Digest Number 1640

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009, wrote:

 

> Yes,

>  

> I am very eager to see some data / history ref in  support of the

> following

> statement.  Though I have been asking for supportive info - from

> writers in different

> groups, not one has ventured to provide anything.  All that they come

> up with is

> " this is all known and if you want to believe everything was nice, so

> be it " .

>  

> > Hinduism's  past downfall was directly attributed to its

> > discrimination of lower castes and  rituals, which greatly

> contributed

> > to the rise of Buddhism and Jainism.

>  

> Can we get some info please? 

>  

 

Well I don't know how much this has to do with " om namah shivaya " but...

 

1. Downfall

 

What downfall has Hinduism gone under? For a religion this ancient to

still have hundreds of millions of followers and still be attracting

interest from outsiders today sounds pretty good to me.

 

2. Conversion to Buddhism

 

It was said that " Almost all of India embraced Buddhism at the time of

Mauryan Empire. " (by which is meant Ashoka Maurya because his two

predecessors on the throne of Magadha were not definitely not Buddhist)

Happily we don't have to speculate about what Ashoka believed in because

he was good enough to carve it into rocks. Here is a scholarly

translations of Ashokas shilalekhas:

 

http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/ashoka.html

 

From this we see that King " Devanampriya " (beloved of the, need I say

Hindu, Devas) basically recommended some ethical behaviour such as

non-violence or vegetarianism which could just as easily be classified as

" Hindu " if one wished. (As an aside no Buddhist country has anywhere near

the percentage of vegetarians as India.) He repeatedly mentions his

respect for Brahmanas as well as Shramanas (ascetics. The term is wider

than just Buddhist monk.) In a couple of the minor edicts he mentions the

sangha but atleast according to the translator, it seems that he did not

become a bhikshu himself.

 

So the statement that " Almost all of India embraced Buddhism at the time

of Mauryan Empire. " seems rather hyperbolic. For the ordinary man there

was no conversion to Buddhism because for householders, Buddhism and

Hinduism were exactly the same thing. For the monks and philosophers we

could perhaps talk of " conversion " but why only to Buddhism? The edicts

mention several other sects prevalent at the time.

 

3. Comparison with Jainism

 

Unlike Buddhism, the Jain religion is still a living tradition in India.

Is it against caste? Is it against ritual? The scholars might call it

nastikata but I think you would have trouble finding a man in the street

who thought of Jains as anything other than a Hindu sect.

 

It is alleged that a resurgent Hinduism destroyed Buddhism and made its

survivors into the present day untouchables. If this is true, than why

were the Jains (who as I mentioned are equally nastika by our philosophy)

spared from this onslaught? Why were they not made into untouchables? In

fact in Gujarat, Jains belong to specific Vania (Vaishya) castes. They

will intermarry with Vaishnava Vanias but not with other castes. As for

rituals, I myself have performed ceremonies like satyanaraya katha, ganesh

puja, vagdana(engagement) for Jain yajamanas. Apart from the chanting of

jain stotras and bhajans afterwards, there is no difference to the way a

" Hindu " would do them.

 

4. Is Buddhism against ritual?

 

Devanampriya is clearly against the idea of animal sacrifice as are other

early buddhist sources (and some " Hindu " ones. See for example samkhya

karika 2) but ritual in general? Look at Tibet. The Buddhism practiced

there is the direct descendent of the last phase of Indian Buddhism. The

culture is replete with ritualism. The Tibetan tantra (vajrayana) is

conceptually similiar to " Hindu " forms of Tantra. There is some

controversy over who borrowed what from whom but the fact remains that a

Hindu dissatisfied with the ritual aspect of his religion would not find

much satisfaction in converting to Buddhism.

 

Some argue that Vajrayana (Tantric Buddhism) is a corruption or

degeneration of the pure message of the Buddha. Well then look at Shri

Lanka, look at Thailand or other Hinayana countries. True in those places

the bhikshus are supposed to renounce rituals but the same is true of

Advaita Vedanta which is classified as " Hindu. "

 

5. Is Buddhism against caste?

 

Some modern day Dalit politicians are attempting to revive Buddhism on the

grounds that they are the descendents of Buddhists defeated by a revived

Hinduism and forced into untouchability. This is probably wishful

thinking on their part though as Indian Buddhism is extinct we cannot say

with certainty. I have already mentioned the continuing existence of

Jainism as a counter-example. Devanampriya does not mention anything about

equality in his edicts. The four varnas are mentioned once but not

elaborated upon. The only caste mentioned by name is the Brahmanas who

are supposed to be respected.

 

The Buddhist sutras mention chandalas (untouchables) as well as characters

of many different castes and sometimes they are the heros of the tale.

(the same could be also be said for Jain, Vaishnava, and Shaiva stories.)

But the Buddhist goal was not political or social equality on earth but

Nirvana or extinction. Only the world-renouncing bhikshu was the

truly religious man. Jainism and Hinduism gives a much more important

place to the grhastha than the Buddhists do. Could this be why they

survived the turmoil of Muslim invasion when Buddhism could not?

 

Hinduism triumphed over Buddhism I think not by force of arms, or even

philosophical argument but because it promised a better society or at the

very least a better heaven.

 

I suggest any responses to this post be made off the list.

 

--

Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar