karthik_v

It is true that George Harrison sang the Mahamantra and also did a lot to help Srila Prabhupada and ISKCON. But, to elevate him to the level of a pure devotee is not correct. Before he started chanting, he had been leading a typical hippy lifestyle and even shared his wife Patti with pal Eric Clapton. But, due to the mercy of SP, he took to chanting. But, he again relapsed into smoking a few years ago. That shows that his spiritual progress had kind of gone into a limbo. So, it is quite possible that his akarmic activities in KC were not of the order to offset his not so dharmic activities of the 60s era. So, he had to endure that cancer. J N Das also explained the relevance of prarabdha karma in this context. But, as SP says, any activity in the service of Krishna will continue in your next life time. So, let us pray that GH is born a wonderful Vaishnava in his next birth.

Gauracandra Prabhu, I think your post on Buddha and Brahma is very relevant. Even before the Kashmir council during the reign of Kanishka, the Bodhisattva tradition did recognise Brahma. There are writings from this era that state that when Siddhartha Gautama had self-realisation, he asked Brahma whether he should become a Buddha right away, but Brahma told him to remain a Bodhisattva for a few more years. That is how the very tradition of Bodhisattva came into being. This could have been rejected as a later day "Brahminical or Vaishnavite" ploy to infuse Hinduism into Buddhism, except for the fact that the writings of the Milinda school (Greek) also reflect the same idea. So, while we can't say for certain, whether the concept of Brahma was advocated by SG, because his actual life is still not fully known, we can say for sure that the idea of Brahma existed in the ancient Bodhisattva traditions and were atleast as old as 200 BC. There are references to it in Nagasena too, making it even more antiquated. And given the fact that prior to this time, Buddhism was as much an oral tradition as Hinduism, there is a possibility that the concept of Brahma existed among the first disciples of SG or even SG gave it, but I wouldn't speculate. So, in all certainty, we can say, that this tradition was NOT introduced in the Gauracandra restaurant in some Chinatown. If anything, that restauranteer was just depicting what came down from a traditon atleast 2200 years old!

Gauracandra Prabhu, I think your post on Buddha and Brahma is very relevant. Even before the Kashmir council during the reign of Kanishka, the Bodhisattva tradition did recognise Brahma. There are writings from this era that state that when Siddhartha Gautama had self-realisation, he asked Brahma whether he should become a Buddha right away, but Brahma told him to remain a Bodhisattva for a few more years. That is how the very tradition of Bodhisattva came into being. This could have been rejected as a later day "Brahminical or Vaishnavite" ploy to infuse Hinduism into Buddhism, except for the fact that the writings of the Milinda school (Greek) also reflect the same idea. So, while we can't say for certain, whether the concept of Brahma was advocated by SG, because his actual life is still not fully known, we can say for sure that the idea of Brahma existed in the ancient Bodhisattva traditions and were atleast as old as 200 BC. There are references to it in Nagasena too, making it even more antiquated. And given the fact that prior to this time, Buddhism was as much an oral tradition as Hinduism, there is a possibility that the concept of Brahma existed among the first disciples of SG or even SG gave it, but I wouldn't speculate. So, in all certainty, we can say, that this tradition was NOT introduced in the Gauracandra restaurant in some Chinatown. If anything, that restauranteer was just depicting what came down from a traditon atleast 2200 years old!

