava iconography and symbolism.)

The Central Significance of Vrindavana-Mathura in Mahayana Buddhist

History

 

In Joseph Campbell's Masks of God (4 volumes, Viking) and other

comparative and exclusive studies of Buddhism, it has been readily

acknowledged that Ashoka's own Buddhist Master had a great monastery

in Mathura. Campbell cites a reference to this claiming that Ashoka's

Master's (Third Century BCE) monastery in Mathura had 10,000 monks

residing in it!

 

About Mathura

 

This area, popularly known as Brij Bhoomi, is a major pilgrimage place

of Hindus. Shree Krishna, the popular incarnation of Vishnu, is

believed to have been born in Mathura (Muttra) and the area is closely

linked with many episodes in his early life. Nearby is Vrindavan

(Vrindaban) where Krishna `sported' with his gopis (milkmaids).

 

History

 

Mathura is an ancient cultural and religious center. The Buddhist

monasteries that were built here received considerable patronage from

Ashoka, and Mathura was mentioned by Ptolemy and by the Chinese

visitors Fahsien (who visited India from 401 to 410 AD) and Xuan Zhang

(634-762 AD) in their works…

 

Ashoka (Third Century BCE) was the last of the great Mauryan Dynasty

Emperors. The Mauryas were Vaishnavas, but Ashoka, after a

particularly horrific military campaign (against Kalinga) that

consolidated his rule over much of India, is said to have `converted'

to the non-violent discipline of `Buddhism', becoming its greatest

royal advocate. Filled with missionary zeal, he energetically

patronized this `Buddhism', building up its holy places and supporting

its monasteries and sending missionaries with its messages of

benevolence as far as the Mediterranean! It is one of these missions

(actually related to his personal family) that supposedly reached the

Island of Sri Lanka, establishing Buddhism there. He participated in

Buddhist councils, and while he protected Vaishnavism and some other

traditional Indian religions, he also suppressed heterodox groups. In

fact, "There is also evidence from the Edicts [of Ashoka] that he

intervened to expel dissident elements from the Buddhist Order..."

(Page 100, The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, 1997, Oxford

University Press.) It is not contested that Ashoka continued his

protection and support of Vaishnavism, or that his own Buddhist

Master's ashram was in Mathura, the royal religio-cultural capital of

Krishna-centric Vaishnavism, so what was the so-called `Buddhism' that

in his liberality he found so intolerable that he actually suppressed

and expelled as "dissident"? Well, what is the heterodox `Buddhism'

that arrived in Sri Lanka at that time? What `Buddhism' has

continuously denied the clearly Mahayana-related evidence of Pure Land

Ashokan Buddhism, which from all of the archeological hard evidence

arrived in Sri Lanka during the same era, and was spread throughout

the entire region (and beyond) by Ashoka's missionaries?

 

Considered heterodox, it appears that Theravadin Buddhism was expelled

from India by the Emperor Ashoka!

 

Is it conceivable that everywhere else Ashoka's Missionaries were

spreading Vaishnava-Bhakti-related Pure Land Mahayana Buddhism, but

that in Sri Lanka alone they were teaching Theravada / Hinayana

atheism? Is it conceivable that atheistic Theravadin Buddhism would

be blissfully co-existing with Krishna-centric Vaishnavism in Mathura,

the very world intellectual epicenter of Krishna-centrism? Would the

`Vatican City' of Krishna-Vaishnavism tolerate the presence of

thousands of Theravadin Buddhist Atheists who believed that Krishna

was a demon? Nearby Vrindavana, as the more esoteric `Bridal

Mysticism' Center of pastoral (Bucolic / Gokula / Gokura)

Krishna-Vaishnavism was never the university (monastery) intellectual

or royal seat of Krishna Vaishnavism. As the sanctum sanctorum of Sri

Sri Radha-Krishna and Baladeva and the Gopis' Bridal Mysticism Rasa

Lila `Pastimes', Vrindavana's sacred pastoral character was always

religiously safeguarded from certain kinds of development. However,

as the center of awesome and reverential royal / raja Krishna-worship,

nearby Mathura was the diffusional royal epicenter of Krishna-centric

Vaishnavism for countless centuries. At the time of Ashoka, it was

the intellectual and artistic capital of Krishna-centric Vaishnavism.

How could Ashoka's own Master have had an ashram with 10,000 monks in

it in the royal capital of Sri Krishna's worship (Sri Krishna's own

birthplace), if he had been a Theravadin Buddhist ? The Theravadin

Buddhists of Sri Lanka teach that Krishna and Balarama are demons, and

some teach the Jain doctrine that Krishna is in a hell for his role in

the Great (Mahabharata) War!

 

In fact, in both of the university-like intellectual `Buddhist'

centers of Mathura and Gandhara, the Vaishnavas and Buddhists were

completely compatible as members of various lineages or orders of the

SAME RELIGION. This fact cannot be contested. No honest scholar can

deny that Gandhara and Mathura, the two greatest early Mahayana

centers of Buddhist intellectual and artistic activity and diffusion

were also Vaishnava centers of the same! This was not a sequential

phenomenon either! The Vaishnava and Buddhist presence in these

centers of Bhakti Yoga was contemporaneous. In fact, there was a

Western Bhakti Asyla Temple Federation representation in the visitors

and residents of these two great Vaishnava and Buddhist `university'

Centers of Gandhara and Mathura too! Greeks, Romans and other western

Eli-Yahu / Heli-os / Heri-Asu worshipers visited and lived in these

two Centers. (In my next installment in this series I plan to

describe a little about the Greek and specifically Rhodian connections

to the Vaishnava-Buddhist Sacred Art of these two Centers.) When it

is known that Mathura was the North Indian regional Center of Krishna

Bhakti, how is it possible that the very antithesis of

Krishna-Vaishnavism and closely related Pure Land Buddhist Bhakti,

namely atheistic Theravadin Buddhism, could have been the Buddhism

that Ashoka patronized there? When it is clear from evidence all over

the region (and beyond) that Ashoka equally protected and supported

Vaishnavism and Mahayana (Pure Land) Buddhism, and that at the time

these two great Bhakti Traditions were considered part of the SAME

RELIGION, how is it conceivable that the `Buddhism' that he patronized

in Sri Lanka was Theravadin, the historical and doctrinal antithesis

of both Vaishnavism and Pure Land Buddhism?

The Ongoing Iconoclastic Destruction of the Evidence in Sri Lanka

 

It is inconceivable that Ashoka's Mathuran Vaishnava-related Pure Land

Buddhism became Theravadin Atheism upon arrival in Sri Lanka. This is

why the Theravadin Buddhists of Sri Lanka must misrepresent the

historical evidence to support their claim. This is why they have

been (and still are) involved in the occupation and destruction of

important early Buddhist and Hindu archeological sites, and why they

have stolen, obscured and defaced, etc. so much iconographic evidence

from their own early Buddhist history. Like the Taliban and other

iconoclastic Muslim barbarians, the Sri Lankan Theravadin Buddhist

atheists must obscure or destroy the ancient Buddhist Sacred Art,

which is the constant reminder of their hostile occupation of a land

once populated by a people of faith in the Personal God of Grace, Who

has incarnated to save the world. By erasing this `Hindu-related'

Buddhist Sacred Art of the Incarnate God, the atheistic Sri Lankan

Theravadin Buddhist iconoclasts are attempting to erase the truth of

history, and in its place to assert the originality and authenticity

of their own corrupt God-less tradition. However, if we examine the

evidence (before the iconoclasts have stolen or destroyed it all and

it is too late), we will learn the truth about Ashoka-related Sri

Lankan Buddhism's original relationship to Vaishnavism, and we will

learn that the Theravadin Buddhist's historical claims to being the

world's original Buddhism are, like their doctrine, full of only

"emptiness." If the case supporting the historical claims of

atheistic Buddhism in Sri Lanka (its undisputed world-capital) is

empty, then there is no meritorious case for it anywhere.

 

May Buddhists everywhere recover the theistic devotional purity of

their original Pure Land tradition, and may they, in doing so,

rediscover their ancient unity with the Great Bhakti Traditions of

India and the Asyla Federations of the West.

 

Praying for the day when a new university will rise, like a phoenix

from the ashes of the memory of Gandhara and Mathura, to reunite the

Lord's Bhakti Yoga devotees of the East and West,

 

Your aspiring Catholic-Vaishnava-Pure Land Buddhist servant, Bhakti

Ananda Goswami

<http://www.saragrahi.org/Header%20Links/Articles%20By%20Author/Bhakti%20Anand%2\

0Goswami/966%20Pure%20Land%20Buddhism%20As%20Vaishnavism%20Part%2009.htm>