Wrong. The first Sangam age itself existed way before Christian era. For example, Puranaanuru (verse 2) talks of Choru Udiyan Cheralaadhan as the contemporary King. This same king is being referred by Megasthenes as Cerobothra (Chera), who had during the time of Alexander's father Philip established a few treaties with the Greeks allowing them to use Musiri (Kerala) port for trading. Megasthenes visited India around 320 B.C. Likewise Kanaikkal Irumporai left many inscriptions that were recently deciphered and they make unmistakeable references to Sangam and Tholkappiyam. Hence, going by the archeological and numismatic evidences and the references contained therein, it is very clear that very major Tamil literary collection existed way before Christ. A L Basham never resists the temptation to divide Hinduism and Brahmanism as 2 different entities. Not to blame him; he was, after all, a product of British education and was among the lone Indians who made it to the levels of a Professor in Australia. Naturally, he had to tow the European line, whther or not, it has a basis. Let us not forget that he also 'firmly beliefs' that Aryans invaded India en masse around 1800 BC! But, in this he is right. The period between 200 BC to 200 AD, was when, Buddhism was embraced and patronised by the kings. Not before, not later. And this was the period when a lot of Buddhist art and architecture came up. An example would be Ajanta caves, but even there we can see, in the murals, depictions of Kinnaras, Gandharvas and Yakshas and also also Buddha multiplying himself a thousandfold etc.. A clear sign that even by that time (200 BC to around 400 AD, when Ajanta came up; murals belong to 200 BC to 50 AD), Buddhism had incorporated in itself the Hindu customs. And that can happen, if only, Hinduism had been the religion of masses. I am not denying that Buddhism had its patrons among the elite. So, naturally, Sankara et al., refuted it. My point is that it was not the religion of the masses. You may also note that even in the times right after Ajathashatru, many Jains challenged and debated Buddhism. By no means was Buddhism a religion of the masses then. It had, at best, marginal royal patronage. So, such a debate itself is not an indication that the religion had a mass base. It only confirms that it had a folowing among the elite. I think it would be a good idea if you could resist the temptation of posting a link, after just a 30 second search on Google. For example, your site just reflects the ignorance of 18th and 19th century Europeans who were full of prejudices and lacked any knowledge of Sanskrit or Tamil. It claims that Thirukkural was written around 500 AD. But, even the inscriptions of Irumporai refer to them. You want to know about some ancient Tamil Hindu devotional literature? Have you heard of Thirumanthiram? It was written by Thirumular, who studied with Patanjali and was a disciple of Naganatha. Now, your site states that Patanjali's yogasutra was written in 500 BC! So, by any logic, Thirumandiram should have belonged to the same era! And Thirumandiram refers to Tholkappiyam. That should tell you something about the chronology of Tamil literature. The very first Thirukkural is: "Agara mudhala ezhuthellaam adi bhagavan mudhatre ulagu". "Everything has its origins in the primeval Lord". There is no 'Lord' either in Buddhism or Jainism and Christ and Mohammad were yet to be born when this was written. Avvaiyar (the first), speaks of the wars between 2 shaivite kings. She speaks of caste problems and urges the society to rise above them. She has written many 'agavals' in praise of Shiva. There are many folklore and dance forms in Tamil that depict Hindu mythology. And barring the time of Kalahabaras, Tamil history and literature are full of Shaivite traditions and later on Vaishnavite also, showing that Hinduism was the religion of the masses. On the other hand, there are only 2 Buddhist literature in Tamil. And of the two, only one is truly Buddhist (Manimegalai). The other is written by prince Ilango who became a Buddhist. This other one, Silappathikaram, clearly tells you that Tamilnadu, then, was Shaivite. One example will be when the protaganist, Kannagi, while giving alms to a Jain monk, tells him that she gives alms to Siddhas and Shaivite monks daily but it is a rare privelege to her to serve a Jain monk. That should tell you which religion was dominant. Another case in point would be the mention of Sanda worship by early Romans and their coins depicting the same, during their trade with Poompuhar (Tamilnadu). Next, Tamil was the language spoken then in Tamilnadu, Andhra, Karnataka and Kerala. But, you don't find any significant number of Buddhist literature anywhere. Neither in Tamil nor in Pali, which was the court language after the era of Kalahabaras. Even in other parts of India, except during the period 200 BC to 200 AD not many Buddhist literature were written, either in Pali or Sanskrit. Even during the period 200 BC to 200 AD, most of the Buddhist literature was written only due to the impetus given by Kashmir council. And Mahayana incorporated many of the Hindu characteristics (as in the Ajanta example) showing that even by then, Buddhism was on the wane. If Buddhism had indeed been a religion of the masses, it should left its legacy in some tradition or the other. It cannot vanish altogether. What we see is a spurt in activity during the aforesaid period and a lull after that, indicating that it enjoyed Royal patronage during that time and was a religion of the elite. When the progeny didn't patronise Budddhism, it declined. This is evident from the Muslim invasions of 10th century AD onwards. They destroyed temples as well as monastries. But, Hinduism still survived, only because, the masses patronised it. In case of Buddhism, except for a few ascetics, there were not many in the public who patronised it. That is why it couldn't survive. Now compare this with Sri Lanka, where Theravada Buddhism has been around for over 2200 years. It has a rich collection of literature and folklore such as Jataka tales. Or take Indonesia or Cambodia, which were previously Hindu. Apart from archeological evidence, we find that Hindu mythology dominates their folklore. No invader can take away folklore, though he can plunder the temples. So, if Buddhism was ever a dominant religion, it should have influenced folklore. It didn't. So, this logic is pretty relevant.

Wrong. The first Sangam age itself existed way before Christian era. For example, Puranaanuru (verse 2) talks of Choru Udiyan Cheralaadhan as the contemporary King. This same king is being referred by Megasthenes as Cerobothra (Chera), who had during the time of Alexander's father Philip established a few treaties with the Greeks allowing them to use Musiri (Kerala) port for trading. Megasthenes visited India around 320 B.C. Likewise Kanaikkal Irumporai left many inscriptions that were recently deciphered and they make unmistakeable references to Sangam and Tholkappiyam. Hence, going by the archeological and numismatic evidences and the references contained therein, it is very clear that very major Tamil literary collection existed way before Christ. A L Basham never resists the temptation to divide Hinduism and Brahmanism as 2 different entities. Not to blame him; he was, after all, a product of British education and was among the lone Indians who made it to the levels of a Professor in Australia. Naturally, he had to tow the European line, whther or not, it has a basis. Let us not forget that he also 'firmly beliefs' that Aryans invaded India en masse around 1800 BC! But, in this he is right. The period between 200 BC to 200 AD, was when, Buddhism was embraced and patronised by the kings. Not before, not later. And this was the period when a lot of Buddhist art and architecture came up. An example would be Ajanta caves, but even there we can see, in the murals, depictions of Kinnaras, Gandharvas and Yakshas and also also Buddha multiplying himself a thousandfold etc.. A clear sign that even by that time (200 BC to around 400 AD, when Ajanta came up; murals belong to 200 BC to 50 AD), Buddhism had incorporated in itself the Hindu customs. And that can happen, if only, Hinduism had been the religion of masses. I am not denying that Buddhism had its patrons among the elite. So, naturally, Sankara et al., refuted it. My point is that it was not the religion of the masses. You may also note that even in the times right after Ajathashatru, many Jains challenged and debated Buddhism. By no means was Buddhism a religion of the masses then. It had, at best, marginal royal patronage. So, such a debate itself is not an indication that the religion had a mass base. It only confirms that it had a folowing among the elite. I think it would be a good idea if you could resist the temptation of posting a link, after just a 30 second search on Google. For example, your site just reflects the ignorance of 18th and 19th century Europeans who were full of prejudices and lacked any knowledge of Sanskrit or Tamil. It claims that Thirukkural was written around 500 AD. But, even the inscriptions of Irumporai refer to them. You want to know about some ancient Tamil Hindu devotional literature? Have you heard of Thirumanthiram? It was written by Thirumular, who studied with Patanjali and was a disciple of Naganatha. Now, your site states that Patanjali's yogasutra was written in 500 BC! So, by any logic, Thirumandiram should have belonged to the same era! And Thirumandiram refers to Tholkappiyam. That should tell you something about the chronology of Tamil literature. The very first Thirukkural is: "Agara mudhala ezhuthellaam adi bhagavan mudhatre ulagu". "Everything has its origins in the primeval Lord". There is no 'Lord' either in Buddhism or Jainism and Christ and Mohammad were yet to be born when this was written. Avvaiyar (the first), speaks of the wars between 2 shaivite kings. She speaks of caste problems and urges the society to rise above them. She has written many 'agavals' in praise of Shiva. There are many folklore and dance forms in Tamil that depict Hindu mythology. And barring the time of Kalahabaras, Tamil history and literature are full of Shaivite traditions and later on Vaishnavite also, showing that Hinduism was the religion of the masses. On the other hand, there are only 2 Buddhist literature in Tamil. And of the two, only one is truly Buddhist (Manimegalai). The other is written by prince Ilango who became a Buddhist. This other one, Silappathikaram, clearly tells you that Tamilnadu, then, was Shaivite. One example will be when the protaganist, Kannagi, while giving alms to a Jain monk, tells him that she gives alms to Siddhas and Shaivite monks daily but it is a rare privelege to her to serve a Jain monk. That should tell you which religion was dominant. Another case in point would be the mention of Sanda worship by early Romans and their coins depicting the same, during their trade with Poompuhar (Tamilnadu). Next, Tamil was the language spoken then in Tamilnadu, Andhra, Karnataka and Kerala. But, you don't find any significant number of Buddhist literature anywhere. Neither in Tamil nor in Pali, which was the court language after the era of Kalahabaras. Even in other parts of India, except during the period 200 BC to 200 AD not many Buddhist literature were written, either in Pali or Sanskrit. Even during the period 200 BC to 200 AD, most of the Buddhist literature was written only due to the impetus given by Kashmir council. And Mahayana incorporated many of the Hindu characteristics (as in the Ajanta example) showing that even by then, Buddhism was on the wane. If Buddhism had indeed been a religion of the masses, it should left its legacy in some tradition or the other. It cannot vanish altogether. What we see is a spurt in activity during the aforesaid period and a lull after that, indicating that it enjoyed Royal patronage during that time and was a religion of the elite. When the progeny didn't patronise Budddhism, it declined. This is evident from the Muslim invasions of 10th century AD onwards. They destroyed temples as well as monastries. But, Hinduism still survived, only because, the masses patronised it. In case of Buddhism, except for a few ascetics, there were not many in the public who patronised it. That is why it couldn't survive. Now compare this with Sri Lanka, where Theravada Buddhism has been around for over 2200 years. It has a rich collection of literature and folklore such as Jataka tales. Or take Indonesia or Cambodia, which were previously Hindu. Apart from archeological evidence, we find that Hindu mythology dominates their folklore. No invader can take away folklore, though he can plunder the temples. So, if Buddhism was ever a dominant religion, it should have influenced folklore. It didn't. So, this logic is pretty relevant.

Why are you digging your own grave Talasiga? If there are not enough inscriptions, enough literature, enough folklore in any parts of India, then on what grouds do you assume that Buddhism was ever a dominant religion? Or did you travel back in time to see that for yourself?

Why are you digging your own grave Talasiga? If there are not enough inscriptions, enough literature, enough folklore in any parts of India, then on what grouds do you assume that Buddhism was ever a dominant religion? Or did you travel back in time to see that for yourself?

Why are just stuck on that 'erudite' Talasiga? Even if I am wrong on that, still the point of discussion is that Buddhism was not a religion of the masses. Are you sticking to semantics because you don't have an answer to my other points. Are you sticking to semantics because I exposed your ignorance of ancient Tamil literature? Let us assume that you crucified me on that point. Now that I have resurrected, come back and fight the duel. I have given you enough reasons to fight some.

Why are just stuck on that 'erudite' Talasiga? Even if I am wrong on that, still the point of discussion is that Buddhism was not a religion of the masses. Are you sticking to semantics because you don't have an answer to my other points. Are you sticking to semantics because I exposed your ignorance of ancient Tamil literature? Let us assume that you crucified me on that point. Now that I have resurrected, come back and fight the duel. I have given you enough reasons to fight some.

Perhaps, I wasn't clear in expression. Ashoka's inscriptions are not in Pali alone but Avadhi as well. So, the inscriptions are in many Prakrits. Webster defines Hagiography as folows: "HAGIOG'RAPHY, n. [Gr. holy, and a writing.] Sacred writings. The Jews divide the books of the Scriptures into three parts; the Law, which is contained in the five first books of the Old Testament; the Prophets, or Nevim; and the Cetuvim, or writings, by way of eminence. The latter class is called by the Greeks Hagiographa, comprehending the books of Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Ruth, Esther, Chronicles, Canticles, Lamentations, and Ecclesiastes." And now where was I using it? In this context: -------------------------------- Again, there is no hagiographic evidence to support this. -------------------------------- Could our erudite Talasiga, who often writes verses of great insignificance and banality, point out what is wrong with this usage? If you had sacred writings to support the hypothesis, then I am wrong in usage. Since no sacred writing exists, would Talasiga care to explain his stance? Which Sangam age are you talking about? Looks like you have become an authority on Sangam literature by typing a few words to that effect in google and reading up on some Cornwallis funded 'study' by European missionaries of 18th and 19th ceturies. BTW, I am amused at the way you are using 'After Christ', as if he were a historical reality that existed! From the BC period? Sure. If you can read ancient Tamil, read up on Thirumular's works or Thiruvalluvar's. Or Avvaiyar's (the first one). Kakkaipadiniyar is not bad either. And their period? All know that they existed way before Sangam ages, but, dating is next to impossible when the traditions have been oral and not written. But the references to Chera kings and later discoveries of inscriptions from Irumporai era suggest that they existed certainly befor Siddhartha Gautama.

Perhaps, I wasn't clear in expression. Ashoka's inscriptions are not in Pali alone but Avadhi as well. So, the inscriptions are in many Prakrits. Webster defines Hagiography as folows: "HAGIOG'RAPHY, n. [Gr. holy, and a writing.] Sacred writings. The Jews divide the books of the Scriptures into three parts; the Law, which is contained in the five first books of the Old Testament; the Prophets, or Nevim; and the Cetuvim, or writings, by way of eminence. The latter class is called by the Greeks Hagiographa, comprehending the books of Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Ruth, Esther, Chronicles, Canticles, Lamentations, and Ecclesiastes." And now where was I using it? In this context: -------------------------------- Again, there is no hagiographic evidence to support this. -------------------------------- Could our erudite Talasiga, who often writes verses of great insignificance and banality, point out what is wrong with this usage? If you had sacred writings to support the hypothesis, then I am wrong in usage. Since no sacred writing exists, would Talasiga care to explain his stance? Which Sangam age are you talking about? Looks like you have become an authority on Sangam literature by typing a few words to that effect in google and reading up on some Cornwallis funded 'study' by European missionaries of 18th and 19th ceturies. BTW, I am amused at the way you are using 'After Christ', as if he were a historical reality that existed! From the BC period? Sure. If you can read ancient Tamil, read up on Thirumular's works or Thiruvalluvar's. Or Avvaiyar's (the first one). Kakkaipadiniyar is not bad either. And their period? All know that they existed way before Sangam ages, but, dating is next to impossible when the traditions have been oral and not written. But the references to Chera kings and later discoveries of inscriptions from Irumporai era suggest that they existed certainly befor Siddhartha Gautama.

First of all Pali was just one of the many prakrits; not a language as many believe. If Buddhism had ever been the religion of the masses for any considerable period of time, there would have been poems and literature. Indians, Tamils in particular, always produced a lot of literature. So, the absence of such literature as well as any folklore, art form or oral tradition would indicate that Buddhism was never a religion of the masses. And if someone says that Buddhism was the religion of the masses, then it is he who should produce any evidence. There is so much of devotional literature from Sangam age. And Thirumular, a contemporary of Patanjali (Naganata was the guru of both) wrote Thirumandiram around the same Sangam age. And Thirukkural was written at the same time. Of course, there are some who claim, erroneously that Thirukkural is a Jain text. That was because those states signed treaties with him. But, he did send his emissaries to their court. For example, Ilango, brother of Cheran Senguttuvan, himself was a Buddhist monk and poet and wrote Manimekalai. So, there is enough evidence that Buddhism was at elite level in Tamilnadu, Kerala also. But the fact that it never produced much literary work, oral tradition etc. shows that it never was the religion of the masses.

First of all Pali was just one of the many prakrits; not a language as many believe. If Buddhism had ever been the religion of the masses for any considerable period of time, there would have been poems and literature. Indians, Tamils in particular, always produced a lot of literature. So, the absence of such literature as well as any folklore, art form or oral tradition would indicate that Buddhism was never a religion of the masses. And if someone says that Buddhism was the religion of the masses, then it is he who should produce any evidence. There is so much of devotional literature from Sangam age. And Thirumular, a contemporary of Patanjali (Naganata was the guru of both) wrote Thirumandiram around the same Sangam age. And Thirukkural was written at the same time. Of course, there are some who claim, erroneously that Thirukkural is a Jain text. That was because those states signed treaties with him. But, he did send his emissaries to their court. For example, Ilango, brother of Cheran Senguttuvan, himself was a Buddhist monk and poet and wrote Manimekalai. So, there is enough evidence that Buddhism was at elite level in Tamilnadu, Kerala also. But the fact that it never produced much literary work, oral tradition etc. shows that it never was the religion of the masses.

Again, there is no hagiographic evidence to support this. We do know from very ancient Tamil literature that there was polytheism and temples. So, I would reject these European missionary floated theories, unless evidence to the contrary is presented. No western historian of the 19th century ever suggested that Christianity is a reaction to Mithraism and was a natural evolution, despite the fact that there is no historical evidence for Jesus and even internal evidence from NT and OT seem to discount the possibility of Jesus having ever existed. But, they did fabricate such grand theories for Hinduism, tough. I wasn't aware of this. Thanks for the information. But how do you say that Sankara was aware of SB? I thought he never mentioned about it, though he speaks of VP. Is there any mention?

Again, there is no hagiographic evidence to support this. We do know from very ancient Tamil literature that there was polytheism and temples. So, I would reject these European missionary floated theories, unless evidence to the contrary is presented. No western historian of the 19th century ever suggested that Christianity is a reaction to Mithraism and was a natural evolution, despite the fact that there is no historical evidence for Jesus and even internal evidence from NT and OT seem to discount the possibility of Jesus having ever existed. But, they did fabricate such grand theories for Hinduism, tough. I wasn't aware of this. Thanks for the information. But how do you say that Sankara was aware of SB? I thought he never mentioned about it, though he speaks of VP. Is there any mention?

Pali and Avadhi are the only prakrits in which you find any of the ancient works of Buddhism. Since Ashoka ruled much part of India, you would have expected literary works in Tamil as well. But there are just two. Even if we assume that during the time of Ashoka, Buddhism was dominant, since there are no works produced afterwords, in other languages, we cannot assume that it was prominent after wards. There is no hagiographic evidence that it was the religion of the masses even during Ashoka's reign. All we can say certainly is that, it was the religion of the elite, during Ashoka's reign. That is why I said that I am not sure SG is the Buddha mentioned in SB. Also, another important point to note is that Adi Sankaracharya makes no mention of SB, though he mentions Vishnu Purana. It sounds a little unnatural to me that he would ignore a major treatise like SB. Let us also remember that not all Vaishnava schools accept SG as an avatar. I would assumed so, but for another interesting reference from Mahavira where he states that there have been 23 tirthankaras before him. So, how do we know whether Buddha was talking of a lineage or in terms of phrase? Again no hagiographic evidence to support this claim. Your logic hinges on the assumption that Buddhism was once the religion of the masses. If that assumption has no basis or is wrong, then the logic falls flat. Interestingly, all theories of Buddhism being dominant were floated after Ashoka's inscriptions were discovered. But, Ashok himself doesn't claim so. He just states that he made efforts to spread Buddhism. And since Ashoka signed treatises with southern kings, we would expect some reference from their inscriptions to this regard. But, we find none. So, it just seems to be a hypothesis without strong footing. Ashoka's inscriptions repeat the recordings from the times of Ajathashatru, who was a contemporary of Buddha. But, here also it is not clear as to which Buddha is being referred to, for elsewhere Ajahashatru himself, after his conversation wth Buddha at Vaishali, glorifies him as the "greatest of the Buddhas". So, there is ambiguity here. It could mean 2 things. One, AS was the contemporary of SG. Two, he was a contemporary of another Buddha.

Pali and Avadhi are the only prakrits in which you find any of the ancient works of Buddhism. Since Ashoka ruled much part of India, you would have expected literary works in Tamil as well. But there are just two. Even if we assume that during the time of Ashoka, Buddhism was dominant, since there are no works produced afterwords, in other languages, we cannot assume that it was prominent after wards. There is no hagiographic evidence that it was the religion of the masses even during Ashoka's reign. All we can say certainly is that, it was the religion of the elite, during Ashoka's reign. That is why I said that I am not sure SG is the Buddha mentioned in SB. Also, another important point to note is that Adi Sankaracharya makes no mention of SB, though he mentions Vishnu Purana. It sounds a little unnatural to me that he would ignore a major treatise like SB. Let us also remember that not all Vaishnava schools accept SG as an avatar. I would assumed so, but for another interesting reference from Mahavira where he states that there have been 23 tirthankaras before him. So, how do we know whether Buddha was talking of a lineage or in terms of phrase? Again no hagiographic evidence to support this claim. Your logic hinges on the assumption that Buddhism was once the religion of the masses. If that assumption has no basis or is wrong, then the logic falls flat. Interestingly, all theories of Buddhism being dominant were floated after Ashoka's inscriptions were discovered. But, Ashok himself doesn't claim so. He just states that he made efforts to spread Buddhism. And since Ashoka signed treatises with southern kings, we would expect some reference from their inscriptions to this regard. But, we find none. So, it just seems to be a hypothesis without strong footing. Ashoka's inscriptions repeat the recordings from the times of Ajathashatru, who was a contemporary of Buddha. But, here also it is not clear as to which Buddha is being referred to, for elsewhere Ajahashatru himself, after his conversation wth Buddha at Vaishali, glorifies him as the "greatest of the Buddhas". So, there is ambiguity here. It could mean 2 things. One, AS was the contemporary of SG. Two, he was a contemporary of another Buddha.

Excellent Shvu. It is not very often that I agree with you, but this time I do.

Excellent Shvu. It is not very often that I agree with you, but this time I do.

Shvu: There is absolutely no reason to believe that Buddhism was ever a popular religion of the masses in India. If that were the case, there should have been many literature to support such a claim. But, even in an ancient language like Tamil, we can just come across a couple of Buddhist literature. Compare this with Sri Lanka. There is a strong Jataka tradition to show that Buddhism was the religion of the masses there. Of course, I am not sure that Siddhartha Gautama is an avatar of Vishnu. Even SG talks of many Buddhas before him. There are some Vaishnava schools that consider SG as an avatar of Vishnu and some don't. This could be a different thread in itself, so I won't digress. Unless other members want me to dwell into this. 'Hinduisation' of Buddhism was rather done by the Buddhists themselves than by the Hindus. The first schisms started in Buddhism right after SG, whose purported date is around 600 B.C., but there is absoutely no concrete evidence to prove it. Till 250 BC, Buddhism was as much an oral tradition in India as was Hinduism. From then on and through the Kushan council, Buddha was made into a deity and many Hindu aspects were introduced. We can see this even from the Therevada recenssions of Thailand. And the whole story of Buddhism being a dominant religion was a myth floated by the Jesuit priests of the past 500 years, keeping in line with the declarations of the 15th ecumenical concil in Venice in 1312. So, let us not take them without demanding proof thereof. It is not necessary that Shvu agree with ISKCON, but an intelligent person like him should not blindly accept the fabrications of Jesuits, especially when there is irrefutable evidence to show that they had malafide intentions.

Shvu: There is absolutely no reason to believe that Buddhism was ever a popular religion of the masses in India. If that were the case, there should have been many literature to support such a claim. But, even in an ancient language like Tamil, we can just come across a couple of Buddhist literature. Compare this with Sri Lanka. There is a strong Jataka tradition to show that Buddhism was the religion of the masses there. Of course, I am not sure that Siddhartha Gautama is an avatar of Vishnu. Even SG talks of many Buddhas before him. There are some Vaishnava schools that consider SG as an avatar of Vishnu and some don't. This could be a different thread in itself, so I won't digress. Unless other members want me to dwell into this. 'Hinduisation' of Buddhism was rather done by the Buddhists themselves than by the Hindus. The first schisms started in Buddhism right after SG, whose purported date is around 600 B.C., but there is absoutely no concrete evidence to prove it. Till 250 BC, Buddhism was as much an oral tradition in India as was Hinduism. From then on and through the Kushan council, Buddha was made into a deity and many Hindu aspects were introduced. We can see this even from the Therevada recenssions of Thailand. And the whole story of Buddhism being a dominant religion was a myth floated by the Jesuit priests of the past 500 years, keeping in line with the declarations of the 15th ecumenical concil in Venice in 1312. So, let us not take them without demanding proof thereof. It is not necessary that Shvu agree with ISKCON, but an intelligent person like him should not blindly accept the fabrications of Jesuits, especially when there is irrefutable evidence to show that they had malafide intentions.

By the way, if you are transcendental enough to quit your job and not care for money, why would you crave to transform your ordinary car into a Prosche? Shvu, do you see how superfluous your argument is? I suggest that you do some reading on what the principle of karma and reincarnation are. That would help you refrain from posting something as silly and shallow as this. Your fate is the result of your past karmic actions, which are the causative forces. So long as you perform fruitive activities, your cycle of karmic actions and reactions will continue. But, if you can even start your spiritual quest and chant the Mahamantra, then atleast those acts will cease to be karmic. And hence there won't be any fateful karmic reactions. If a person can fully surrender to the Lord, then all his activities become akarmic. Hence, he becomes transcendental and not affected by fate. First it is a naive assumption that all (or even many) Indians chant mantras or are spiritual. They are not. Most hanker after material things and at best visit a temple customarily. So, they will be bound to material problems. Second, if you are transcendental, you won't be bothered whether you are materially prosperous or not. It ceases to interest you. To recount the words of Asvakosha, "Joy and suffering find a place only in the mind that seeks them. A mind that is bereft of (the need for) worldly pleasures, has no place for the resultant joy or sorrow which they entail. Such a mind is what sets a Bodhisattva apart, though the mundane shall never fathom whether he is blissful, happy or sad for the mundane shall not even realize what these 3 states mean". Hope that helps you. Again from Asvakosha: "(Bodhisattva) who has meditated on the truth ceases to talk to the mundane. His words, like a stream, flow towards one and all, but the mundane veers away from its path. He feels no need for what the Bodhisattva says and even derides him. But the stream has long flowed to a distant place where the one not so mundane didn't fail to immerse himself and taste the waters." Do you see a close parallel? If you do, you have reason to cheer, atleast in the future!

Hare Krishna Tarun Prabhu, That is an interesting point you have made. Could you please elaborate on Jesus preaching "You Must Be Born Again"? Also, what is the source of your information that Jesus gave mantras to his disciples? YHS, Karthik

Hari Bol, Earlier some devotees like Valaya prabhu and G Hari prabhu clarified my questions on the teachings of Jesus. I have one more: Some devotees have stated that Jesus also hinted that there are many paths to realize the supreme father. Where in the Bible does he state that and what is the verse? I read Valaya Prabhu's explanation on 'erkatai' (I am the only way...). Is there any other verse? YHS, Karthik

A good one from Satyaraja. A good book in this context would be Forbidden Archeology. It is a fact that 99% of the fossil has been lost due to natural forces. So, when we search for remnants from very distant past, we won't find any. That doesn't mean that the past didn't exist. Next, C-14 is by no means a reliable technique. It can be effective only in isolated samples. Real life samples are hardly isolated. They are covered by deposits from layers of many ages. So, the test may not reveal an accurate picture. Someone spoke of Aryan invasion theory. This theory was originally propounded by the prejudiced Max Mueller without any basis. When confronted later in his career, he retracted it. But, the academia still retains vestiges of that theory. Much of the age assigned to our scriptures (both Shruti and Smriti) was the outcome of 18th and 19th century British and European missionaries and historians. They had an agenda. That was to topple Hinduism and introduce Christianity. Hence, the dates they assigned were purely a matter of conjecture. Max Mueller himself admitted to it. So, whenever you are told anything about our scriptures being just a few thousand years old, don't buy into that theory. Go to google.com and type the words "Boden chair Oxford Max Mueller" You will know what motivated them and why they are wrong.